Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1

Alcohol at football grounds

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must consult on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch in the top five tiers of the men's game in England.”—(Mr French.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:48

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling—

“A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”

This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.

New clause 3—Free to air coverage—

“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section ‘free-to-air television’ means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

New clause 4—Fan representation: mandatory golden share—

“(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation.

(2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to—

(a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area,

(b) change the club’s name,

(c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or

(d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by the Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League.

(3) A licensed club must—

(a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction,

(b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and

(c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share.

(4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may—

(a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share,

(b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and

(c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share.

(5) In this section—

(a) ‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters;

(b) ‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”

This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body.

New clause 5—Protection of assets of regulated clubs—

“(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan—

(a) any stadium,

(b) any training facility,

(c) any trophies,

(d) any car park,

(e) any hotel.

(2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where—

(a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and

(b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral.

(3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”

This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners.

New clause 6—Financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud: protection etc—

“(1) The IFR must, in any strategy it publishes, set out measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective.

(2) Measures to be set out under subsection (1) must include oversight of—

(a) robust education for relevant players on matters relating to financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud,

(b) industry wide standards aimed at relevant players in relation to those matters, and

(c) an equitable system of support and redress for relevant players where they have been affected by those matters.

(3) In this section, a ‘relevant player’ means a current or former player in English football who—

(a) has been a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(b) is at risk of becoming a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud.”

New clause 7—Human rights and modern slavery considerations—

“(1) When considering whether a person (‘A’) satisfies the requirement in section 26(7)(c), the Regulator shall have regard to (among other things)—

(a) whether A has been complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of international human rights law, whether of any international human rights treaty, customary law, or other instrument,

(b) whether A has been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded or complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of domestic human rights legislation, including breaching provisions in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent national legislation,

(c) whether A has been subject to a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order,

(d) whether A has been found liable in a civil claim relating to a human rights violation,

(e) whether A has been convicted of an offence, cautioned or reprimanded for failing to comply with their human rights and modern slavery reporting and due diligence obligations under applicable domestic legislation,

(f) any representations made by A or the club in accordance with the notice.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) where A is a body corporate or other non-corporeal entity (including a government or nation state), the Regulator shall consider the actions of anyone who controls that body corporate or entity (and ‘control’ shall have the meaning given in section 255 of the Companies Act 2006), and

(b) the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).

(3) In respect of subsection (1)(c) and (d), a risk of disrepute shall not be valid grounds for disqualification of any person if such disrepute would, in the reasonable opinion of the Regulator, be unfounded.

(4) In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 15, the Regulator may establish a committee or committees to discharge its functions under this Clause.”

New clause 8—Duty to address ticketing market practices—

“Regulated clubs and competition organisers must take reasonable steps to—

(a) monitor practices in the secondary ticketing market that may lead to excessive price mark-ups or unauthorised resale;

(b) provide transparent information about ticket pricing and resale policies, including the face value of tickets; and

(c) provide official ticket exchange channels where reasonably practicable.”

New clause 9—Prioritisation of competitions within English football—

“(1) This section applies where a regulated club is participating in a competition outside of English Football.

(2) Where the IFR considers that the regulated club’s participation in the competition is damaging to the heritage of English football, the IFR must take what measures it considers necessary to prevent that damage.

(3) Measures that the IFR might take include a direction to the club that it—

(a) prioritise any fixtures taking place in a competition within English football over those in the competition outside of English football;

(b) cease participation in the competition outside of English football.”

New clause 10—Player welfare—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must review how to improve the welfare of football players. This review should include consideration of—

(a) neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs;

(b) the number of games that footballers are required to play each season; and

(c) the impact on the welfare of current and former professional footballers as a result.”

New clause 11—Correspondence about the IFR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish any correspondence received by the Secretary of State from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the IFR’s exercise of its functions.

(2) The IFR must publish any correspondence it receives from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the exercise of its functions.”

This new clause would require correspondence between FIFA and UEFA and either the Secretary of State, or the IFR, with regards to the IFR’s regulatory functions, to be published.

New clause 12—Impact on Regulator of changes in Government administration—

“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.

New clause 13—Neurodegenerative care scheme—

“(1) The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care and support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition linked to their career in English football.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—

(a) minimum requirements for the scheme,

(b) a timescale for the scheme’s establishment, and

(c) arrangements and a timescale for a periodic review of the scheme.

(3) The IFR must ensure that, as a condition of organising any competition specified pursuant to section 2(3), all specified competition organisers jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme in accordance with subsections (4) to (8).

(4) For the purpose of operating, managing and funding the scheme, all of the specified competition organisers must form a Joint Coordinating Committee (‘JCC’).

(5) Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer is eligible for the scheme.

(6) The scheme must provide care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition which is deemed, pursuant to subsection (7)(a), to have been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football.

(7) The JCC must, under the supervision of the IFR, appoint a panel of independent experts—

(a) to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football, and

(b) to determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in the case of each eligible person.

(8) The IFR must ensure that the JCC acts upon the panel’s determinations.

(9) Where—

(a) specified competition owners, through the JCC, cannot agree about the operation, management or funding of the scheme, or

(b) at any time, the scheme does not meet either—

(i) the aim under subsection (1), or

(ii) any requirements set out in regulations under subsection (2),

the Secretary of State may, having taken advice from the IFR, make a direction about the operation, management or funding of the scheme.”

New clause 14—Duty to vet financial investment in football clubs—

“(1) The IFR must review and approve all proposed financial investments in regulated clubs from funds which are located outside of the United Kingdom.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include—

(a) assessing if any sources of revenue for such a fund is the result of money laundering;

(b) assessing if the owner of such a fund is charged with any breaches of UK or international law.

(3) If upon completing a review under subsection (1) the IFR has determined a source of revenue for a fund is the result of money laundering or the owner of a fund is in breach of UK or international law the IFR must direct the club to reject the investment.”

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes—

(a) the Premier League,

(b) the English Football League, and

(c) the National League.

(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).”

This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.

Amendment 3, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of people who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football forms part of any strategy published by the IFR, and to oversee an equitable and fair industry financial scheme to provide care for those people.”

Amendment 12, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to take responsibility for the protection, financial welfare, and safeguarding of current and former players involved in English football who—

(i) have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(ii) are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, (referred to in this Act as ‘the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective’).”

Amendment 29, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].”

This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC13).

Amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.”

This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.

Amendment 1, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.”

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 21, in clause 11, page 7, line 41, at end insert—

“(7) No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the football governance statement to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its annual report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 28, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the cumulative impact of the costs imposed on clubs through compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in the annual report an account of the financial costs imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Amendment 26, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

“(9) The IFR must make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence within the period of one month.

(10) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (9) by no more than two weeks if it requires more time to consider the application due to—

(a) unusual staffing pressures, or

(b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application.

(11) If the IFR extends the period as per subsection (10), it must give a notice to the relevant club stating—

(a) that the period has been extended,

(b) the length of the extension, and

(c) the reasons for the extension.”

This amendment places a time limit of one month for the IFR to decide whether to grant a provisional operating license.

Amendment 15, in clause 37, page 28, line 28, at end insert—

“(fa) whether the individual is a member of a proscribed organisation as per section (3) and schedule (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

This amendment requires that IFR, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Amendment 8, in clause 46, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) in the case of a disposal under subsection (1)(a), it has taken reasonable steps to establish that the majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales approve of the disposal.”

Amendment 9, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(6A) Before the IFR grants an approval under subsection (6) it must—

(a) consult the supporters of the body in question, the relevant competition organisers and persons representing the local community with which the body is associated, and

(b) have regard to the views expressed by those consulted.”

Amendment 24, in clause 53, page 42, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) But the IFR may not require a club with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees to pay the IFR a levy in respect of a chargeable period during which the club is a licensed club.”

This amendment would exempt clubs with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees from having to pay the levy.

Government amendments 4 to 7.

Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”

Amendment 19, page 87, line 37, at end insert—

“(5) No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Board.

Amendment 23, page 88, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”

Amendment 22, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.

(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”

This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.

Amendment 20, page 93, line 5, at end insert—

“(4A) No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.

Amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 99, line 37, at end insert—

“(f) the club’s political statements and positions.”

This amendment ensures that clubs have to engage their fans on the political statements a club might adopt.

Amendment 10, in schedule 5, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) an Asset of Community Value condition.”

This amendment adds the requirement to attach an Asset of Community Value condition to each club operating licence.

Amendment 27, page 102, line 7, at end insert

“including the club’s official charity.”

This amendment would make clear that the activities of a football club’s official charity can be counted towards it meeting the corporate governance code.

Amendment 17, page 102, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the requirement for the corporate governance statement to cover what action the club is taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.

Amendment 13, page 102, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The IFR must ensure that the persons referred to in subsections 1(a) and 1(b) are representative of the majority of the club’s fanbase and represent the club’s key supporters’ groups.

(1B) If it is unclear which are a club’s key supporters’ groups the IFR must consult with the Football Supporter’s Association to determine which groups apply for the purposes of this paragraph.”

Amendment 11, page 103, line 20, at end insert—

“Asset of Community Value

11A The Asset of Community Value condition is a condition requiring a club to either—

(a) obtain and maintain Asset of Community Value status for its home ground; or

(b) incorporate into its Articles of Association a restriction which substantially mirrors the restrictions placed on Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011,

and the Secretary of State may create regulations detailing further the implementation of the Asset of Community Value condition.”

The amendment defines the Asset of Community Value condition that clubs are required to obtain for their home ground and is consequential on Amendment 10.

[Mr French]

I also put on record my thanks to Lord Tebbit for his life of service to both our country and our party. He will be dearly missed by us all. In opening today’s proceedings, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is a privilege to speak on Report for the countless fans who fill the stands week in and week out, wear their club’s shirt with pride and keep our clubs alive, come rain or shine. I put on the record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions in Committee, and to everyone who has engaged with the process outside of Westminster. For all the high talk of regulators, quangos and corporate structures, let us never forget that football in this country is not an industry dreamed up by officials on neat PowerPoint slides or Excel spreadsheets, but a living tradition that is part of who we are and part of the fabric of our nation.

That is precisely why we must be so careful now: because this Bill, well-intentioned though it may be, risks replacing one danger—a minority of reckless owners—with another, namely reckless political interference that risks the independence of sport. This Bill, which wants to tackle cowboy owners, comes from an incoherent Government under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to be the new sheriff of football, and from a Department that has seen the Whip resign since the last meeting of the Bill Committee. We really are in “The Thick of It”.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Would the shadow Minister like to join me in thanking the shadow Secretary of State, his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for first introducing legislation to this House that promoted an independent football regulator? [Interruption.]

[Mr French]

As the shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, “You’ve messed it all up”, and I am sure that does not apply just to football.

Before I move on to our amendments, it is worth reminding ourselves how we got here. English football was not invented by corporate lawyers or politicians. Its origins are in the history and soul of communities across our country. It is the same spirit that today sees parents across the country drive through wind and rain on a Sunday morning so that their child can run out in their local club colours. It is a spirit that does not appear on balance sheets, but without sustainable finances there is no football at all. Sadly, we have all seen those cases where financial mismanagement and reckless spending have seen clubs and fans damaged. That is why the Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game.

We support better fan engagement, respecting the heritage of our clubs and strengthening ownership tests to help prevent the issues we have seen at the likes of Bury, Charlton and Reading. The fan-led review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association and leagues. Having spoken to many football fans across the country and also in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree with that even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football by appointing a Labour crony.

During the passage of the Bill, we have heard from the FA and the Premier League that they are concerned by regulatory scope creep, and we have sought in our amendments to push back on the tentacles of this socialist state seeking to strangle with red tape our beautiful game—this great British success story, which attracts millions of fans around the world and contributes £8 billion to our economy each season. Our amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from expanding the leagues in scope of the regulator under clause 2 without the approval of Parliament. We must give clubs certainty and prevent Whitehall empire building.

