The previous government announced plans to appoint a regulator last year following a fan-led review, which said such a body was necessary for the long-term financial stability of the men’s professional game after issues including mismanagement and plans for a breakaway European Super League.

The regulator will oversee a licensing system to ensure clubs are run sustainably, take over a strengthened owners and directors test, and give fans a greater say in key decisions.

But Theodoridis warned Nandy: “Uefa is concerned about the potential for scope creep within the IFR [independent football regulator].

“While the initial intent of the IFR is to oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets, there is always a risk that, once established, the IFR may expand its mandate beyond these areas.”

That “could undermine the established structures and processes of the sport, and amount to government interference”, he wrote.

He added that it was “imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA”, and that legislation that “compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England” would not comply with the Uefa and Fifa statutes.

“It follows that the criteria defining and evaluating the IFR’s independence must be meticulously crafted to avoid potential conflicts with the FA’s role. This is necessary to prevent sanctions under Uefa and Fifa statutes.

“The IFR’s scope must remain focused on the long-term financial sustainability of clubs with a view to ensuring that it does not overstep into areas that might be perceived as external interference in football governance.”

Theodoridis also warned Nandy that clauses in the legislation that oblige the regulator to consider the government’s foreign and trade policy objectives when deciding on the suitability of future owners “raise specific concerns”.

He added that Uefa “respectfully requires further clarification and understanding… in this context to ensure compliance with the Uefa Statutes and to prevent unwanted implications for football governance”.