A government minister gave an 'incredibly strange' response after being asked if Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince would have to undergo the independent football regulator's owners' and directors' test.

That is the view of West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady, who is among those peers in the House of Lords who have examined and debated the football governance bill. It was just a few weeks ago that Newcastle United were namechecked 20 times inside the chamber after fellow peer Lord Moynihan asked Baroness Twycross, the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the department for culture, media and sport, if Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would be subject to an ownership test.

Baroness Twycross initially replied yes and said 'any owner, with state backing or otherwise, will be assessed against the same set of criteria as any other prospective owner'. However, the minister later moved to clarify her response and stressed an incumbent individual simply meeting the definition - including if they exert significant influence or control - did not mean that the regulator was 'required or obliged to test them'. Although Baroness Twycross sought to 'reassure' Newcastle fans, Baroness Brady was left puzzled.

READ MORE: The one club who could afford Alexander Isak as Alan Shearer issues Newcastle United transfer claim

READ MORE: Newcastle United owners' £15m move explained that's 'good for PSR' after Companies House update

"Another thing is a subjective ownership test, which could really deter responsible investment and could create litigation," the West Ham vice-chairman told the Times. "It seemed incredibly strange that the minister couldn’t tell us whether their intention is for senior members of foreign governments to go through the ownership test or not. They said yes and then they backtracked, and I don’t think they actually know."

The Premier League received legally-binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would not control Newcastle after the PIF bought a majority stake in the club in 2021. However, Lord Moynihan said the football governance bill went further and claimed an individual 'has to be considered who has a higher degree of influence over the ownership of a club' as a result.