We must also have transparency about how much these new regulatory burdens are costing clubs and ticket prices, both today and in the future. That is why we have tabled amendments 1, 2 and 28. Every pound spent on new compliance staff is a pound not spent on grassroots players, stadium maintenance or affordable ticket prices. Every new bureaucrat is another tenner on a family’s matchday cost. In the end, the fans pick up the tab, just like always. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that these costs will be more than £125 million, with smaller clubs expecting a bill of up to £47 million. We know that many smaller clubs will have no choice but to pass that cost on to fans, and the Government and their regulator must be honest about that.

Members can help limit those additional costs by supporting our amendments 22 and 23, which would limit the size of the Government’s new regulator and cap the pay of the chief executive at the same level as the Prime Minister. The Government state that they want their regulator to be light-touch, but they vote against limits being placed upon it. That leads to the question: why are they saying one thing while doing the opposite in Westminster? Is it because of inexperience, or is the truth that this is yet another example of jobs for the boys, to the cost of fans? That is why we have tabled amendments that would limit political interference in the independence of sport.

We believe that fans should be consulted on any political statements made by clubs. Football clubs must not be mouthpieces for whichever fashionable cause of the time, and we believe that politics should be kept out of sport wherever possible. When a club speaks, it speaks for its fans and the local community. If it wants to do that on matters far beyond football, it should ask those fans first.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Would the shadow Minister mind telling the House what these fashionable causes that football clubs should not speak about are?

[Mr French]

I am happy to do so. Throughout Committee stage we have been quite clear—as the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will say—that we do not believe that that includes the likes of remembrance, which we is differ from political causes. However, as we have said, we do not believe that clubs should be getting involved in politics, and that is a hill that we are willing to die on.

My amendment 17 to schedule 5 would remove the requirement for additional reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion. We all know that football must be welcoming to everyone. Racism and bigotry have no place on the terraces, just as they have no place in wider society. Football has made huge progress by itself, with a range of initiatives already in the game including Kick It Out, Show Racism the Red Card, the Premier League Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Standard framework, the English Football League’s equality code of practice, anti-racism education and mentoring schemes. The game has done that not because a Government regulator told it to, but because it is right, it works and fans support it. However, fans do not pay their hard-earned money at the turnstiles to fund diversity paperwork. Our amendment leaves inclusion where it belongs: on the pitch, in the stands and in the community.

Let me now turn to clause 7, and to new clause 11 in my name. The new clause seeks to ensure that the IFR exercises its functions to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies. FIFA and UEFA rules are clear: national associations must be free from undue political interference. Countries that break that rules have been banned before: just ask the Greek football committee.

The Government are sleepwalking towards a giant own goal, and this time there is no VAR to save us. We already know that UEFA has written to the Secretary of State setting out its concerns about the Bill, and that the letter arrived after the Government had introduced its expanded version. UEFA writes:

“One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football.”

Unfortunately, the Minister could not give us enough reassurance about Government interference with English football, which is why I have re-tabled my amendment. We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep, and that the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond its loosely defined current competencies. Such an expansion, intentional or otherwise, into broader aspects of football governance could undermine the established structures and processes of the sport, and amount to Government interference.

[Mr Betts]

I do not whether the shadow Minister can get some help from his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench. I wonder whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government, he received any correspondence from UEFA and FIFA. Given the openness that the shadow Minister is calling for, will he now publish any correspondence received by the last Government?

[Mr French]

That is quite a rehearsed line that the hon. Gentleman is seeing to play out. As we heard in Committee, the Minister has sought to reassure the House that UEFA has no problems with the Bill. If that is the case, why is the letter not being laid in the House so that all Members can vote with full confidence in what is being said? What is being briefed to the press differs significantly from what the Minister is telling Members today.

So far, the Minister has refused to allow Parliament to see that letter so that we can scrutinise the Bill properly in the fullest possible way and in the proper context. Let me will ask her again now: what is she so afraid of? Is she scared that, given the Secretary of State is already under investigation for appointing one of her donors as chair, the publication of the letter will prove to be yet another nail in the coffin of her regulator?

Let me now turn to schedule 2. Any regulator must be credible, and that means independent beyond any doubt. But what have we seen? A preferred chair with a hidden political donation, a Secretary of State forced to recuse herself only when exposed, and a revolving door—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr French]

I will give way happily.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, given that he has named me. May I ask him why the previous Government—including his colleague the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him and who was the Minister responsible at the time—actively headhunted the individual in question and added him to the shortlist? [Interruption.] They can shake their heads all they like, but that is true.

[Mr French]

The Secretary of State has, either deliberately or not deliberately, just misled the House. The gentleman in question—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The gentleman in question has already said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I understand that the shadow Minister may not have meant to say that the Secretary of State has deliberately misled the House; he may want to clarify that.

[Mr French]

I will reflect on that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] And I withdraw it. [Interruption.] I have said that I withdraw it; I do not know what the problem is. Members can scream and shout all they want, but the reality is that in the Select Committee, the chair in question said very clearly that he had been approached by civil servants, not by the then Minister in question. The Minister in question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has already said on the Floor of the House that he did not approach the said gentleman. Perhaps the Secretary of State would also like to reflect on her comments. There is a revolving door of vested interests ready to leap in. We would not let the chairman of a rival club—[Interruption.] You are already under investigation; I am not sure you want to make it worse. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why let—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure the shadow Minister did not mean to infer that I was under investigation.

[Mr French]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. You are not under investigation, but the Secretary of State and the Government are. That is a matter of public record. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why would we let people with political or commercial conflicts of interest sit at the very top of this new football referee? My amendments to schedule 2 are basic due diligence: they would mean no party hacks in the chair and full declarations of conflicts of interest, to avoid the mess that this Government have got themselves into. Amendment 18 would put a stop to the cronyism once and for all, and give the public proper transparency. It is not radical; it is responsible. If we do not accept it, the regulator will fail before the first whistle blows.

16:00

We have re-tabled new clauses that we still believe would strengthen the Bill. Let me begin with the welfare of players past and present, who run on to the pitch every weekend and give us great entertainment. We cannot ignore the fact that, for too long, the welfare of players has too often been an afterthought once the final whistle blows and the crowds go home. New clause 10 calls for the Secretary of State to conduct within one year of this Bill passing a serious review of how we can better protect players past, present and future. The new clause does not dictate solutions; it demands a serious, evidence-led review. It asks the Secretary of State to bring together the governing bodies, medical experts, clubs and players to ensure that the beautiful game does not come at the cost of the minds and bodies of those who play it. We hope the Government listen.

Last but certainly not least, our new clause 1 would require the Government to consult on calling full-time on the two-tier approach to football fans. The alcohol ban, which has been in place since 1985, was introduced to help curb hooliganism on the terraces during the problematic era of British football. Forty years on, and with the modern game enjoying a more family-friendly atmosphere in stadiums across the country, clubs, fans and the Conservatives are urging the Government to consult on lifting the ban on alcohol. As football fans know, the legacy ban sees fans rushing to drink their beer before kick-off and at half-time. This often leads to fans being delayed on entering stadiums, and to overcrowding on concourses. We have listened to clubs and fans, especially those lower down the football pyramid, and urge the Government to end the two-tier approach to football fans as part of this Bill. New clause 1 has support across this House, and we hope it will be supported today.

We are all here today because we care about English football, but there are fundamental differences between us on the Opposition Benches, who want the Bill to be delivered in a light-touch way, and the Government’s heavy-handed political regulator. I stand here today because I want to see football succeed, not nationalised by stealth. We want clubs to be safeguarded from dodgy owners, but not strangled in red tape. We want fans to have a real say, not ticked off on a form buried in a filing cabinet. We want inclusion that works, not paperwork that gathers dust. Above all, we want football to remain what it has always been: something built by the people and for the people, not the political classes.

Good regulation can help the referee to blow the whistle when rules are broken, but it should not dictate every pass, every tackle and every free kick. The amendments in my name seek to limit the damage caused by this Bill. They park the bus against political overreach, and let football play on. If, like me, hon. and right hon. Members really love football, the muddy pitches, the terraces and the songs that never change, by all means blow the whistle on the bad owners. However, we must also call time on Ministers who think they can better run leagues from Westminster.

Football does not belong to the Government. It belongs to the people who stand shoulder to shoulder in the stands, win or lose. Let us do right by them today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I am pleased to be responding on Report as the Football Governance Bill enters its final stages in the House of Commons. I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Liverpool’s Diogo Jota, who tragically lost his life last week at just 28 years of age, alongside his brother. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to their loved ones.

English football is one of our proudest traditions. It is more than just a game. Football brings us together, providing a source of local pride and uniting us in victory and in loss. The premier league, the EFL and the national league attract some of the best players in the world. In return, we find fans of English football clubs in almost every country. However, despite the global success story of English football, there are underlying fragilities in the game, and this Labour Government are committed to tackling them, as we are the party on the side of football fans. We have seen too many instances of irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation casting a shadow over too many clubs, as fans of Bury, Derby County and countless others know all too well. The current issues at Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe need resolving now, and they demonstrate the urgent need for this Bill to become law.

This change has been a long time coming, dating back in this place to the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee report of 2011. The ill-fated super league attempt led, of course, to the fan-led review, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, who pioneered that work.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions that Conservative Minister, and Tory Members basically wrote the vast majority of this Bill, but then they decided to vote against it. I am confused about that, but could she explain to me why they think this is a socialist Bill and that football is being nationalised? I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

“I hope that whoever wins the election on 4 July will see this as a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for whom I have huge respect and affection. That brings me on to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the amendments standing in his name.

Amendment 14 is on the issue of listing in primary legislation the competitions in scope of regulation. The approach in this Bill is consistent with similar sports legislation. The Opposition’s amendment would be likely to make this a hybrid Bill, which would mean years of delay, in effect killing off the Bill that they introduced and which was in their manifesto. We have been absolutely clear that the regulator will be operationally independent of Government. It will not exert any influence on the Football Association’s autonomy to govern the game.

The shadow Minister is obsessed with the publication of private communications with UEFA and FIFA. Despite his obsession and what I would say were his quite strong remarks about me at the Dispatch Box, did his Government publish private correspondence? No, of course they did not. I have been very clear throughout that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill as it is currently drafted.

Amendment 25 is simply scaremongering on the part of the Opposition. It is also curiously at odds with one of their other amendments—amendment 21. The football governance statement, which was also in the previous Government’s Bill, allows the Government of the day to set out their priorities for the regulator. This is no different from the strategic steers that the Government can and do give to other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, without undermining their operational independence. The statement will be published and laid before Parliament. Parliamentary approval is neither appropriate nor necessary, especially given the need to avoid political interference.

Amendments 24 and 28 on levy exemptions are simply not needed. The cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs and costs should be transparent, as set out in clause 54. The regulator already has the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy through its levy rules.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

We had a long discussion in Committee about assessing how much this regulator was going to cost and how big it was going to be, but all the amendments we put forward were voted down. When will the Minister know that this thing has grown too big and costs too much?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on the Bill Committee. He is right that we had a very good debate, and the impact assessment was of course approved by the previous Minister for Sport.

On amendment 18, the governance code on appointments is clear that political activity is not a bar to appointment. David Kogan has been found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and has now been endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, adding a further layer of robustness. We will not set a new precedent with the football regulator by going further than the governance code on appointments, as the amendment proposes. More broadly, on amendments 19 and 20 on conflicts of interest, if the interests of a board or expert panel member might prejudice their ability to carry out their functions, the Bill already captures that as a conflict of interest.

On the owners and directors test, membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Such offences would already be considered when testing an individual’s fitness, so amendment 15 is not required.

On amendment 17 on the corporate governance code, reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Clubs will simply have to state what they are doing on the issue.

On amendment 27 on club charities, I know from my area of Barnsley the brilliant work that the Barnsley FC Community Trust does. Through changes made in the other place, the corporate governance code gives a club the flexibility to detail what action it is taking to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. That can include the work of the club’s official charity or wider work in the community, so the amendment is not needed.

New clause 1 calls for a consultation on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which focuses on the sustainability of clubs and the game overall. I have raised the issue with the Home Office, which is the policy lead, as I committed to doing in Committee.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) that we do need to look at alcohol sales, but that we need to do it with all stakeholders in the round—not just throw it in as a gimmick to this Bill, which is about finance and governance?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have reflected those comments to the relevant Home Office Minister, as I said.

