Allegations made against West Ham United’s largest shareholder David Sullivan have raised questions that England’s Independent Football Regulator (IFR) believes warrant “urgent” answers.Sullivan, who owns 38.8 percent of the club, has been accused of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour by multiple women in a joint investigation from the BBC’s Panorama and The Times.The 77-year-old billionaire resigned from his position as vice chair and director of West Ham over the weekend before the historic claims, dating back to the 1980s, were published on Monday evening.Seven different women came forward to allege Sullivan abused his power at a time when he was owner of the adult-themed Daily and Sunday Sport newspapers, as well as preying on them for sex.Sullivan has said that he “categorically denies” all the allegations and called them “factually incorrect and entirely false”. He also said he would be taking legal action.But the affair has raised concerns over his suitability to remain as an owner of West Ham. It has emerged in the last 48 hours that he has been suspended from the club’s women’s and academy fixtures since 2023.As scrutiny over Sullivan’s position mounts, The Athletic analyses the key questions.What is the position of West Ham and its other shareholders?West Ham have attempted to keep the allegations against Sullivan at arm’s length. An initial statement over the weekend to announce his resignation as joint-chair said it had been done to “avoid disruption” and stressed that the claims made in the investigation did not relate to the club or its operations.That distinction has since been tested by Sullivan’s acceptance that, since 2023, he has been suspended from having any contact with West Ham’s women’s and youth teams owing to safeguarding concerns.Sullivan says the suspension was “a meaningless restriction” given his lack of contact with those teams which he accepted for “a quiet life”, and that it was mutually agreed with the Football Association while it looked into one specific complaint from 1981 which he denies. There have been no restrictions placed on him with regards to the men’s team.Sullivan had pre-empted the publication of the BBC-Times investigation by stepping down from his position as director at both West Ham United and WH Holding Limited, the club’s parent company, on Saturday, but pressures over his status as the club’s biggest single shareholder are mounting.Uma Kumaran is the Labour MP for Stratford and Bow, the constituency where West Ham’s home at the London Stadium lies, has been among those calling for Sullivan to sell his stake but pressures are also coming from within. Boyle Sports, the Irish bookmaker that is West Ham’s principal commercial partner, told The Athletic it was “extremely concerned” by the allegations and supports the IFR review.Boyle Sports is concerned at the allegations made against Sullivan (Richard Pelham/Getty Images)As reported by The Athletic on Monday, Sullivan would be open to selling a shareholding he first purchased when taking control of the club in 2010.“The issue of Sullivan’s shares should be a matter of urgency,” said Andy Payne, the co-chair of West Ham’s Fan Advisory Board. “He needs to sell up as soon as possible.”Just over 25 per cent of West Ham’s shares are owned by the family of his late business partner David Gold via a trust overseen by Gold’s daughter and West Ham director Vanessa.The potentially key figure, however, is Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, who bought a 27 per cent stake in 2021. The other significant holding belongs to US businessman Arthur “Tripp” Smith, who first became a minority investor in 2017.The allegations made against Sullivan and subsequent fall-out entrenches a sense of flux at West Ham. Karren Brady also resigned from her post as vice-chair in April, leaving Karim Virani, interim chief executive, in operational control of the club as they prepare for life in the Championship. Eight directors remain at West Ham, including Virani and Sullivan’s two sons, Jack and David Jnr.How much pressure are the FA under?English football’s governing body, which is tasked with overseeing safeguarding in the game, also finds itself under scrutiny.In the hours that followed the revelation that Sullivan had been suspended from any activity involving West Ham’s women’s and youth teams for the last three years, the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) came forward with pertinent questions.“These latest revelations are utterly horrifying,” said Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. “If it is the case that an investigation concluded that there were sufficiently serious allegations to warrant a ban on contact with the youth and women’s teams, then the FA must explain this decision and why no further action was taken. I expect a full and urgent explanation from the FA and West Ham as to how these incredibly serious allegations have been handled.”The FA has been aware of historic allegations against Sullivan and began a safeguarding investigation in 2023. The governing body has powers to invoke an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) if it is found there is a risk to others but had not taken that step with Sullivan, who said he had willingly stepped back, rather than being banned by the FA.“We are unable to comment on individual safeguarding matters, including cases that remain active,” a spokesperson said at the weekend. “We operate a robust safeguarding programme across every level of English football, and all safeguarding referrals are handled in line with our rigorous and stringent policies and procedures.