ODSE Suitability Test
When the Regulator Asks Questions: What Ongoing Events at West Ham Raise for Every Boardroom
On 21 August 2026, The Times reported on the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) and West Ham United. It reports that the regulator has contacted Essex Police and the FA. Those contacts form part of enquiries into whether David Sullivan meets the ODSE suitability test. The ODSE regime covers owners, directors and senior executives. Mr Sullivan categorically denies the allegations, and no charges have been brought. This article does not judge any individual. Its purpose is educational. The reported events raise questions for every Chair, Chief Executive and board.
What the Reporting Says
In June 2026, The Times and the BBC published a joint investigation. It carried the accounts of multiple women. According to that reporting, the women alleged sexually exploitative behaviour by Mr Sullivan. The alleged conduct dates back to the 1980s and 1990s. Mr Sullivan denies the allegations in full. He resigned as joint chairman of West Ham after the reports appeared. The Times reports that he remains the club's largest shareholder, with 38.8 per cent. Essex Police is investigating, according to the PA news agency. There are no charges.
The IFR responded publicly at the time. It said it would seek urgent information about Mr Sullivan's suitability under its ODSE regime. According to The Times, the regulator has since contacted both Essex Police and the FA. An IFR spokesperson told the newspaper that its enquiries are active and ongoing, with relevant authorities involved.
The Times also reports that the club's ownership is in motion. A consortium led by Amanda Staveley has agreed to buy Vanessa Gold's 25.1 per cent family stake. Daniel Kretinsky had agreed to increase his holding from 27 to 43 per cent. Pre-emption rights give both Mr Sullivan and Mr Kretinsky first refusal on the Gold shares. Mr Sullivan has the right to buy 13 per cent, taking him to 51 per cent. That level would trigger a requirement to take control of the club. The reported deadline for taking up the shares is 2 September.
One nuance in the reporting stands out. According to The Times, the IFR cannot stop an incumbent owner increasing their stake. Its approval power applies to new owners, such as Ms Staveley. The regulator can, however, direct an unsuitable existing shareholder to divest. The route in matters less than the standard you must keep meeting once inside.
What the ODSE Suitability Test Covers
An IFR spokesperson set out the scope of the assessment to The Times. The regulator described "a broad but fixed list of matters", which statute defines. Paraphrasing the statement, the test covers financial soundness, sufficient resources, source of wealth, and honesty and integrity. It includes checks on criminal proceedings or convictions, civil actions, and other regulatory investigations.
Note the word 'proceedings'. According to the regulator's own description, it does not require a conviction before weighing a matter. Live investigations and civil actions fall within scope. That is why contact with a police force is a natural step, not an unusual one.
A Broader Remit Than Directors' Disqualification
Boards will know the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA). It is worth setting the two regimes side by side. The comparison shows how much further the ODSE suitability test reaches.
1. The CDDA is court-based and mostly backwards-looking
Disqualification requires a court order, or an undertaking that replaces one. The most common ground is unfit conduct as a director of an insolvent company. Other grounds include conviction for an indictable offence linked to company management. Persistent filing breaches and fraud in a winding up also qualify. In practice, the Act usually bites after a company fails or a court convicts.
2. The ODSE test is administrative and continuous
The IFR assesses suitability itself, without a court application. The test applies at appointment and at any point afterwards. New information can trigger reassessment at any time. On the IFR's stated approach, it can consider proceedings and investigations, not only convictions.
3. The CDDA restricts activity, not ownership
A disqualification order bans a person from acting as a director or joining management. It does not stop them owning shares in a company. Under ODSE, the regulator oversees ownership itself. As The Times reports, the IFR can direct an unsuitable existing shareholder to divest.
4. The ODSE net is wider
The CDDA targets directors, shadow directors, and those who instruct them. ODSE covers owners under a broad significant influence test, plus directors and senior executives. Informal influence can bring a person within scope without any formal title.
The direction of travel is clear. Football's suitability regime sits closer to financial services regulation than to general company law. CDDA sanctions run from two to fifteen years and follow a court process. The IFR reaches further, faster, and on a lower threshold.
The Financial Services Parallels
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) applies a fit and proper test to senior people. That test covers honesty, integrity and reputation, not just competence. In December 2025, the FCA published final guidance on non-financial misconduct (PS25/23). The guidance takes effect on 1 September 2026. It confirms that private conduct can bear on a person's fitness. The question is whether the conduct threatens regulatory standards or public confidence.