I will turn to the amendments in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I thank him for his constructive approach to the scrutiny of the legislation and for his party’s support. Several of his amendments are outside the scope of the regulator, but I am sure that he will put on record some important and valid points.

On free-to-air TV in new clause 3, the Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between giving access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against investment, and not risk it.

On new clause 4 on the golden share, we expect that the regulator will welcome clubs taking any measure to improve fan engagement and protect club heritage, including a golden share, but it will not mandate them to do so. That brings me on to the issue of fan engagement, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in their amendments. Let me be really clear: the Government have strengthened fan engagement. The previous Government’s Bill required clubs to have a framework in place to ensure that they regularly meet and consult with a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club and other issues of importance to supporters. We have improved that by requiring fan engagement to continue even if a club enters into insolvency, and by introducing a requirement for consultation on ticket prices. We have not prescribed a fixed, one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. We of course expect the regulator to consult the Football Supporters’ Association where appropriate on fan issues, and I know the shadow regulator is already engaging with it. We do not want to place an unmanageable burden on clubs unnecessarily, which is why new clause 4 is not needed.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham has also tabled amendments on protections for home grounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has also raised and we have recently discussed. Home grounds are vital assets for clubs, which is why the Bill introduces protections to prevent inappropriate stadium sales and relocations. Clauses 46 and 48 require a club to get approval from the regulator before they sell or relocate their stadium.

On the sale of a home ground, let me first clarify that the legislation uses the term “disposal” rather than “sale” for technical legal reasons. For example, a club might sell a portion of the stadium, rather than the whole stadium. That is because a club might divest a shareholding, or transfer interest, in the stadium without it amounting to a full sale. Under clause 46, the regulator’s approval is needed in all instances for the sale of a stadium by a club. A sale can be approved only if it would not undermine the sustainability of the club. If a sale might mean that the club will have nowhere to play a few years down the line, that means the club may not be sustainable and the regulator is unlikely to approve the sale.

[Mr Betts]

Does the Minister think that the regulator would take on board the views of fans as part of the process of looking at these matters and having to give approval in the normal way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, absolutely, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

I will move on to the issue of player welfare.

16:14

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The Minister might be just about to say the thing I was going to ask her about, as she has addressed a number of the amendments that my colleagues have tabled, which is the issue of footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions after their time. I am sure she was about to say something about that, in which case I apologise. As she will know, the proportion of footballers suffering from these conditions is significantly greater than the proportion of the general population. Many former footballers—many without the vast incomes that people assume footballers will have had in their careers—are left in a terrible situation, not supported by their clubs or the Premier League. What can the regulator do to get groups like Football Families for Justice the resources they need to support those who suffer having given their lives to the game?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I know that he has worked very hard on this issue. I am hugely sympathetic to the issue of player welfare. It is important to say that the safety, welfare and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.

[Ian Lavery]

Neurodegenerative disease is a real concern of many people in the sport. I am not sure whether it should be part of the governance Bill, despite the fact that it is going to be the biggest socialist nationalised Bill there has ever been in our lifetime. [Laughter.] It is a very serious issue, though. Does my hon. Friend agree that it needs to be looked at, and can she assure me that the Government will do so separately to the Bill, because of the urgency and the fact that people up and down this country at different levels of football are suffering greatly, mainly as a result of heading the ball?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am really grateful for that intervention. Again, I know that my hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on this issue.

I have heard the calls from Members across the House, and indeed from retired footballers, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. The Government are committed to looking further at this issue and supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address the lifelong consequences from concussion, as well as post-career mental health and financial crises. I am afraid that these measures are not within the tight regulatory scope of the Bill, although that does not mean that the Government are not aware and sympathetic to the calls being made on this issue, both in this House and from many former players and their families.

The Bill is focused on the financial sustainability of football clubs up and down the country. Too many fans have watched as their clubs make changes on which they have no say, from selling their stadium and changing club colours to, in the worst case, collapsing under inadequate ownership. This is unacceptable. It is devastating for fans and for local communities.

It is this Bill, delivered by this Labour Government, that will help to protect one of our great sporting assets and ensure that fans can focus on what is happening on the pitch, rather than off it. Today, Members across this House can vote with football fans, or they can vote against them. Today, we can deliver an independent football regulator. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We welcome this Bill, as did Members across the House until a few short months ago. [Laughter.] Indeed, some of those Members even came up with the idea. Like many in the Chamber today, we are disappointed that the consensus remains broken, after an apparent direction from the Leader of the Opposition, and that the Conservatives have chosen to turn their backs on the sustainability of football quite so dramatically—perhaps it is time to sack the manager. While their time in government left much to be desired, the Conservatives had the chance to claim a statement win today. After all, as I said, this Bill was their idea: Dame Tracey Crouch initiated the fan-led review, and the previous Government started this process.

Now, however, the Conservatives have spectacularly missed an open goal, much like Ronnie Rosenthal at Villa Park in 1992. If I was generous, I would say their performance on this Bill has been like Man United in 1998—throwing away a massive points lead only to finish with nothing. Instead, I fear for the shadow Minister that they are more like Spurs in 2016, somehow managing to finish third in a two-horse race—although, I suppose coming third is the sort of result the Conservatives need to get used to.

Throughout this process, we have been clear on our position: we are in favour of the principles of protecting the heritage of our national game, of greater financial sustainability, and of greater fan involvement in the game. We applaud the Government’s approach in delivering that, and we will support the Bill on Third Reading later today, because we remain consistent in our view.

None the less, we think that the Bill could go further. Let me begin with the issue of free-to-air coverage. In new clause 3, we are calling for key fixtures from the domestic football calendar to be made available on free-to-air television. This includes a selection of 10 premier league matches each season, the league cup final and the play-off finals in the championship, league one and league two. As a Charlton Athletic fan, the shadow Minister might have an interest in this one, because his team might make the play-offs one day. These would complement the existing free-to-air marquee events such as the FA cup, the World cup and the Euros. This proposal is neither about undermining private broadcasters, whose viewing figures sadly are already declining, nor about devaluing the broadcasting rights on which clubs rely, which are showing signs of plateauing, despite the addition of so many more live games to broadcast packages. Rather, this is an opportunity for broadcasters and the football leagues to innovate and to consider a more direct route to accessing fans without a paywall.

By introducing more free-to-air games, broadcasters could explore wider sponsorship opportunities tied to larger audiences, generate new appointment-to-view moments, and engage fans who are currently priced out of football not just in the stadium, but on television, too. This approach is already proving successful in other countries. For example, La Liga broadcasts one Spanish top-flight match per week free to air, helping to maintain widespread public engagement with the sport. With the rising cost of living and the growing number of subscription services required to watch live football—now totalling around £700 a year—making more matches available without a paywall would ensure the game remains accessible.

[Mr French]

First, Charlton did reach the play-offs and we were promoted to the championship, so I am happy to correct the record for the hon. Member. But on the broadcasting issue, what cost analysis have the Liberal Democrats done on this issue, given that we know that the premier league and the EFL have already signed broadcast deals with the likes of Sky and others? What is the economic impact for those clubs and leagues?

[Max Wilkinson]

A huge amount of money is already going around in football, and we know that when we get to contract negotiations with the broadcasters and the leagues, these things are chunked up into packages. And when the next contracts are up, this would be one of those packages. I do not see that there would need to be any massive economic impact.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It might seem odd that I, as a Scot, want to intrude in this debate, but the health of English football is valuable to us in Scotland as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that if football is to continue on the current scale, it needs another generation to see it, to love it and to want to take part in it. The only really successful way of doing that is to make it free to air to every household in this country at some point every week.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The point here is that Gen Z and people younger than those in the Chamber today consume sport and media in a very different way. [Interruption.] My pronunciation of Gen Z has been corrected. It turns out that I am out of touch. Those of us in the Chamber today grew up watching football as a 90-minute game on television, many of us on free to air. Today, youngsters will be watching social media clips on TikTok. They will be watching clips of people playing games on computers as well. If we are to get the next generation of fans involved, the easiest way to make sure that they are entertained and that they are engaging is by making football free to air.

[Mr French]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He suggests that there would not be a cost impact on the broadcasting rights, but the Liberal Democrat amendment states that a number of key matches would be required to shown on free-to-air TV channels every season. And as I highlighted in my previous intervention, those broadcasting deals are already in place. Does he not agree, therefore, that if Members were to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment today, that would impact the broadcast deals already in play for the EFL and the premier league.

[Max Wilkinson]

I do not believe that that necessarily has to be the case, but we will see what happens later on if the shadow Minister votes for our new clause.

[Tim Farron]

In response to the shadow Minister’s point, having free-to-air coverage of premier league games puts the sport in the shop window, which is actually more likely to bring money in for non-free-to-air providers. We should also remember what football is all about. It is about community. A live televised football match is a communal event that everybody watches at the same time, and it brings the country together. Having games accessible on television every week would be good for the sport going forward, and it would mean that everyone can have access to football, not only those with money.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would reflect that Members’ interest in this point suggests that we are on to something, as does the interest we have seen in the media today for the amendment.

Turning to fan representation, new clauses 4 and 5 would introduce a mandatory golden share for supporters groups to protect clubs’ assets. The Bill provides some protection against some of the most egregious actions of rogue football club owners, but the golden share concept in new clause 4 would add extra protection for clubs by giving a recognised supporters’ trust or equivalent democratic fan body a formal veto over decisions that could fundamentally alter the identity of their club. Such decisions would include relocating the home ground to somewhere outside the club’s home area, changing the club’s name, altering its primary colours or badge or entering competitions not sanctioned by the FA, the Premier League or the EFL.

The golden share concept was included in the recommendations of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review but appears to have been dropped somewhere along the way. We believe it is time to bring it off the bench, because supporters are more than just paying customers; they are the living, breathing heart of their clubs. They carry the traditions, culture and local identity that connects clubs to their communities. New clause 4 would help to increase accountability and democratic oversight in club ownership and governance. The need for it is obvious when we look at past events. The attempt to rebrand Hull City as Hull Tigers would have been vetoed by fans. A fan-held golden share would have blocked the move of Wimbledon football club to Milton Keynes. The golden share could have stopped Cardiff’s kit being changed from blue to red.

It is entirely right that investors and owners are part of football’s future, and they already have a massive stake in this, but it is just as important to protect the people who built the clubs and supported them through thick and thin. The golden share offers a fair balance of power that protects heritage and ensures that fans are not sidelined by reckless or profit-driven decision. That is at the heart of the aims of the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

This is my third intervention and I have not yet mentioned Blackburn Rovers—I will now break that duck. Would the golden share allow fans to veto something like Blackburn Rovers’ outrageous decision to cease funding for their women’s football team? It meant that the team dropped from the championship down to a league several layers below, simply because the owners—Venky’s—disgracefully decided that they no longer wanted to pay for a women’s team.

[Max Wilkinson]

Women’s football is outside the scope of the Bill, but I believe that the golden share concept would cover that sort of decision. I agree that what has happened to the Blackburn Rovers women’s team is a total disgrace.

Turning to new clause 7, our national game is something we all take immense pride in. Football is one of the cornerstones of British culture, and it should never be used by individuals or regimes to cleanse their reputations or distract from human rights abuses. That is why we have tabled an amendment aimed at strengthening ownership rules for football clubs. Prospective owners and directors should face clear and enforceable tests that include human rights considerations. The tests would help to safeguard not only the values that underpin our national sport, but the liberal and democratic principles that we as a country and all of us in this House stand for.

It cannot be right that we welcome with open arms those who preside over oppressive regimes or are linked to activity that potentially breaches the values we hold so dear. If a football club’s owners are linked to actions that breach international law, can we really say that our national game or this country should be hosting them? We think not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 7.

On player welfare, which has been mentioned, amendment 3 would provide support for former professional footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions. While broken bones and torn ligaments can be fixed, the long-term effects of repeated head trauma often go unnoticed. Kevin Moore, Chris Nicholl, Nobby Stiles and others gave their best years to the sport, and it is a disgrace that many of them are now left facing devastating illnesses without the support that they need. Our amendment would require the football industry to allocate a small share of its considerable wealth to those affected. I also want to acknowledge the work of Michael Giles, John Stiles and the Football Families for Justice. That work must be recognised here today.