“We investigate and assess allegations and concerns within our jurisdiction about individuals who pose or may pose a risk of harm to children and adults at risk in football. We work with statutory agencies, including the police where necessary, and we always take proportionate safeguarding measures, including issuing suspensions when they are appropriate, in accordance with FA safeguarding regulations.”The Athletic approached the Football Association and West Ham for fresh comment after Nandy had called for them to begin an investigation.Do West Ham and Brady have questions to answer?In West Ham’s case, Nandy believes so. For all that Sullivan has attempted to dismiss the significance of his suspension, the Culture Secretary is eager to see details of how the decision was reached.“West Ham United has clear and robust safeguarding measures in place, measures that are independently assessed and audited on an annual basis,” a West Ham statement read on Tuesday evening. “The club is unable to comment or provide details on any individual safeguarding matter as per standard practice in the industry.”This also has the potential to become uncomfortable for Brady.The 57-year-old businesswoman has been one of Sullivan’s closest associates since they first worked together at Birmingham City in the 1990s. She has since gone on to become one of the highest-profile women in English football, as well as a television personality through her work on the BBC reality show The Apprentice, and an strong advocate for women’s rights.Sullivan with Karren Brady in 1993 (John Gichigi/Allsport/Getty Images)The timing of her decision to leave West Ham in April, as the club was fighting to save itself from relegation from the Premier League, surprised many when it was announced and she is likely to face questions about exactly what she knew and when about the allegations made against Sullivan.The Athletic revealed on Wednesday that West Ham’s Fan Advisory Board (FAB) had been told by Brady via email in January 2026 that there was “no investigation involving West Ham United” and that she “could not offer any comment or guidance about unverified speculation or accusations that had nothing to do with West Ham.”Sullivan, at that point, had already been the subject of police investigations and the FA safeguarding enquiry.Brady’s legal team, Carter Ruck, have said that “the allegations which have been made against Mr Sullivan in a personal capacity do not relate to our client.”Where does Sullivan stand with the IFR?It was the IFR who were quickest to respond to the investigation on Monday, outlining their intent to seek “urgent information” from West Ham.“These are extremely serious allegations,” said an IFR spokesperson. “We are in contact with West Ham on this matter and will use our statutory powers to seek urgent information from David Sullivan relating to his suitability under our Owners, Directors and Senior Executives (ODSE) regime.”The IFR is a new and important stakeholder in English football. Introduced as part of the Football Governance Bill 2025, the IFR has been tasked with protecting and promoting sustainability of English football. Included in its remit is vetting current and prospective club owners through its ODSE programme.Its regulatory powers formally began on May 6 and the allegations made against Sullivan amount to its first notable challenge as they look to set “clear standards for those who own and lead clubs, ensuring they meet to the required levels of honesty, integrity, competence and financial soundness”. Retaining his shareholding means he will still be subject to assessments, even after stepping down as a director and vice chair over the weekend.Along with prospective shareholders and directors, incumbent owners also face scrutiny. The IFR’s new guidance says an assessment can be triggered if in possession of information “that gives it grounds for concern about whether the individual meets the criteria” for a disqualification.An investigation into Sullivan has not been opened but the request for information from West Ham underlines how seriously the IFR is taking the matter. If sufficient material is forthcoming to provide cause for concern over any owner or director, an investigation can be opened that could, in theory, lead to an individual being barred or forced to sell.An assessment of a person’s “honesty and integrity” includes whether someone has been convicted of a criminal offence or been the subject of criminal proceedings but the IFR says it does not consider unfounded allegations alone to warrant “grounds for concern”.Sullivan, as with all owners of clubs monitored in the top five divisions, would be obliged to inform the IFR of any changes to his circumstances.What about the EFL?West Ham are now officially a Championship club following relegation from the Premier League, and so come under the controls of the English Football League (EFL). Their Premier League share certificate was handed back at the AGM last Friday, ending a 14-year spell in English football’s top division.The EFL has its own owners and directors’ test that broadly mirrors that of the Premier League and its existing format outlines disqualification factors for an individual. Any offence that resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more is considered a disqualifying event, as are other matters, all of which are only met upon criminal conviction.The arrival of the IFR will eventually see the EFL hand the power to expel or block owners and directors on to the new independent body but a transition process remains ongoing.There is currently nothing to suggest that Sullivan would be in breach of any EFL ownership rules. The EFL has been approached for comment.