On November 7, 2025, a fresh political storm erupted in Westminster as the Conservative Party demanded that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer face an ethics probe over the appointment of Labour donor David Kogan as England’s new football watchdog. The call for scrutiny follows a series of revelations and investigations into the appointment process, raising questions about transparency, conflicts of interest, and the standards governing public appointments at the highest levels of government.
At the heart of the controversy is David Kogan, a seasoned media rights executive and long-time Labour supporter. In April 2025, Kogan was announced as the government’s preferred candidate to chair the newly created Independent Football Regulator (IFR), a watchdog designed to promote the financial sustainability of football clubs across the English football pyramid and prevent the formation of breakaway leagues. The IFR’s creation had been widely anticipated, with football fans and clubs alike hoping it would bring overdue stability and fairness to the sport.
However, the process of Kogan’s appointment quickly became entangled in political drama. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who was responsible for overseeing the appointment, was found to have “unknowingly” breached public appointment rules by failing to declare two donations of £1,450 each from Kogan to her 2020 Labour leadership campaign. According to Sir William Shawcross, the Independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, these donations—one personal and one through Kogan’s company—were part of a total of £33,410 that Kogan and his company had donated to Labour and its candidates over the five years prior to his appointment.
Although the donations to Nandy’s campaign were below the declaration thresholds set by the Electoral Commission and Parliament, Shawcross concluded that Nandy should have checked for any such contributions before endorsing Kogan for the role. “The fact of the donations was capable of giving rise to a perceived conflict of interest in the appointment process,” the commissioner wrote in his report published on November 7, 2025. Nandy, for her part, issued a public apology to the Prime Minister on November 6, expressing deep regret for the oversight. In her letter, she stated, “I deeply regret this error. I appreciate the perception it could create.”
Prime Minister Starmer responded by standing by his culture secretary, noting that she had “acted in good faith” and emphasizing the commissioner’s finding that the error was unknowing. However, he did acknowledge that “the process followed was not entirely up to the standard expected.”
The controversy did not end there. As further details emerged, it was revealed that Kogan had also donated to Starmer’s own 2020 Labour leadership campaign and, more recently, contributed £2,500 to Starmer’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency Labour Party in May 2024. These revelations prompted the Conservatives to argue that the Prime Minister himself had “exactly the same conflict of interest” as Nandy, if not a greater one, given the proximity of the 2024 general election donation.
The Conservatives wasted no time in escalating the matter. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart penned a letter to Sir Laurie Magnus, the government’s independent ethics adviser, urging a thorough investigation into whether Starmer’s role in Kogan’s appointment—and his verdict on Nandy’s conduct—had breached ministerial rules on transparency. Burghart wrote, “If Ms Nandy recused herself from involvement in this appointment, shouldn’t the prime minister have done the same? Isn’t the prime minister complicit in exactly the same conflict of interest?” He went further, stating, “This week Keir Starmer let Lisa Nandy off the hook for her failure to declare a clear conflict of interest when she appointed David Kogan – one of her donors – as head of the new football regulator. Starmer has the exact same conflict, having also secretly taken Kogan’s cash. Yet whereas Nandy eventually recused herself from matters relating to the regulator’s leadership, Starmer has not done so.”
Burghart demanded that Kogan’s appointment “must be immediately withdrawn,” and insisted that “the Independent Adviser must investigate Starmer and, if he has breached the Ministerial Code, take appropriate action.” The Conservative Party also highlighted what they described as Starmer’s “extensive hospitality from the football industry” as further grounds for recusal.
Downing Street, for its part, dismissed the calls for further investigation. A government spokesperson stated that “the chair of the football regulator was appointed by ministers in the Department for Culture, Media, and Sports, as set out in the legislation. This was the case under the previous government.” The spokesperson further emphasized that the Independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had “reviewed the appointment process extensively and found no breaches aside from those set out in the report.” The commissioner’s report also noted that Kogan was longlisted for the regulator role under the previous Conservative government, had initially withdrawn his application in November 2024, and was later re-selected as an external candidate after the general election.
Sir William Shawcross’s report underscored the need for greater transparency in the appointment process. He specifically called for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to have publicly disclosed Kogan’s political activity at the time of his preferred candidacy announcement. The report highlighted the £33,410 in donations from Kogan and his company to Labour and its candidates over five years—a figure that, while not illegal or undeclared according to existing thresholds, raised eyebrows among opposition MPs and sections of the public.
For his part, David Kogan expressed relief that the investigation had concluded. In a statement, he said, “I have cooperated fully throughout the investigation and can now draw a line under the process. As the commissioner states, my suitability for the role has never been in question, and at no point was I aware of any deviation from best practice. It is now time to move on and get on with the business of setting up the IFR so we can tackle the critical and urgent issues facing football.”
Despite the government’s efforts to put the matter to rest, the controversy has reignited debates about transparency, party donations, and the impartiality of public appointments. Some observers have pointed out that Kogan’s application for the role was initially encouraged under the previous Conservative government, suggesting that concerns about political donations and appointments are not confined to any single party. Others argue that the episode highlights the need for clearer rules and more robust checks to prevent even the appearance of conflicts of interest in public life.
As the dust begins to settle, the Independent Football Regulator faces the daunting task of delivering on its mandate—promoting financial sustainability, ensuring fair competition, and protecting the integrity of English football. Whether the political wrangling over its chair’s appointment will cast a long shadow remains to be seen, but for now, the focus returns to the pressing issues facing the beautiful game and the people who love it.