Finally, I turn to the issue of gambling in football, covered in new clause 2. Gambling-related harm is widespread and deeply damaging. Fans watching football today are bombarded with adverts encouraging betting—from TV commercials to shirt sponsorships. The influence of gambling in football has become overwhelming and dangerous. Gambling firms spend about £1.5 billion a year on advertising, much of it directed at football fans. It is unacceptable that football fans are having their game irrevocably linked to that trade.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I am afraid that I have to make some progress. The losses are not just financial; they lead to mental health crises, family breakdown and even suicide. Public Health England estimates that there are around 400 gambling-related suicides annually. We are not calling for a ban on gambling, but on gambling advertising in football. Football must sever the link between the game and gambling.

This Bill is an important step forward for our national game and we welcome it. The beautiful game needs its defenders, not just on the pitch but in Parliament. We must make the game more accessible to fans, protect club heritage and ensure democratic fan representation. We must prevent the sport from being exploited by corrupt regimes, support retired players suffering from neurological diseases and stand up to the gambling industry’s grip on our national sport. That is for the sake of the fans and for fairness, but more importantly, for the future of our national game. Our amendments would do all that and I hope that Members across the House, as well as Ministers, will consider them today and in future. As we are discussing new clause 1, I finish by saying that we will vote for it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Starting with an immediate 6-minute time limit, I call Chris Evans.

16:30

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by declaring an interest: I am the biographer of Don Revie, the former Leeds and England manager, and the author of “The Football Battalions” about the footballers who went to war. I echo the tribute from the Front Bench to Diogo Jota, whose life was lost last week. He lit up the premier league for both Liverpool and Wolves, and we realise how short life is when we think about how he celebrated his wedding just 11 days earlier and about the three children he leaves behind. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for doing so well when he was the right hon. Member for Pudsey in constructing the Bill when in government. It is a shame that he does not agree with his former self.

The Bill was born out of the fan-led review, but when we talk about a Football Governance Bill, footballers need to be at the heart of it. It is players who quicken the pulse and it is they who provide the memories that we cherish forever, from childhood right through to now—the memories that we pass on to our children. I therefore speak in favour of new clause 13, which I have tabled, relating to a neurodegenerative care scheme and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Just as fans are to be at the heart of the review, the game would be nothing without the players. I broadly support the Bill, but it can be made better, and if it can be made better, we should do that.

The discourse surrounding the Bill is often about the independent football regulator being a safeguard for both fans and clubs, but it should also be a safeguard for ex-players and their families if neurological conditions or illnesses are most likely caused by their career in football. Unfortunately, the Bill neglects ex-players and families who are affected by conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. They must be supported through the creation of the independent football regulator.

It is evident that the effects of a career in football are long-lasting. Footballers are four to five times more likely to die from neurodegenerative conditions, often the result of persistently heading the ball. The independent football regulator must supervise and establish a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care.

Players and their families dedicate themselves to the game and its dangers, and it is only fair that they are looked after in return. It should not be only their burden to bear, especially after contributing so much to our society. As has already been said, football generates £8 billion annually, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend—we hosted a Football Families for Justice event a few months ago. Most people are not aware that not all footballers make thousands and thousands of pounds a week. This is the least that we can do to ensure that the pleasure that they have given us is responded to when they find themselves afflicted with a neurological condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s. I hope that the Government will listen and support the new clause.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. What brought this home to me about how much players were earning was when Johnny Giles, the great Leeds midfielder of the 1960s and ’70s, showed me his first contract from when he was playing for Manchester United: £18 in the winter and £12 in the summer. That sums up how much they were paid. A point that came up at that important meeting, which was attended by luminaries including Kevin Keegan, Chris Sutton, Paul Walsh and Barry Fry, was the complaints about the Professional Footballers Association. When I raised this on Second Reading, I was bombarded with emails from its public affairs arm saying, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” but the question needs to be asked. It is the PFA’s members who are complaining about it and saying that it is not servicing them properly. It should be asking why that is happening. These are PFA members who have paid into its funds over the years, and if they are not being treated well, questions need to be answered.

According to new clause 13, the Secretary of State must set out the minimum requirements for the scheme, a timescale for the scheme’s establishment and arrangements and a timescale for periodic review of the scheme. Furthermore, all specified competition organisers should jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme through the formation of a joint co-ordinating committee. Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer would be eligible for the scheme.

To me, this goes beyond football. If research is discovered that helps dementia, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease, the rest of society wins. This is something that football can lead and change society with. This scheme will provide crucial care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition that is deemed to have been caused by or contributed to by playing football. A panel of independent experts must be appointed to determine whether a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused by, or contributed to by, playing or training activities within the English football leagues. It will also determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in each case. The independent football regulator must ensure that the joint co-ordinating committee acts on the panel’s determinations, to ensure that ex-players and their families get the support they need.

This is a matter of urgency. Ex-players who have given so much joy should be treated with dignity and respect, and supported when they need to be. This new clause would ensure that. I pay tribute to campaigners including Michael Giles, son of Johnny, and John Stiles, son of Nobby. They have campaigned with dignity and respect and with a quiet determination, and it is time we showed the same respect to them. Denying or ignoring the link between football and neurological conditions is no longer sufficient. Recently we lost Alan Peacock, who starred for Middlesbrough and Leeds in the 1960s. He can be added to the long list of names, including Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton, his brother, who died of dementia; Martin Peters; Ray Wilson; and, of course, Nobby Stiles. The connection between football and neurological conditions acquired later in life must be addressed in this Bill, and if it is not, it must be addressed somewhere else.

This Government, especially a Labour Government, should treat injuries caused by or contributed to by football like any other workplace or industrial injury, and that is what my new clause would ensure. We on this side are the party for workers, and regardless of the industry, it is our job to support and protect them, especially as their union, in their words, lets them down. Since football has contributed so much to our economy and, more personally, to fans’ happiness, it is only common decency to support players when they are in need. This cannot be ignored any longer. Not only must support be provided, but the independent football regulator must be there for them.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I rise today to speak to the new clauses in my name and to lend my support to several of the other new clauses. Some have already been spoken about by my hon. Friends across the House. New clause 6 is about financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud and about protecting players. New clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has just spoken about, deals with neurodegenerative care schemes.

Football should never be a luxury. It should be a shared national experience, accessible to families, young people and lifelong fans, but more and more it is becoming a commodity. A game that was built by and for the working class is now priced out of reach for the very people who gave it life. If I wanted to attend the first Premier League game in August, I would be looking at paying over £200 for two tickets on the secondary market. That is before travel, food and all the rising living costs are factored in. Even in ordinary times, that is a huge sum and for most people, it is simply unaffordable. Football is becoming a luxury experience, not a communal one. Historically, football thrived because it was accessible. Its rise alongside the expansion of the railway network allowed working people to follow their teams home and away. It became more than just a sport; it became a pillar of community identity and pride.

Fans—the heartbeat of the sport—are being pushed to the margins. Our current ticketing system is pricing them out. That is why I have tabled new clause 8, which would introduce a duty on clubs and competition organisers to ensure fairer access and great transparency in ticket sales, especially in reselling tickets when fans are not able to attend. We are seeing ticket prices skyrocket while secondary ticketing platforms exploit demand and rake in obscene profits. The new clause would compel clubs to monitor the secondary market, report harmful practices and offer resale channels to stop fans getting ripped off and scammed. Fans should know the real face value of a ticket and have a safe, fair way to buy and resell them—no more profiteering or shadowy resale platforms. The price of attending premier league games is beyond the means of most fans, even more so if they want to share that experience with family members.

I should declare an interest as a lifelong Liverpool fan, and I offer my condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother who tragically died recently. While I may be biased in thinking that it is the greatest club in the world, I also say with pride that Liverpool has shown what fan-focused leadership looks like. The club recently froze ticket prices for the 2025-26 season following discussions with the supporters board. That model of engagement and sensitivity to supporters deserves recognition, but not every club takes that approach, and that is exactly the problem. We want to see this culture rolled out across the country, one where fans are not an afterthought but at the centre of decision making. My new clause would make that approach a requirement, not just a gesture of goodwill.

That leads me to my second proposal, new clause 14, which would introduce mandatory vetting of foreign financial investment in football. It is about protecting the soul of English football from the corrosive influence of dirty money. We have seen at first hand how vulnerable clubs struggling under massive debts become easy targets for opportunistic investors looking to launder their reputations or gain geopolitical influence. I have raised this before: sportswashing is now one of the most insidious trends in football. Where once the term might have brought to mind the 1936 Berlin Olympics or the 2015 Baku European games, today the UK is at the top of that list. That should shame us.

I repeat the example I gave in my speech on Second Reading of Abramovich’s ownership of Chelsea. While it was seen as a huge success for the club, his ties to the Russian state and his close relationship with Putin should have raised huge financial and ethical concerns, but these were overlooked. For years, he used our game to rebrand himself, shifting attention away from questions about the origins of his fortune, but it was only following the invasion of Ukraine that real action was enforced. That shows exactly why we need stronger safeguards to prevent that from happening again.

The new clause would empower the independent football regulator to block investment from funds linked to money laundering, criminal finance, human rights abuses or any breaches of UK or international law. That is the bare minimum. If Amnesty International or other watchdogs have flagged a state or source of funds for its abysmal human rights record, there should be red flags, not red carpets, for the potential owner. Let us be honest: fans sometimes embrace foreign investment out of desperation, but the independent football regulator should protect the game from nefarious funds and owners. This is not about bad actors; it is about a broken system. Club owners may not see the need for regulation. We are protecting not just finances but values. If this Bill and the independent regulator fail to stop the abuse of our football institutions by criminal or oppressive regimes, they will have failed in their public duty.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I call Clive Betts.

[Mr Betts]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—not for the time limit but for calling me.

The Bill is crucial because football has failed to regulate itself. It is key to ensuring the sustainability of our great game. The first aspect of it that I really commend is the move to give the regulator powers to ensure a fairer redistribution of money throughout the football pyramid—it is clearly totally unfair that money is concentrated in a handful of clubs at the top while other clubs struggle at the bottom—and to remove the enormous cliff edge between the premier league and the championship. I thank the Secretary of State and the Sport Minister for listening to the concerns raised about the powers of the regulator with regard to the backstop. In improving the backstop in terms of scope and process during the Bill’s passage, they have listened and acted, which is welcome indeed.

16:45

The other aspect of the Bill that addresses sustainability is that it will now give the regulator powers to deal with bad owners—not just at first instance when they are buying the club, but once they are in charge of it. I thank the Minister for writing to me and clearly setting out the powers that the regulator will have to deal with owners who no longer seem able to run a club properly, by intervening and taking responsibility for the club away from them. It would be helpful to put that letter in the public domain and the Library.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

Despite being a lifelong Barnsley supporter, I am still grateful to my hon. Friend for hosting the Sheffield Wednesday supporters’ trust yesterday and for his leadership on this issue. What was reflected back to us by the supporters’ trust is how unfair the current situation is. Clubs—and therefore the fans—are punished when irresponsible owners like the current owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Chansiri, behave appallingly and do not put the fans first.

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will turn in a second to what the EFL can do now.

For all that the Minister has been helpful in explaining what the regulator’s powers will be, the problem is that we are left in the meantime without a regulator and doubts about what the EFL can do in that regard. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) will be very much involved with the Reading supporters’ trust and can tell us all the problems that they have experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) has similar problems with her club. There have been similar problems for Derby and its fans, as hon. Friends will know, and the Secretary of State will know about Wigan.

The situation at Sheffield Wednesday is dire. The owner has failed to pay wages for three months over the course of this year. That affects not just the players—some of whom may be well off, while others are not; the administrative staff, clerks and all those people have not been paid for two months in some cases. The owner has not paid His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on two occasions. It is clear that he is simply running out of money.

What actions can the EFL take? We welcome the investigation that it is now conducting into what is going on at Hillsborough, but it is clear that although Chansiri was funding the club to the tune of about £10 million a year, he has now run out of money. Rob Brookes of the Wednesday supporters’ trust has done a brilliant analysis of Chansiri’s companies in Thailand, which are, by and large, now losing money. He is not able to fund the club, so where has the money been coming from to keep it going for the past two or three years? Has he borrowed it? If so, who has he borrowed it from? What are the conditions on that borrowing? Are the people who lent him the money now effectively running the club and telling Chansiri that he cannot sell it? He has turned down many approaches to sell the club and is demanding ridiculous prices for it. Has the money been borrowed from reputable sources? I do not know; I am not making an accusation. The only person who can clarify this awful situation is Mr Chansiri himself, but he will not comment on it.

