Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 15 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

15 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5100095

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I wish to make a statement to update the Assembly on the Northern Ireland Football Fund and, in particular, the performance programme strand of the fund. When I took office, I made it clear that one of my priorities would be to push forward the long-standing commitment to invest in our local footballing infrastructure. Last May, I gave approval for the Northern Ireland Football Fund to go ahead and set my officials the task of designing a rolling programme of investment. I opened the first call for applications from performance clubs at the start of the year. Last week, I was delighted to announce the outcome of the competition and the first cohort of projects that will move forward to the next stage. I made my intention clear that the programme would be delivered in phases because it would not be possible to fund and deliver all the projects at once. Therefore, to determine the order in which projects would be taken forward, I committed to using a fair and transparent open competition approach to assess clubs' individual needs, proposals and ability to deliver sustainable benefits. I was determined that all applicants would have an equal opportunity to make their case. My officials worked with stakeholders and listened when they asked for clubs' previous investment in capital work to be taken into account. We listened when clubs said that no individual club should have special treatment and asked for all clubs to have the chance to make their case on a level playing field. I knew that it would be unfair, when the fund had been delayed for so long, to expect all clubs to have kept planning permissions in place and to have fully developed designs, so I allowed applications to be made for projects that have not yet been fully developed. Applicants were required to have a strong understanding of their needs, to have worked closely with their local communities to understand and be able to clearly set out the benefits that their projects could deliver and to have a plan in place to fund part of their projects themselves. Members will appreciate that the process had to be unequivocally fair and defensible. People have waited so long. It was clear that applicants whose projects were not taken forward in the first cohort would feel disappointed, so the application, criteria and approach to scoring were thoroughly tested in advance. Testing was completed internally with our economists, accountants and other business partners. Everything was also tested externally with other independent funding bodies. Legal advice was sought to confirm fairness. That was all before the application documents were published in January. Support was offered to clubs in advance of them submitting applications. My officials provided information sessions across the country to take everyone through the application process, and comprehensive guidance and scoring information was shared with all eligible applicants and made available online. The feedback from clubs and other stakeholders on the application process was overwhelmingly positive, with many welcoming the chance to make their case on an even playing field. They understood that the process had no pre-commitments to any particular clubs, areas or individual circumstances. Applicants were first asked to estimate their overall project cost and to self-select one of three tiers within their application that would be scored. It was for applicants themselves to carefully consider their needs. The only guidance that my Department offered was that clubs should make sure that the projects proposed were proportionate to their needs and the benefits that they could deliver for their club and communities. The tiers meant that projects were assessed and ranked against others of a similar size. For example, a proposal for a replacement carpet on an existing pitch for a rural club, which might cost around £1 million, would not be in direct competition with a major demolition-and-rebuild project costing upwards of £10 million. What that means in practice is that scores are not comparable across tiers. The people of Northern Ireland are at the heart of everything that my Department does, and the objectives of the programme reflect that. The programme was developed in partnership with key stakeholders, including governing bodies and clubs themselves. We listened to the football family and delivered a programme based on what the clubs wanted: a chance to make their case on the basis of need, to secure enough funding to really make a difference and to set out their ambitions and the benefits that their club could deliver for fans and communities. The performance programme is focused on modernising footballing infrastructure and improving the financial sustainability of clubs. It is also designed to maximise the impact that public funding can bring to people within and beyond clubs, particularly those who have traditionally been under-represented. That means that applications to the programme were assessed not solely on the state of disrepair of facilities but on the strength of the case that clubs could make about their ability to deliver benefits to the wider community. The competition opened in January and closed in March this year. My Department received a total of 37 applications. The applicants submitted projects requiring in excess of £160 million of financial support. That clearly demonstrates the huge underlying need for the programme, but it also greatly exceeds the current ring-fenced budget of £36·2 million. I knew that demand would outstrip the current budget, which was set in 2015 and so, naturally, has devalued significantly and is long out of date for current needs.

Football has changed in the past 10 years. The budget set then did not predict the central role that clubs play in their communities today, nor did it anticipate the rise of the women's game and the facilities needs that have grown out of that. Over the past few months, my officials have worked diligently, carefully assessing every application against the criteria set out in the scoring matrix and guidance notes. The scoring matrix, which was made available to all eligible clubs when they were invited to apply and is still available on my Department's website, lists the expectations and the scores achievable against each of the questions relating to need, benefits and finance. Six experienced officials undertook the task of scoring. Two were assigned to each tier. Those two officials scored all applications in their tier individually and then came together in their pair to agree scores. Those scores were moderated internally by three more officials, one for each tier. Finally, all 37 applications were independently moderated by an external moderator. That scoring, double-checking and triple-checking approach was adopted to ensure consistency of scoring and a robustly defensible rank order for each tier. I was not involved in scoring applications or determining their merit order. My role in the process was to approve the overarching policy approach and to decide how many projects would be taken forward to the next stage. I did not see any of the applications, and I did not influence or seek to influence the merit order of any of the tiers. I understand how long people have been waiting for this money, so I am not prepared to do anything that could bring the process into question. When considering how many projects to take forward from each tier, I considered a range of options presented by my officials. I opted to take forward a range of small, medium and large projects with a total value higher than the current available budget to ensure that the budget can be spent and to avoid any further erosion of its value. Members will be aware that the prioritised cohort of 20 projects to be taken forward to the next stage of the programme are, in alphabetical order: in tier 1, Armagh City Football Club, Ballymacash Sports Academy, Lisburn Distillery Football Club, Queen's University Association Football Club and Rathfriland Rangers Football Club; in tier 2, Ballinamallard United Football Club, Ballymena United Football Club, Banbridge Town Football Club, Bangor Football Club, Carrick Rangers Football Club, Dergview Football Club, Dungannon Swifts Football Club, Glenavon Football Club, Larne Football Club, Lisburn Rangers Football Club, Loughgall Football Club, Newry City Athletic Football Club and Oxford Sunnyside Football Club; and, in tier 3, Cliftonville Football Club and Glentoran Football Club. I know that, despite the rigorous process, many feel disappointed that some projects, particularly those in the north-west, are not being taken forward in the first prioritised cohort. However, each applicant had the same opportunity to make their case. Each applicant was scored solely on the information provided in their application against the published criteria. The total score determined the applicant's rank order within their respective tier. I have visited many of our performance club grounds, so I know that there are no bad projects out there. The need is clear. However, applications varied in quality. Some applications included irrelevant information. Some included inaccurate information. Some applicants cut and pasted, giving the same answer to two different questions. Some just did not provide enough information to secure a higher score. Assessors considered how well an applicant demonstrated that they met or had the potential to meet the expectations linked to each question and scored the answer accordingly. Limited responses in meeting the expectations listed received a lower score, while excellent responses in meeting expectations received a higher score. I repeat that the scoring matrix and guidance documents are still available on my Department's web page for all to see. We must now move forward at pace to deliver this long-awaited commitment. It will be the beginning of an ongoing process to provide much-needed funding and raise the standard of the entire sector. My intention is that more projects will be brought forward if more funding becomes available. It is important to note that individual projects have not yet been fully costed or market-tested. That was a deliberate decision on my part so that all eligible clubs could apply to the performance programme, not just those who were able to produce detailed designs. It is therefore currently impossible to predict precisely the final quantum of government funding that will be required. Nevertheless, taking the figures as presented in the individual applications, the total departmental requirement to complete all 20 of the projects is just over £82 million against estimated total project costs of £98 million. As I said, I am not committing to any spend at this point. It is also important for me to point out that the money will not be spent overnight but, rather, over some years. There is never a guarantee that a capital project will reach completion. Building is a complicated endeavour, with multiple milestones and approvals not just from DFC but from other statutory bodies. Challenges in the design and construction phases will inevitably be faced, and they can never be predicted from the outset. Large capital projects of this nature take time. While their development is ongoing, I intend to make the case for more money to allow me to meet the needs of the entire sector. Clubs also have a responsibility to ensure that their projects deliver the highest standards and maximise benefits. The first projects to be delivered must be trailblazers that can help to demonstrate the huge potential that football has to transform communities. Since taking office, I have visited many of the clubs. I have seen the need to improve their infrastructure and the benefits that they provide to the local community, despite the infrastructure challenges that they face. I have seen at first hand what the clubs are capable of and have listened to their understandable frustrations with the previous stalling of the programme. With that in mind, I am delighted to take the step towards helping them to realise their goals of improving on and off the pitch. I have demonstrated that I am a Minister who is getting things done, and today, I am committing to do all that I can to progress the programme for all clubs to ensure that their needs are met because of the transformational impact that we can have on the lives of people across Northern Ireland. It is important to note that all clubs are still further along than they ever have been. We have made progress, and we are going to make more, so let us keep at it. I commend the statement to the House.

2,060 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification