Beyond The Tick-Box: What Separates a Good IFR Licence Application From One That Merely Gets Submitted

With the IFR’s application window opening on 2 November, many clubs will be able to submit something. Far fewer will submit an application that is consistent, evidenced and ready to withstand questions from the regulator. Jonathan Greenstein, Co-founder and Director, Lagom Sports Compliance explains more.

On 2 November, the Independent Football Regulator opens the window for provisional licence applications. It closes on 26 February 2027, and licensing becomes binding from the 2027/28 season. Every club in scope will, in one sense, have the same task: put an application in front of the regulator before the deadline.

But there is a meaningful gap between an application that is submitted and one that is good. That gap will not show up in whether the forms are complete. It will show up in whether the documents agree with each other, whether the claims can be evidenced, and whether the people behind the application can explain it when the IFR asks.

A licence application is not a form-filling exercise

The first mistake is one of framing. It is tempting to treat the licence application as a compliance deliverable, something to be assembled in the weeks before a deadline from material the club already holds. In practice, an IFR operating licence application is a structured argument that a club is financially resilient, properly governed, run by suitable people, and genuinely accountable to its supporters. Each of those claims needs to be backed by something the regulator can test.

That is why the strongest applications are rarely written in a hurry. Time is what allows a club to reconcile information across departments, find the gaps, obtain the approvals that the application depends on, and put right what turns up along the way. A club that begins in January is not doing the same exercise as a club that began in September, even if the final page count looks identical.

Where applications tend to fall short

Looking across the licence conditions, the same weaknesses recur, and almost none of them are about missing paperwork.

Governance that exists in practice but not on paper. Many clubs run sensible decision-making arrangements that have simply never been written down. An informal assurance that the board challenges management is not evidence of it. The regulator will look for terms of reference, minuted meetings and a record of how decisions were actually reached.

Financial plans that rest on undocumented support. A forecast that depends on owner funding the club cannot trace, or that has no contingency if that funding changes, is exposed. So is a plan built on player valuations rather than cash, or one that has not been tested against adverse scenarios. The IFR requires stress-tested forecasts for a reason, and a plan that has only ever been run on optimistic assumptions will not hold up.

Fan consultation treated as an afterthought. Consulting supporters after a decision has effectively been made does not meet the spirit of the condition. A strong application can show who the club consulted, what it asked, what it heard, and how that feedback was taken into account. For clubs with no established structure, particularly lower down the pyramid, this is often the longest lead-time item on the list.

A personnel picture that does not add up. The application depends on correctly identifying every owner and every person holding a Senior Management Function. Job titles do not decide who is in scope; the responsibilities attached to the role do. Clubs that have not mapped this properly risk an incomplete personnel statement, and the source of wealth questions that follow for owners can take considerable time to answer.

Documents that contradict each other. Perhaps the most common problem of all. The business plan describes one ownership structure, the governance statement another, and the financial forecast assumes a third source of funding. Each document may be defensible on its own terms. Read together, they invite exactly the follow-up questions a club would rather avoid.

What a good application looks like

A good application is, above all, coherent. The same facts appear in the same way wherever they are relied upon. The ownership and group structure described in one place is the structure assumed in every other. The financial forecast reflects the funding the club can actually evidence, and each scenario has a stated management response rather than a hopeful footnote.

It is also traceable. Policies link to practice, and practice links to records: board papers, risk registers, minutes, consultation logs. When a reviewer asks how a statement in the governance document is borne out day to day, the answer is already in the evidence pack rather than being assembled in response.

Finally, a good application has an owner. One named person coordinates the submission end to end, the director who will confirm it as accurate and complete understands precisely what they are signing, and the internal timetable assumes that the IFR will come back with questions. The regulator’s decision period runs for up to three months, with a possible further month, from a complete application. A club that submits in the final days of the window is therefore planning a decision that could arrive close to the end of June, and that leaves little room for anything to go wrong.

An independent challenge before you submit

One of the most practical safeguards available to a club is a structured challenge from someone who did not write the application. Reviewing a draft criterion by criterion, with a fresh pair of eyes, is usually where inconsistencies and evidence gaps are found, and it is far cheaper to find them before submission than after. Some clubs will want that review on a finished draft. Others will want specialist help on particular workstreams while their own team leads the rest. Others, particularly smaller clubs with limited in-house capacity, will want support from the first readiness assessment through to submission and the regulatory dialogue that follows. The right level depends on the club, its size, and how much of the groundwork is already done.

What does not change is the principle. The IFR licence is not a box-ticking exercise that can be completed in a few weeks, and the clubs that treat it as an evidence-building exercise from the outset are the ones best placed to be asked the fewest difficult questions.

This article is brought to you by Lagom Sports Compliance – the governance, risk, compliance and anti-financial crime consultancy built exclusively for professional football. We help clubs, agents and leagues navigate the IFR, UEFA licensing and EU AML obligations with proportionate, practitioner-led support, including reviewing, supporting and delivering IFR licence applications.

Want to talk through what this means for your club? You can request a confidential, no-obligation IFR licensing call – we aim to respond within one working day.

IFR licensing support: lagomsportscompliance.com/ifr-football-club-licensing-support

Get in touch: lagomsportscompliance.com/contact or info@lagomsportscompliance.com  

Lagom Sports Compliance: lagomsportscompliance.com

Image: Open AI