We welcome the EFL investigation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) says, we want the EFL to find out what is happening, and to be transparent and open about what it knew about the whole issue. Why, when Chansiri produced a business plan in March, did the EFL accept it? How far did it question that plan? Having given the EFL a business plan saying that he was financially sustainable, he failed to pay wages hours later. He had two five-hour engagements with the fans and never once mentioned his problems funding the club.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, what we do not want is for the EFL to come in and its only actions be to punish the club with transfer embargoes and points deductions to the point where a sustainable sale to someone else is not possible. I say to the EFL: you are the only hope we have until the regulator comes in, so please work with the fans’ trust and others to find the best way forward. Tell us what you knew and what you know now, and expose what Chansiri has been doing, because it is an absolute disgrace that a club of Sheffield Wednesday’s stature should be reduced to this situation.

We have heard today that, because of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, Sheffield city council has issued a directive that unless work is done on the north stand roof, it will close part of the ground come the start of the season, but the club has known about that for three years. This is an appalling situation. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to talk to the EFL about how far they can work with them to save the situation.

I welcome the Minister for Sport’s letters to me, the commitment to fan engagement and the commitment on the FSA’s role going forward, but the regulator must have the powers to intervene if it feels that external competitions such as the club world cup interfere with our domestic competitions. I thank her very much for her engagement right through this process.

[Bobby Dean]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), specifically new clauses 3 and 4.

I will start by outlining why these fan-centric measures are important to this particular fan and why football is important to me. Football has been the most constant thing in my life. When I was a young boy, my uncle called me Statto because I used to study Teletext for every bit of football information I could get—the league tables, the top scorers, all the transfer news—and relay it to my family until I annoyed the hell out of all of them. Football was also the central bond with my grandparent, or Pops, as I used to know him—so much so that when he passed, I took his ashes down the Tottenham High Road and laid them in the foundations of the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium. Football is probably the most frequent conversation I have with my dad and the thing that glues all my friendship networks together.

I have to confess that being a politician was not my first career choice. Just like every young boy, I thought I could be a footballer. Despite hours of effort after school every day, I was never going to be good enough. But I never gave up; I played football throughout my university years and formed many friendships that way. After that, we did not want to stop, so we set up an alumni football club together and carried on. Eventually, I joined Carshalton football club, whose club tie I am wearing today, and I still play on a Saturday, except for the weekends when I am injured. Those moments in Beddington park playing for Carshalton football club are some of the only moments when I get to switch off from all this—my teammates would probably say that I also switch off too much on a Saturday when the winger runs past me!

Then there is the watching of football—the lunacy of me continuing to watch. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker: the journey from Carshalton to Tottenham and back on a rainy Tuesday night is brutal, particularly when we lose the number of games that Tottenham lost this year. Yet in the same season when I have had all that misery, I had one night in Bilbao last month that was probably one of the best nights of my life. Isn’t that just football—misery and sublime nights like that all in one go?

The centrality of football to people’s lives is what makes this Bill so important. People have felt in recent years that the game has drifted away from them, and some people’s reaction is to say, “That’s the way it is.” I am glad that, through the Bill, the Government are saying that we will not be resigned to that fact—we are going to fight, stop that drift and bring it closer to fans again.

That brings me to new clause 4, which is about the golden share. This is particularly important because it would lock in the fans’ voice via democratically elected organisations. That would mean that clubs would not be able to simply pay lip service to the element of consultation with fans; there would be real power for the fans, with their presence inside the clubs. Of course, this does not go anywhere near as far as other countries, like Germany with the Bundesliga, but it is an important protection.

We spoke at length earlier about new clause 3 and the free-to-air element. I understand why there is a bit of controversy around that and why the Secretary of State will say that the current listings system works well. But who do it work well for? It certainly works well for the premier league, but I am not sure whether it works well for all fans. The new clause would not go as far as la liga, which broadcasts a game every single week. Let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about 10 games out of 760 available—that would be 1% of games. I do not think that would destroy the premier league’s product, but it would make games so much more accessible to the next generation of fans. The premier league is a global attraction, but it is also England’s product, and English fans should be able to watch those games.

There are other elements of the Bill that I could go on to support, but I am short on time, so I will just express my support for new clause 1, which is important. I end with this quote from a famous Tottenham manager, Bill Nicholson:

“We must always consider our supporters, for without them there would be no professional football. It would be better to have more fans watching football the way they like it played, rather than have a few fans watching football the way we would like it played.”

Those are important words that we should all reflect on when voting today.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. We stood on a manifesto that promised to establish an independent regulator to ensure financial sustainability for football clubs in England. Today we will be delivering on that promise for football fans across the country, regardless of the club they support; of course, Doncaster Rovers are the only team worth noting.

Doncaster Rovers unite the community in my constituency and hold a special place in all our hearts. In fact, local artist Martin Black will soon release a song for charity called “This is my city”, which is about community spirit and the hometown pride that stems from supporting your local team. It encapsulates what grassroots football really means.

The Government recognise the importance of fans in the football industry and are putting them at the heart of the game once more. As we have heard, fans should never risk losing their beloved club because of financial instability stemming from mismanagement and reckless spending. However, I would like to highlight the need to support football players from all leagues after their careers.

John Stiles, son of the 1966 legend Nobby Stiles, is one of my constituents. I first met John in one of my earliest surgeries—not long after I was elected—to discuss his involvement with the Football Families for Justice campaign, which, as we have heard, focuses on supporting ex-footballers and their families when they face devastating neurodegenerative disease as a result of their football careers. I pay tribute to John for all the work he has done on the campaign; he has really been a leader in the area.

Research shows that ex-footballers are four or five times more likely to suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, motor neurone disease and other similar diseases. Unfortunately, that was the case for Nobby. The PFA has been mentioned, so for the sake of time I will not go into it any further, but it is saddening that an industry with such a vast amount of wealth offers so little support to ex-footballers when they face unforeseen health impacts resulting from their time on the pitch.

I understand that the Bill’s scope means that some of the suggested changes are not currently in the legislation, but I ask the Minister and the Department to give further thought to the adequacy of support provided to ex-footballers and their families when they face neurodegenerative diseases. As has been said, not all footballers are earning millions of pounds every year; in fact, many earn very little and have relatively short careers in the context of their lives.

The football industry is carried on the skill and sacrifice of its players as well as its fans. It is disappointing that the industry does not really recognise that. If even only a small proportion of wealth in the industry was made more easily accessible to players and supported ex-professionals, that would go a long way to delivering justice for those players and their loved ones. I hope to continue my engagement with the Minister and the Department on this matter. However, I welcome this Bill and the fact that it will ensure a consistent approach in how clubs are run by implementing a club licensing regime and tackling rogue owners and directors. I am pleased that the Bill has the support of Club Doncaster in my constituency. On its behalf, I remind the Minister of the importance of ensuring that the regulator provides objective and competent oversight of the football governance model. Clubs and their system deserve financial sustainability to protect the heritage of English football.

Football is part of our culture and history. With the recent and well-deserved promotion of Donny Rovers, I am pleased that this Government are taking steps to protect its legacy and its future.

17:00

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 13 and amendment 29 on behalf of one of my constituents, the former Arsenal and Leeds goalkeeper John Lukic. I am grateful to John for bringing to my attention the growing number of ex-players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a form of dementia caused by repeatedly heading the ball.

Research shows that retired footballers are more than three times more likely to suffer from dementia than the general population. CTE is a progressive and irreversible disease that leaves individuals suffering from memory loss and unable to carry out basic day-to-day activities. As a result, those around them often become their carers and have to endure watching their loved ones gradually lose their memories and independence. The modern game is awash with money; the Premier League’s latest TV deal is worth £6.7 billion. Despite the huge sums of money available, only £1 million has to date been committed to supporting players suffering from neurodegenerative diseases.

As we have already heard a few times, the situation has left former players, such as world cup winner Nobby Stiles, having to sell their medals to fund their care. While footballers have always been paid comparatively well, the players from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s earned nothing like the sums that modern stars are paid, and their careers were short. It is worth highlighting that this issue may not go away: although footballs are not as heavy as they used to be, they now travel faster, meaning that the overall impact of heading a ball can be similar.

I therefore support these measures in solidarity with Football Families for Justice, which I join in calling for legislation to be enacted that will ensure competition organisers are required to provide funding towards a neurodegenerative care scheme. Unfortunately, unless competition organisers are made to do it, the belief is that they will not. Just as the Football Governance Bill seeks to protect fans from profit-driven ventures such as the creation of new super leagues, it is right that the Bill should also protect the players who gave so much to make the game what it is.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said on this matter. We rightly hear that football is nothing without the fans, but the fans turn out only for the players. Football needs to support them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), on bringing the Bill to this point. I also congratulate them on listening to arguments about how we treat the vast resources that come in through TV deals and distribute them throughout the football pyramid, particularly in giving the regulator powers over parachute payments, if he deems it necessary—I sincerely hope he will—if we do not get an agreement between the English Football League and the Premier League. Those payments really distort competition, particularly in the championship. That needed to be addressed in this Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on doing that.

I support the new clause and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). They deal with how we identify the people who really began this journey: the sports fans. This started with the super league and the fans’ reaction to it. They are determined to stop clubs from breaking away from the premier league and forming a super league with other clubs from across the globe. The reaction of fans shocked the Conservative Government at the time into action; they could not really resist. The power of fans has brought us to this point. We need to understand how we can identify fans—bona fide supporters of a club—and consult them on how we regulate the game going forwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is attempting to do that through some of his amendments.

My hon. Friend has identified another very important factor, which is how we prevent assets being attractive to those people who look to take over a club, not because they are interested in football in any way but because they see assets of value from which they can make money. By running clubs into the ground, they seek to make a profit from those assets. Through the “asset of community value” powers or something similar, my hon. Friend is trying to prevent that from happening. If his amendments are not accepted or voted on tonight, I would certainly commend them to the regulator, who I hope will take heed of what my hon. Friend is attempting to achieve.

One other amendment I added my name to is new clause 1, because I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), is on to something. Why do we treat other sports differently from football—why is football singled out? Well, I think we know the story of that, but it has been a long time since the issue of alcohol at football grounds has been looked at. There is nothing unreasonable about asking clubs and the football community to look at whether we can relax those rules in certain circumstances, so that where clubs want to do it, they can do it, and should do so in partnership with their fans. A review of that issue would not be a bad thing at all.

This Bill is a giant leap forward for football in this country. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for what they have achieved, and I wish the Bill a fair wind.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an immense privilege to rise once again to support this important Bill during its passage through Parliament. I want to draw particular attention to amendments 10 and 11, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Those amendments would require a club’s home ground to be designated as an asset of community value as part of its operating licence. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister during her opening speech about the safeguards that are already in the Bill to protect home grounds.

A club’s stadium is more than its stands, plastic seats, some turf and the woodwork. It has a spirit; it is part of the club’s identity. It has memories—highs and lows—soaked up in its walls. We must protect these important assets for the communities they mean so much to. In many cases, a club’s stadium is inherently bound up with the place that surrounds it, and can form a link between the sport and the identity of the town or city it sits in. Crewe Alexandra’s home ground, the Mornflake stadium, is named after an iconic historic local milling business and producer of breakfast foods founded in 1675, and is overlooked by the railway lines that gave birth to the town. Similarly, Nantwich Town FC’s stadium sits on the banks of the River Weaver, which literally connects the club to the town centre and beyond.

I strongly believe that we can and should go further to strengthen the links between clubs and communities, which is why I was delighted recently to join Stuart Price, Trevor Griffiths and Aaron Lewis on the fantastic “Railwaymen” podcast, a dedicated fans’ podcast for Crewe Alexandra FC. We discussed exactly how we might strengthen those links, working together in partnership. I am delighted to be working closely with the podcast and other key stakeholders in the town to commission a mural to the club, which could act as a bridge between the stadium and the town centre. Although it is early days for that project, I extend an early invitation to visit to the Secretary of State and the Minister—who has only just been in my constituency to open a boxing gym, but is always welcome to come back—if we are successful in commissioning that mural.

Finally, it is a great shame that the Conservative party and Reform have thus far joined forces to try to frustrate the progress of this Bill. As the shadow Minister is indicating, Reform Members are once again not even in the Chamber, although I have to say that there are not many Members on the Conservative Benches either. Our game needs an independent football regulator, the Football League needs it, and I believe the Premier League needs it too.

If Opposition Members are in any doubt, I encourage them to read the case for an independent football regulator written by Crewe Alexandra supporter Tom Kural. It sets out in illuminating clarity why this change in the law is needed, and why Members from all parts of the House should be in no doubt that fans in my constituency, and I am sure in theirs, want this change. Before Opposition Members walk through the Lobby tonight, I encourage them to think carefully about what fans like Tom in their constituencies think.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As someone born and raised in Derby, I know how deeply our football club runs through the heart of our city. Derby County is more than just a team; it represents our identity, our pride and the strength of our community. However, like so many in this House, I also know what it feels like when that identity is put at risk. In 2021, Derby County entered administration. The confusion and lack of transparency that followed made it much harder for everybody involved, including those of us working behind the scenes to help secure the club’s future. It was only thanks to the extraordinary actions of local man and lifelong fan, David Clowes, that the club was saved.

One example that highlights the need for stronger oversight is the attempted takeover of Derby County by Chris Kirchner. Despite initial approval, it became clear that Kirchner was not a fit and proper person to run the club. His financial shortcomings and failure to meet deadlines led to the takeover attempt collapsing. Later, Kirchner was convicted of fraud-related charges in the US over his business dealings and sentenced to 20 years in prison. That is why I welcome the Football Governance Bill, which offers the protections that Derby County and so many other clubs across the EFL need.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

While the facial expressions of Opposition Members are worth an intervention all on their own, does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill provides stronger financial oversight and increased fan involvement, promotes equity and inclusion, protects club heritage, and increases transparency and accountability? The reason the Opposition oppose it is because those are alien concepts to them.

[Baggy Shanker]

Absolutely, the faces of Opposition Members say it all. I will talk a little more about the content of the shadow Minister’s speech in a second.

The EFL has needed this Bill, and it wants this Bill. It will establish the independent football regulator, introduce proper financial oversight and finally require clubs to engage seriously with the fans who give the clubs their life. We do not need to look far to see that the problems are ongoing. They are happening in front of our eyes. My own chief of staff is a devoted Sheffield Wednesday fan and is deeply troubled by the instability and uncertainty surrounding her club. Like so many fans, she sees an owner who clearly does not have the resources required to run the club appropriately. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for the work he has done and continues to do to stand up for fans and the future of their beloved Sheffield Wednesday.

This Bill is not just a policy proposal, but a vital step towards a fairer and more sustainable future for our national game. Clubs in the EFL will lose around £450 million this season alone. The level of instability is not just damaging, but dangerous. We have already seen what happens when things go wrong, from Bury to Bolton to Reading. The pattern is clear and it cannot be allowed to continue. The EFL wants this Bill. Most clubs across the English leagues support this Bill. Most importantly, fans want this Bill. I genuinely ask why the Conservatives do not.

What makes it even more frustrating is the political opportunism we are seeing. When in government, the Conservative party brought forward an almost identical Bill to the one we are debating today. Now in opposition, they seem prepared to vote against the Bill not because the policy has changed, but because the politics have changed. That is not leadership; that is putting party before the future of our clubs and the communities that they serve.

The truth is that there is more than enough money in English football to sustain the entire pyramid. The problem is how that money is distributed. Last year, 25 clubs received 92% of the game’s revenue, while 67 other clubs were left to fight over the remaining 8%. The new regulator will have the tools to help fix that and to ensure that clubs are run properly, sustainably and in the best interests of the people they represent. This Bill is a chance to safeguard the heritage, the future and the very soul of English football. I support it proudly on behalf of Derby, and I urge colleagues across the House to do the same. Let us protect the game before it is too late.

17:15

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak today with a sense of relief, because Reading football club has finally been sold. I was one of thousands in the stadium in my constituency during the May bank holiday weekend when we heard that the sale had finally gone through. The relief and joy in the crowd were palpable, and we all chanted, “We’ve got our Reading back.” It was the last game of the season, and because the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is present on the Front Bench, I will not mention the score. As well as the relief about the sale, however, I share fans’ deep frustration, because we should never have had to fight so hard to save our club. I am so glad to welcome a number of Reading fans who are sitting in the Gallery, having travelled to Parliament to witness this historic piece of legislation.

Just a few short months ago, our club—one of the oldest in English football—was on the brink of expulsion from the English football league. Its decline was driven by governance failure, absentee ownership and the ultimate toothlessness of the existing regulation. We were so close to losing our club, not just to relegation but to administration or even insolvency. In the worst weeks, it seemed that I was calling the EFL and prospective bidders and other stakeholders almost every other day trying to find a solution. Thankfully, our club was finally sold, but it could so easily have gone the other way—and for too many clubs, such as Bury and Macclesfield, it has gone the other way.

More than 50 clubs in the top six tiers of the English men’s game have gone into administration since 1992, which shows that the game is in deep need of repair and of independent regulation. Even today clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday suffer from similar issues, and I pay tribute to all my Labour colleagues in that city who are fighting so hard for their club, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and many other Members across the House.

Yet it should not be up to MPs and fans to mount rescue campaigns. Fans should not be the ones organising petitions, staging protests or becoming forensic accountants to hold the owners to account. Yet Reading fans did everything, from marching in the streets to working with Members from across the House. Over 10,000 fans signed my petition to hold an inquiry into Reading’s absent owners, and many came to watch the Westminster Hall debate that I led in March. I even had the assistance of fans when poring over the complex corporate structure of Reading football club in the hope of finding a legal solution. Meanwhile, I relentlessly pestered Ministers, spoke to the EFL, and met the shadow regulator.

I want to say a big thank you to the Sell Before We Dai campaign, the Supporters Trust at Reading, the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, and all the MPs from all parties who worked alongside us. The burden placed on supporters by all this was enormous, emotionally, financially and physically. Fans should not have to go through this: we need stronger and smarter regulation.

As I have said before, any regulator must pass the Reading test. That means having the power to disqualify unfit owners and, crucially, to force a sale when a club’s future is at risk. I thank the Minister for her constructive and serious engagement throughout the Committee consideration. I was especially glad to hear her strong responses to the amendments tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the regulator’s powers to force divestment from unsuitable owners, and, having read her on-the-record responses, I am grateful for her clarification. She explained, for instance, that the regulator may appoint an interim officer to assist a club to operate effectively in the owner’s absence; may require a club to change its constitution if that is the most appropriate way to secure an unsuitable owner’s removal; and may, in the most extreme cases, force a rogue owner to divest at no minimum price, directing that owner to take no part in the running of the club in the meantime. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm those points in her winding-up speech today, to make it clear to all that the Bill does pass the Reading test.

This Bill has been a long time coming, and I thank everyone who worked on it, including those in the previous Government under the leadership of Dame Tracey Crouch and her fan-led review, as well as the previous Secretary of State and Minister for Sport. I am incredibly relieved that the Bill is here, and it reflects the broad cross-society consensus, and what was until very recently a cross-party consensus, that we need this regulation, which is sorely lacking from the game.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. Apparently, 80% of fans support this Bill, but recent polling had the Conservative party at 16%. Does she agree that these facts alone should give Conservative Front Benchers pause for thought before they oppose the Bill?

[Yuan Yang]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am very surprised to see Conservative Front Benchers whipping their colleagues to oppose a Bill that they had previously introduced in part and supported. We had built a cross-society consensus because of the work of Dame Tracey and many others like her, and we should respect that work and the importance of regulating football so that it is financially sustainable.

[Mr French]

Anyone who has read the fan-led review will know that it ultimately suggests that football should be given back to the FA and the leagues themselves. Our position is to accelerate that now, rather than appoint a Labour regulator.

[Yuan Yang]

The approach of the Conservative party here and in the Lords has been to delay this Bill and any progress made on regulation for far too many months, during which my club has struggled to go on without any independent regulation. I would like to see some reflection from Conservative Front Benchers about what that means not just for Reading, but for many clubs that are waiting for the regulator to come in.

Let Reading be one of the last clubs that have to fight this hard to survive, and let this Bill be the turning point. Let us do what the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has said: let us crack on with this Bill.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I had hoped to come to the House today with a spring in my step, having seen the sale of Morecambe FC go through. Instead, Morecambe FC and our town have been put through hell over the past week or so, and we still cannot see the end of it. More than 10 days ago, the EFL approved a buyer, Panjab Warriors, which is ready and willing to buy. Clearance has been granted, and over 14 months-worth of funds—a significant amount—have already been pumped into the football club by the new buyer.

The current owner, Jason Whittingham—operating as the Bond Group—said he was ready to sell, but instead of getting the deal done, he has, for whatever reason, stalled. He has delayed and given excuses, and he has tried to dismiss the board. In fact, it is only through the good intentions of the local board members, and the responsibility that they feel towards Morecambe, that they returned to try to facilitate the sale. But yet again, Jason stalled, so now the board has gone again.

Panjab Warriors, which has already poured a lot of money into the club, has made it clear that everything is ready from its end, but the sale has still not been completed. Most distressingly, staff and players have not been paid their full wages. I have received emails from constituents who work for the club and who are desperately worried about how they will pay their bills. Our local citizens advice bureau and food bank have had to step in, because that is what we do in Morecambe: we look after our own. Tomorrow, the club is due to pay £40,000 in VAT. Unless the sale goes through, there is no way the club can meet this obligation.

Until now, I have restrained myself from using the full extent of parliamentary privilege in this matter, because my focus has been on getting the sale done. I have held my tongue while the EFL went through its due diligence process, and I have implored Jason Whittingham directly to just get on with the sale. But my restraint has not produced the progress that I had hoped for, so I now feel duty bound to use parliamentary privilege to lay out what I see.

I suspect that Jason Whittingham has built a house of cards, and it is now falling down around his ears. There is mention of further unspecified investors, even at this final stage, and there is a suspicion that the club is being used to leverage his personal financial situation. Morecambe FC is being held hostage, and it breaks my heart. Morecambe FC is the cornerstone of our community, and what is happening in Morecambe shows exactly why this Bill is needed. The likes of Jason Whittingham should never have been allowed to buy a football club.

Last week, the Secretary of State answered a question in this House about the sale, and I thank her and the Minister for Sport for all their support behind the scenes in dealing with this unfolding disaster. This Labour Government have stood by my community and, frankly, I am baffled as to why the Conservatives are opposing this Bill. I know what a football club means to a town such as Morecambe. This Bill is a crucial step to stopping other towns like Morecambe going through this heartache. I urge Members across the House to please support this Bill, and I say to Jason, “Come on, sign the damn paperwork!”

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also associate myself with the tribute from my hon. Friend the Minister after the tragic death of Diogo Jota. My son is a Liverpool fan, and his generation of Liverpool fans regarded him as one of the finest players in the club, so it is very sad news for them.

I rise to speak to my two amendments to the Bill: amendment 12 and the linked new clause 6. I also support new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans).

This is a great Bill that will improve football and the financial stability of clubs, but I want to raise the failings of the great game of football with regard to the financial wellbeing of players. These amendments seek to address ongoing financial grooming and disregard for player welfare in the football industry. I believe this is an historic opportunity to reform football governance in England for the long-term good of clubs, supporters and players. However, to leave out the wellbeing, protection and long-term security of players—the very people who drive the game, whom we see week in and week out, in the stands and on television, and who are the beating heart of football—would be a fundamental mistake.

I have written a letter to the Secretary of State, supported by over a dozen Members of Parliament and 319 current and former professional players, coaches and managers across the game, including many legends of the game. Many of those have been victims of financial grooming and fraud. They have written, alongside me and other Members, to express our strong support for the introduction of an independent football regulator, and to urge that player welfare be included in the regulator’s remit.