The parallel for football is direct. Regulators do not limit themselves to what happens inside the business. Conduct that damages public confidence in the role-holder is regulatory territory. Financial services worked through these questions over three decades. Football's boards now face them in real time, and many will recognise the pattern.
It is worth noting how financial services responded in practice. Firms created named, accountable roles to own the regulator relationship. The money laundering reporting officer is a familiar example. Clubs may in time consider a similar named contact point for the IFR. That is a question of readiness, not size.
What the Reported Events Raise for Clubs
Clubs carry duties of their own under the IFR regime. A club must notify the IFR of any material change affecting incumbent owners or senior managers. Notification must happen as soon as reasonably possible. It cannot wait for the annual declaration.
Ownership changes bring their own requirements. Every club must maintain an approved, published personnel statement naming its owners and senior managers. Material changes require an updated statement. New owners and senior appointments need IFR approval, on a timeline of up to 150 days. Any club planning a transaction may wish to build that timeline into commercial planning. On The Times's account, West Ham faces a possible three-way ownership outcome. The pre-emption deadline of 2 September frames each route. Each route carries a different regulatory pathway.
There is also a reputational dimension. A club with clear processes, clear records and prompt notification can answer regulatory questions with confidence.
5 Questions for Your Boardroom
The reported events are specific to one club. The questions they raise are not. Boards may find the following worth reflecting on.
-
Have we identified everyone in scope of ODSE, including those with informal influence?
-
Do we have a documented process for monitoring ongoing suitability, not just suitability at appointment?
-
Do in-scope individuals know their duty to disclose material changes in their circumstances?
-
If ownership or board changes are possible, have we planned for IFR approval timelines?
-
Does the board own ODSE compliance, or have we left it to HR and legal?
The provisional licensing window opens in November 2026. Boards that consider these questions early will meet it on the front foot.
How Argus Pro Helps
Argus Pro is not an auditor, and does not provide audit opinions. Our frameworks support readiness, prioritisation, and improvement planning. We never ask to see club documents. Our assessments rely on structured questioning and declared responses. Clubs answer once, in plain English, against one framework. The framework maps those answers to the IFR's requirements and the other rulebooks that apply. That is the principle behind Aegis Compass | IFR™. In practice, it means three things for the questions above.
-
The ODSE suitability test stays under review, not on file
The test does not end at appointment. New information can reopen it at any time. Our assessment checks whether your club's ongoing review process exists, works, and reaches everyone in scope. Repeat cycles then show that it keeps working. -
Everyone in scope, checked against the regulator's definitions
ODSE can reach people with influence but no formal title. Our structured questions walk the club through the IFR's definitions of owner, ultimate owner, and significant influence. Gaps against those definitions surface as clear findings. -
The club can show its workings
We record every answer at the individual-level, dated and attributable. Where respondents answer the same question differently, the framework surfaces the divergence itself. When the regulator asks, the club can substantiate its position straight away.
Our Readiness Workshops build the same capability inside the boardroom.
Related content
Sources for editorial verification
- Gary Jacob, “Staveley v Kretinsky — who will win the West Ham boardroom battle?”, The Times, 21 August 2026. https://www.thetimes.com/article/fb39752b-305e-480b-8880-103bf1430209. Source of: IFR contact with Essex Police and the FA; the IFR spokesperson statements; the incumbent versus new owner distinction; the divestment power; the pre-emption rights, 13 per cent option, 51 per cent threshold, and 2 September deadline; the Staveley and Kretinsky shareholding figures.
- Sky Sports, “David Sullivan: Former West Ham chairman facing further scrutiny”, June 2026. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13552124/
- Yahoo News UK / PA, “Essex Police investigating new information after David Sullivan allegations”, June 2026. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/essex-police-investigating-information-david-082737679.html
- Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c. 46), legislation.gov.uk, including Sections 1A, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8ZA. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/46
- The Gazette (official public record), “Director disqualification: what you need to know” (2 to 15 year periods; undertakings; insolvency as the most common ground). https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/225
- FCA, PS25/23 “Tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services”, 12 December 2025. https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps25-23-tackling-non-financial-misconduct-financial-services
- IFR Licensing Guidance (duty to notify changes of circumstances, Sections 33 and 50 of the Act); IFR Provisional Licence Application Guidance (personnel statement duties). Held in Argus Pro's Argus Metis Index.