From the Terraces to the Boardroom: Clyde Best and the Diversity Deficit the IFR Must Address

A Trailblazer Under Extraordinary Pressure

In 1969, Clyde Best became one of the first Black players to establish himself as a top-flight regular in English football, debuting alongside Sir Geoff Hurst at West Ham United. He went on to play 218 first-team games and score 58 goals, doing so often in the face of racist abuse from stands and terraces that, by today's standards, is almost unimaginable.

The film focuses powerfully on one particular legacy. He did not just play football. Clyde's visibility at the top of the game, his refusal to be driven out, and his quiet dignity in the face of hostility, gave a generation of young Black footballers permission to believe that a professional career was possible for them too.

The film also implicitly drew a pointed distinction between that progress on the pitch and the conspicuous absence of diversity in the offices, boardrooms, and management structures of the clubs those players went on to represent. That distinction matters enormously as we look at what the IFR is being asked to do.

The Governance Gap the Data Reveals

In research undertaken by LCP and Law Debenture last Summer ahead of the IFR's launch, we examined governance approaches across all 116 clubs in the English football pyramid. The findings were stark.

• 8%of club directors across the football pyramid are women
• 45%of FTSE 100 board directors were women at the start of 2025
• >15%of pyramid clubs have fewer than three board directors in total

Those numbers speak to a governance culture that has been slow to modernise. The comparison with FTSE 100 boardrooms is instructive: corporate Britain, for all its imperfections, has introduced measurable assessments of gender representation and progress. Football has not kept pace, and the gap is wide.

Ethnicity data is harder to come by across the pyramid, but the picture at senior leadership level is well-documented. The number of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic executives, managers, and board members in English professional football remains disproportionately low relative to both the playing population and the fan base. The progress Clyde Best and those who followed him made in establishing diversity on the pitch has simply not been replicated in the structures that govern the game.

What the IFR Can and Should Do

The Football Governance Act gives the IFR a mandate to address financial sustainability and resilience across the pyramid, and governance standards at all 116 licensed clubs. Its approach is rightly expected to be principles based and proportionate. The "State of the Game" report expected later this year will shine a light on governance gaps and structural risks facing the industry. That is precisely the kind of evidence base needed before meaningful intervention.

What proportionate DE&I governance looks like

The IFR is required to publish a code of practice relating to corporate governance of regulated clubs.  Corporate governance, in relation to a club, is described in the Football Governance Act as including, among other elements, “the approach of the club to equality, diversity and inclusion”.  This must not be a box-ticking exercise.  This needs to be a means by which we arrive at a position whereby people governing clubs reflect the communities they serve and the players who generate value for them.

There is a reasonable debate to be had about the extent to which the IFR should prescribe specific diversity targets, as opposed to requiring transparency and accountability structures that allow scrutiny of progress. Requiring clubs to publish meaningful data on board composition and governance statements that address diversity, will give fans, supporters' trusts, and the regulator itself the information to hold clubs to account against what they publish.  But if this is not leading to progress setting targets might be the catalyst that is needed.

Fans already have enhanced standing under the new regime, with the ability to challenge both decisions and inaction by the clubs and the regulator. That is a meaningful mechanism. But it only works if the underlying data is visible and comparable across clubs. The IFR has an opportunity to make that a baseline requirement from day one of licensing.

The Thread That Connects

Watching the Clyde Best documentary, I was struck by a phrase that appeared more than once: that he made people feel they were allowed. That is a profound thing to say about a footballer. He did not just play well. He made the game feel accessible to people who had been given every signal that it was not for them.

That same principle applies in the boardroom. When the governance structures of football clubs are composed overwhelmingly of people from a narrow demographic, it sends a signal, whether intentional or not, about who the game is really for. The IFR is not setting out to change football's culture by diktat. But it can require the transparency and accountability frameworks that make it harder for that culture to persist unchallenged.

Clyde Best's story is a story of what a single individual's courage and excellence can do to shift a culture. Fifty years on, the IFR has an opportunity to build the structural conditions that mean the next generation of football administrators, executives and governance professionals does not have to wait for another individual to do it alone.

On this point, Delroy Corinaldi, board director at the Black Football Partnership, has recently challenged whether the IFR is starting out with a principled intention around accessibility, noting that the IFR’s Board does not contain a single black board member.

The IFR has to take the opportunity to put into action the principles of sustainability, accountability and accessibility at every turn to “transform the beautiful game”.

To find out more about how Law Debenture supports football clubs with governance requirements, contact patrick.davis@lawdeb.com or visit our Football Governance page