The current system is failing too many players. Issues affecting player welfare span financial exploitation and mental health problems to retirement transition and dementia. The support system is fragmented, opaque and often reactive at best. Despite the Professional Footballers’ Association mandate, too many players feel unsupported, unprotected or unheard.

These are not just historic problems; they are happening now. This is not simply a matter of correcting the past. New forms of financial exploitation are appearing today, particularly through digital platforms and sophisticated forms of financial exploitation and grooming. Some of the individuals involved remain active in football, and operate unchecked and outside meaningful oversight. Players, especially younger ones, continue to face avoidable risks, such as predatory financial advice and abuses, post-career mental health problems and financial crises, and in many cases the lifelong consequences of concussion.

This is a rare and timely legislative moment. The Football Governance Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed protections for everyone in the game—not just clubs and investors, but players too. Including player welfare in the regulator’s scope would ensure that minimum standards, transparency and accountability are applied across football. A regulated environment would provide strong co-ordination between the clubs, the premier league, the EFL, the PFA, the FA, the League Managers Association, and other associated organisations, ultimately benefiting all parties. Football must be more than financially sustainable; it must also be ethically sound. That means protecting the health, dignity, welfare and future of the players who give everything to the sport. I urge the Government to ensure that player welfare is not overlooked as this important legislation moves forward.

My amendment 12 seeks to safeguard the current and former players involved in English football who have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud, or who are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud. My new clause 6 seeks to embed measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective. Unfortunately, we see financial abuse and grooming across the sports, music, media and cultural industries; football is not unique. However, this is a unique opportunity for the regulation of football that could lead as an example for other areas.

I want to finish by saying that this is classist abuse of young and budding talent.

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend talks about the class system. It is telling that in other countries that perhaps have less class-based societies, football is recognised as culture. Does he agree that football should be recognised in this country on a par with other cultural opportunities such as the theatre and opera?

17:30

[Alex Sobel]

I absolutely do. As a Leeds United fan, I know that we definitely cross the spectrum from sport to culture—everybody has probably seen “The Damned United”. In a country such as Spain, football goes across the cultural spectrum, but the ownership of clubs is also with the fans and not with oligarchs—as the former Chelsea owner was—or others. There is a different cultural aspect to it in other European countries.

As I was saying, this is classist abuse of young and budding talent that exploits their lives for the benefit of financially high-powered middlemen. Labour’s driving mission is to protect working people against exploitation. Let us include football players in our party’s founding mission and give them the protections they deserve.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again on this important Bill. I happily declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Selhurst Park and long-term fan of Crystal Palace. I am still basking in the glory of our Wembley triumph in May. I promise to stop talking about it soon, but I hope to milk it for another couple of months if I can.

This hugely overdue Bill has wide support from fans and communities across our country, as evidenced by its adoption of the key recommendations of the 2021 fan-led review. The central insight of the review was that, as we all know, what is essentially true about football is that it is not like any other industry and cannot be treated as such. Football clubs are more than just local businesses. Across our country, they sit at the heart of our communities, as Dartford football club does in my constituency. They are anchor institutions, culturally and economically, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Bill to put in place a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs where they belong: at the heart of our communities.

For that reason, it was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee—the third of my first year in this place; I hesitate to claim that it was a parliamentary hat trick. What set that Committee apart was the Opposition’s baffling approach to the legislation, as we can see on the amendment paper today. We were told on the Committee’s first day that the reason the Conservative party was against the Bill, despite having introduced it in the last Parliament, was that despite it being close in spirit and letter to the previous version, it now represented a clear case of over-regulation, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

In the sitting days that followed, a blizzard of amendments was visited on the Committee by the Opposition, the majority of which increased the powers, scope and responsibilities of the regulator. For instance, there was an amendment to investigate and possibly cap agents’ fees, which I notice has not returned on Report, and one on alcohol in football grounds, which has returned as new clause 1, as well as a range of other matters.

[Chris Evans]

Does my hon. Friend not think it is a bit rich of the Opposition, given the problems they had in the 1980s when they did not stamp out hooliganism and instead thought that the way forward was to pen fans in behind electrified fences and even to introduce ID cards, to claim that they are now standing up for football fans?

[Jim Dickson]

I do think that the Conservative Government’s attitude in the 1980s was to treat football fans as less than human. I would not wish to say that Opposition Members are not football fans, but the empty terraces on their side of the Chamber bespeak a lack of interest in the Bill.

The Opposition’s amendments that are designed to increase the scope and responsibility of the regulator would also increase the cost of the regulator to clubs, which was another of the Opposition’s complaints. They were at pains to try to point out that the regulator will cost fans dear, but their amendments would increase that cost. What we need, and what the Bill provides, is an agile and lean independent regulator whose efforts cannot be diverted from the key objective, which is to create a financially sustainable football pyramid that is responsive to fans.

I will touch briefly on a couple of the other amendments tabled for discussion today. I am sympathetic to the aims of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), and I echo others’ comments that the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his party to the Bill has been incredibly constructive, in contrast with that of the official Opposition. New clause 3 would set out in legislation a requirement for all these different matches to be free to air. While I am sympathetic to that, I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—or indeed anything specifying such a thing on the statute books—is wise, because the Bill’s intention is not to get involved in commercial deals. However, I would like to see more top-class football on free-to-air television in order to give young fans the chance to watch more than just highlights on video or social media.

On amendments 10 and 11, I must confess strong agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and what he is seeking to achieve. The separation of club and home grounds, both past and present, as we see with Sheffield Wednesday—a case that I know that is very dear to my hon. Friend’s heart—invariably ends in serious jeopardy for the club. As he said, it invites speculators to treat grounds as just another asset, rather than something central to their communities, and, apart from anything else, it causes major problems when clubs change hands. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I also agree with the points my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made in Committee about wanting the state of the game report, which the regulator will have to produce, to be brought forward as soon as possible so that its analysis can be used to broker a financial distribution deal across the pyramid at the earliest opportunity.

In our manifesto ahead of last year’s election, Labour said that we were committed to making Britain the best possible place in the world to be a football supporter. The Bill delivers this commitment for a sustainable game, putting clubs at the centre of our communities and fans at the heart of our game.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to have the chance to speak in this debate on an issue of such importance in legislation—one that goes to the heart of our national identity—which is the future of the beautiful game. Football, like Shakespeare, the Beatles, and James Bond, is one of this country’s greatest contributions to the world. Not just a fantastic sport, but a global phenomenon and, arguably, our most successful cultural export. English football is watched by billions globally, with some of the most exciting players, clubs and stories of any league.

However, we must not allow that success to disguise the underlying fragilities in the English football pyramid. Too many clubs have collapsed in recent years, with consequences rippling through entire communities. In my constituency, while it has not collapsed, the football club for Chipping Norton has been away from the town for more than a decade. Its ground was bought and sold off by what I shall refer to as a rather unscrupulous individual with little regard for the club, the town or its fans, and that loss is still deeply felt.

However, there is also hope. Down the road at Banbury United, supporters, fed up with mismanagement, took matters into their own hands. They have transformed the club, taking it over and turning it into a community benefit society, with revenue from shirt sales and matchday tickets now going back into supporting local groups and good causes. After two successive promotions, they have proved that this model is not a barrier to success on the pitch. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister have many calls on their time, but I can assure them that they would both be given a warm welcome should they choose to grace the hallowed turf of the Spencer stadium in Banbury, and I once again invite them to my constituency to do just that.

While neither Chipping Norton nor the Puritans are within the scope of this legislation because they are not high enough up the football pyramid—not yet, anyway—their stories and those of countless others up and down show why this reform is so necessary.

[Yuan Yang]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the need for better regulation. We have just heard that he is a fan of Banbury United and that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) is a fan of Crystal Palace. Does that not show that there is complete agreement across the football pyramid that there needs to be better regulation in football and that that would benefit all levels of the game?

[Sean Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I also congratulate Crystal Palace on their FA Cup win and, as a Liverpool fan, I look forward to their receiving their runners-up medal in the community shield in a couple of weeks’ time.

As I said in my intervention earlier, this has the support of 80% of fans, so I find it simply staggering that Conservative Members have decided that, having put forward this legislation, they are now against it for who knows what reason. Too many clubs have been left vulnerable to reckless ownership and financial mismanagement, and it simply cannot continue. The Bill is a vital step to ensuring that football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and their community—both now and into the future. It will promote financial stability, prevent rogue owners and directors from causing harm and give supporters a stronger voice in how their club is run, safeguarding both the game and the strength of community that it fosters.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that my football club, Southend United, nearly disappeared because of mismanagement. Does he agree that the Bill will make sure that we keep these football clubs at the heart of our communities, because, ultimately, that is where they belong?

[Sean Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we talked about rogue owners, I was only surprised that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), with his years of experience in this sphere, decided to walk out of the Chamber. But we will leave that for now and move on.

As I have said, the previous Government strutted on to the pitch full of promise, but when the whistle blew, they passed sideways, ran down the clock and then bottled it at the big moment. In contrast, this Government have shown intent and are driving the ball forward. I am proud to support this Bill in the Lobby tonight.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am so grateful to hon. Members who have not just spoken in this debate today, but brought the real-life experiences and voices of fans into this Chamber. This has been Parliament at its best, ensuring that those affected are finally heard and that action is taken. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken, regardless of whether the Government are choosing to accept the amendments that they have put forward. I wish to address some of the very many valid points that have been made during the course of this debate.

I shall start with the issue of player welfare, which is clearly of such concern to so many Members from all parts of the House. It was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) among others. It has also been raised by many, many other Members over the course of the past year both with me and my hon. Friend, the Minister for Sport.

I wish to reassure the House that although the amendment around player welfare does not fit within the scope of this Bill, that does not mean that the Government do not treat it with the urgency and the utmost seriousness that it demands. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we were privileged to meet recently a number of families who have been affected by this and who have been campaigning for justice for far too long. That includes John Stiles, to whom many hon. Members have paid tribute. He spoke very movingly about the experience of his father and his family. They are not wealthy people and they deserve better treatment. As a Government, we are determined to grip this issue. We are clear that football can and must do more. I will be pleased to update the House as we make progress in that pursuit of justice.

I also thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for his points about secondary ticketing, and the associated points that he made about the cost of football, which for many fans, particularly in the premier league, is of significant concern. This game belongs to its fans; it is nothing without its fans. It is important that fans are able to access the game that they love and that they have built. He will know that the Government wasted no time in opening a consultation about secondary ticketing across the board.Our message is clear: the time is up for ticket touts. The consultation that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I launched seeks to work out how, not whether, to act on this issue. We are shortly about to publish the response to that consultation, and it will be before the House imminently.

I am really grateful to all hon. Members who have stood up for fans. Whether they are music fans, football fans or other fans, it really matters that they are heard.

17:45

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill puts fans at the heart of where they should be, and that had the Bill been in place earlier, clubs like mine—Bolton Wanderers—would not have come close to collapse?

[Lisa Nandy]

I live just down the road from my hon. Friend in Bolton and has many friends who were directly affected by what happened at Bolton Wanderers, so I thank her for her tireless support for the fans and the town. Many people do not appreciate until they have been through a situation like that, as she and I have, that it does not just affect the football fans in the town. Bolton Wanderers stands for its town, as Wigan Athletic does; it is part of our identity and our pride. It is also part of our family inheritance. The chairwoman of my supporters’ club used to go to the football with her dad when she was a little girl. She now takes her children, and they will take their children. Football clubs are institutions that stand at the centre of our towns, and they deserve to be passed on to the next generation as part of our civic inheritance.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) mentioned what happened with Bolton Wanderers. Fans of Reading FC across Berkshire, including in Bracknell, experienced something similar when they were able to support the club to be saved from an unfit owner. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is so important that we pass the Bill so that we can prevent what happened to Reading from ever happening to a football club again?

[Lisa Nandy]

When my club Wigan Athletic was in trouble because of poor ownership for the second time, I used those precise words. I said that this must be the last time this ever happens to football fans, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, here we are with so many Members telling heartbreaking stories about the near loss of their clubs—so I could not agree with him more.

I want to acknowledge to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) that although we may disagree about the best way to improve access and protect the financial sustainability of the game, I do not doubt for one moment their sincerity in wanting to make sure that far more people can experience the joy of football. The Minister for Sport said to me earlier that it has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Cheltenham to get this Bill on to the statute book, so I am grateful to him for his work.

I turn to new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has done extraordinary work throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to address the point that he did not have time to speak to earlier. We absolutely understand why he is pursuing this matter, and he is right to do so, but we believe that the clause is not necessary. I am happy to pass on the commitment that the Minister for Sport made to me: she will write to my hon. Friend with a full explanation of why the clause is not necessary, and a copy of the letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library. On behalf of the whole House, I thank my hon. Friend for the expertise that he has brought to bear.

[Mr Betts]

As I tried to set out, my intention was simply to draw attention to whether the regulator has the power—it does not necessarily have to use it—to intervene if the domestic competitions that all clubs engage in are being damaged by competitions like the club world cup, from which a handful of clubs make multimillions of pounds. I wanted to make sure that the regulator had the power to deal with that.

[Lisa Nandy]

We believe that it does. As I said, the Minister will write to him on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Library so that the whole House can understand the Government’s position.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I do not really know where to start with this, to be honest, but I am determined to give it a try. When it comes to the Government’s preferred candidate, I gently point out to the hon. Member that this is a candidate that has been strongly endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He was appointed by the last Conservative Government to the board of Channel 4 and, as I made clear a moment ago, he was on the list that I inherited from the Conservative Government and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who now serves as the shadow Secretary of State, along with a Conservative donor as well.

It is astonishing that the shadow Minister has come to this House, belatedly, with allegations of cronyism, and that the best and only defence that he has been able to offer for this breathtaking hypocrisy is that his right hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State, did not have a clue what was going on in his own Department. Can he not see how absurd that is?

[Mr French]

Will she give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

Of course I will. I would love to know the answer.

[Mr French]

Let me explain, for the benefit of Members who were not in the room at the start of the debate, that the discussion was about the fact that the gentleman in question said in the Select Committee that he was not approached by the then Minister, but by civil servants. The Secretary of State is trying to say now that her Department is not under investigation. Is that correct? Are you under investigation for this appointment?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. First, I am not. Secondly, the Secretary of State came very close to unparliamentary language in accusing another hon. Member of hypocrisy; I am sure she did not intend that.

[Lisa Nandy]

Out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to clarify. I think that the shadow Minister might be a bit confused. To add to the confusion, I refer him to a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about the way in which the shadow Minister has made an astonishing about-turn; having called for stronger regulation, he now calls for weaker regulation. [Interruption.] If he does not want to listen to my words, perhaps I can let him listen to his own:

“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans…I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]

Well, I preferred his earlier work. Let me say that although the shadow Secretary of State no longer backs his own Bill and will not act, this Government will.

Let me turn to something that is very close to my heart: the experiences that were given voice by many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Dartford and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who has been a tireless champion for Reading through very difficult times. She said, “Let Reading be the last”, and she is absolutely right. In the years that football fans have waited for this piece of legislation to come on to the statute book and for the promise from all those years ago to be made good, too many people have experienced the hell that she and so many others have been through.

It is only fitting that I finish with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has been tireless in her defence of her club and her town. I had the privilege of going to Morecambe to meet the Shrimps and the board, which she rightly referenced and which has done so much for the club. She outlined the impact more powerfully than any of us could, as well as the strength of feeling about owners who refuse to sell their clubs even when the impact of that would be to bring those proud clubs to the verge of collapse. It has been a privilege to work closely with her, although I wish it had been on something more positive, as I know she does.

I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box that this Government take a very dim view of owners who treat our clubs as playthings, rather than as the custodians that they are. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and all the Members of this House—or most of the Members of this House—for a constructive debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Having lowered the temperature, I trust that I can now rely on the shadow Minister to maintain the lowered temperature. If not, I might have to intervene.

[Mr French]

With leave of the House, it is my pleasure to sum up this Report stage. We have heard today that there is common ground on many of the issues facing football, but as I highlighted in my opening speech, we disagree on the solutions. This is a Government who are currently under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to chair an independent football regulator. They may not like it, but that is the reality. Our amendment 18 seeks to end the politicisation of such roles and to ensure transparency on future appointments. We believe strongly that no Member would vote this measure down, given that it seeks to end cronyism over clubs and favours over fans.

New clause 1 would deal with alcohol at football grounds, as we have heard in the debate, and we have support from the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and from the Liberal Democrats. We believe this ban is outdated. Football fans should not be treated with a two-tier approach when it comes to being able to drink in the stands. We will be pressing this new clause to a Division because we on the Opposition Benches are on the side of football fans. We do not want this nanny state approach to continue; we want to make sure that football fans are treated with the respect that they deserve, and we will see tonight whose side this Government are really on.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

17:55

Division 254

Ayes: 167

---

Conservative: 92
Liberal Democrat: 64
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Reform UK: 3
Independent: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 346

---

Labour: 338
Green Party: 4
Independent: 2

18:09

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 28 April).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 3

Free to air coverage

“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section ‘free-to-air television’ means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:09

Division 255

Ayes: 86

---

Liberal Democrat: 62
Independent: 7
Green Party: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 340

---

Labour: 336
Independent: 2

Clause 59

Decisions by the IFR on applications under section 57

Amendment made: 4, page 48, line 34, leave out “a” and insert “the”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment corrects a grammatical error.

Clause 83

Internal reviews

Amendments made: 5, page 67, line 40, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment increases the time period for the Board of the IFR to carry out an internal review of a reviewable decision from 14 to 28 days.

Amendment 6, page 68, line 2, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment increases the time period for a committee of the Expert Panel of the IFR to carry out an internal review of a reviewable decision from 14 to 28 days.

Amendment 7, page 68, line 5, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment is to ensure consistency with the wording used in subsections (4) and (6) of clause 83.

Schedule 2

The Independent Football Regulator

Amendment proposed: 18, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”—(Mr French.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:21

Division 256

Ayes: 178

---

Conservative: 89
Liberal Democrat: 63
Independent: 9
Green Party: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 338

---

Labour: 333
Independent: 2

Third Reading

18:34

[Lisa Nandy]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been 14 years since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee first called for change for football fans, and four years since Dame Tracey Crouch began the fan-led review that set out to fix the foundations of football and end the misery that too many football fans have been forced to endure for far too long. We have had four years of promises, and today we make good on those commitments.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—the Minister for Sport—and Baroness Twycross, who have steered this Bill expertly and with care to get us to this place. I thank the civil servants in my Department, who have worked tirelessly for many years to get to this point, and I particularly thank the Bill, policy and legal teams, who will be as relieved and delighted as anybody to see this Bill finally become law.

I also thank the many parliamentarians who have worked so hard with us all to get this Bill into a better shape, particularly by strengthening the provisions for fans in order to put them back at the heart of the game and to improve the backstop process. This is a light-touch regulator that will help to enhance the game, and I am really grateful to all those parliamentarians for their support.

I pay tribute to somebody who has become not just an inspiration for a lot of football fans around the country, but a friend to us all: Dame Tracey Crouch. Her fan-led review highlighted how too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their club’s very existence. Her dedication and expertise have been integral to getting us to where we are today.

Although I am sad that I am unable to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who steered the Bill through its first stages under the last Government and who no longer supports his own legislation, I want to acknowledge that, from the outset, it has been a cross-party effort to stand by football fans the length and breadth of our country.

Finally, I want to address our football fans, who are the best in the world. We are doing this for you, because for too long you have been treated as an afterthought at best, or as a nuisance at worst, in a game that is only great because of you. This Bill is for Macclesfield, for Wigan, for Bury, for Bolton, for Derby, for Reading, for Sheffield Wednesday, for Morecambe and for many, many more clubs that have had to endure the misery of being put last when they should have been put first. We promised in our manifesto that we would end years of inaction, and make the changes for which fans have fought for so long and which are so overdue. I am proud to be part of the winning team that have put our fans back on the pitch and at the heart of the game, where they belong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:37

[Mr French]

Here we are: the final opportunity for the Government and this House to trigger a VAR review before English football fans and the beautiful game are left in tears. We cannot support this expanded Bill as drafted, and we believe that passing it tonight risks harming the very game that it claims to protect.

We all largely agree on the problems in football: we have a minority of greedy owners, with loyal fans left powerless when a proud club is torn apart for profit or by reckless management. No one in this House wants to see another Bury or Macclesfield, but let us be clear and honest with fans: this Bill will not stop a bad owner damaging a club, market failure will not be removed, and clubs will not be bailed out by this Government. The risk of a breakaway league will now grow, not shrink.

This Bill risks replacing financial mismanagement with political interference, poor governance with endless red tape, and the soul of our game with a new quango that grows year by year, unchallenged by real scrutiny or accountability to Parliament or fans.

If we vote this Bill through tonight, we will not remove unaccountable owners; we will only create more unaccountable bureaucrats. This amateur Government will strangle the growth of a great British success story, rather than enable it, while Reform still struggles to manage its five-a-side team after yet another scandal—sorry, four-a-side now. English football does not belong to politicians; it belongs to the fans in the stands, the volunteers in the clubhouse and the kids pulling on the shirt for the first time on a Sunday morning.

Yet this Bill opens the door for mission creep on an extraordinary scale, with provisions that would let any future Minister expand the regulator’s powers and the leagues covered at will. As drafted, this Bill risks breaching FIFA and UEFA’s clear rules against Government overreach, putting our clubs and national sides in danger of sanctions that would shame the country on the world stage. It sets up a powerful new regulator with vast discretion, but precious little real democratic control, and it piles on costs that smaller clubs and fans simply cannot bear. If the Minister thinks that big clubs will pay for this quango alone, she needs to read her own impact report. Ultimately, the fans always pay—through higher ticket prices and higher merchandise prices—all to stand on the same terraces on which generations have previously stood.

The test of a good law is whether it solves a problem proportionately and properly, not whether it lets Ministers feel that they have done something. This Bill fails that test, and fails it spectacularly. It treats our national game not as a living tradition rooted in local pride, but as an industry to be micromanaged by the state. This is not how English football was built, and it is not how it will be sustained.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I say clearly tonight that football is at its best when the players entertain the crowd and the referee goes unnoticed, but this Bill risks creating more referees than players—referees who answer not to clubs or supporters, but to Labour Ministers and mandarins. If this Bill passes, and we expect it will tonight, I can confirm to the House and to fans at home that a future Conservative Government will trigger a review of Labour’s regulator as soon as possible, and if it is overreaching and strangling clubs—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not need any more of that disruption.

[Mr French]

If the regulator is overreaching and strangling clubs with unnecessary red tape, as we believe it will under this Government, we will act decisively on behalf of fans to promote the English game again. The real threat to football’s future is not a lack of regulators; it is the erosion of competition and trust between owners, communities and supporters. We would fix that with stronger transparency rules—such as the rules that Labour Members have just voted against—as well as the better enforcement of existing laws and real fan power, not a vast new quango led by a Labour crony working three days a week on a salary of £130,000.

This shameful Labour Government are already under investigation having once again put their party first, with cronies over clubs, favours over fans and greed over the beautiful game. Tonight, the Conservatives will be voting against this Bill in good conscience, because our national game deserves better than a Government whose only knowledge of football is free tickets and corporate prawn sandwiches. It is worth noting that Labour Members have tonight voted against fans having a drink on the terraces, while their Ministers drink alcohol in their corporate hospitality boxes for free.

We will continue to stand up for the fans, not the bureaucrats creating an even larger nanny state. We will continue to stand up for healthy competition and local pride, not a one-size-fits-all state interference that will relegate English football among global competition. We will be ready to revisit this when, as is likely, it fails to deliver the promises being made, and to review it, to rein it in, to scrap it altogether and to give powers back to our sporting bodies. That was the ultimate goal of the fan-led review, as Labour Members would know if they had read it. Football belongs to the fans, and no badly drafted Acts of Parliament should ever make us forget that. [Interruption.]

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

They think it’s all over!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, it will be for you. I know who you are. [Laughter.]

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:43

Division 257

Ayes: 415

---

Labour: 331
Liberal Democrat: 63
Independent: 9
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4

Noes: 98

---

Conservative: 86
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Reform UK: 3
Independent: 2
Labour: 1
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed.