Parry also expressed concern at “a whole raft of competition law cases which are impacting on the way that we run the game”.
He continued: “Having been left more or less free to set their own rules for many years, now the competition law authorities… seem to be saying, ‘we don’t think that the people running football are doing a terribly good job of it’.
“To be looking over our shoulder all of the time with challenges from clubs if they don’t like rules… the game will grind to a halt unless we find a solution for that.”
In September, Leicester City won an appeal against a possible points deduction for an alleged breach of financial rules, when an independent panel found the Premier League did not have the jurisdiction to punish the club as it had been relegated to the Championship when their accounting period ended. The ruling indicated the wording in the Premier League’s regulations was not legally sound.
Last month two aspects of the Premier League’s associated party transaction rules – which regulate commercial deals involving clubs’ owners – were deemed unlawful by a tribunal after being challenged by Manchester City, which has since threatened further legal action.
“It’s certainly getting a lot more difficult,” said Parry.
“I have no problem with us having to be more professional and to be at the top of our game because that’s where we should be. But it’s the willingness of clubs at the drop of a hat to challenge the whole system.
“You have to question how long you can function effectively while that mentality exists, and we have to find a solution to that.
“The way in which we ensure consistency of financial regulation across the two leagues isn’t working. One thing a single independent regulator will bring is that consistency.”
The legislation will “explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement” with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds. It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be “a clear commitment” to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.
Nineteen amendments have been proposed by the Fair Game campaign group, including excluding the possibility that the owner of a club could be a state or state-controlled entity, and making the state of the game review assess player welfare, along with an examination of multi-club ownership.
