Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the Bill passed through the other place, we heard a strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike that a small number of our world-class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The Government have heard and agree with the intent.

Domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK. However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope, with “domestic appeal” potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar. Without safeguards to ensure that the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks giving eligibility for protections to an extremely large pool of events and having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities.

Even restricting the scope of “domestic sporting event” rightly requires clarity on how the Government will extend the provisions to events that currently operate independently of our operational support. That is why we have brought forward this package of Government amendments. Amendment 28 removes the addition of “national” interest; as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There are already two framework conditions. The first is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The second is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK—or the event must be of “strategic value”, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.

Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events, referred to in the Bill as “domestic sporting events”. Those are defined under Government amendment 25 as

“a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.

The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority requesting that the framework be applied. The event organiser must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to its event. The Secretary of State or devolved Governments may then consider such events on a case-by-case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events. That is a necessary distinction for a cohort of domestic sporting events that currently are both numerous and run independently of Government.

The independent events are not routinely subject to Government evaluation that could otherwise inform a decision to extend the provisions. The amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. That allows the Government to ensure that they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Minister well knows that Trent Bridge is in my constituency of Rushcliffe. What category would an event such as the Ashes fall into? It is an internationally significant event, but it is a roaming event that goes to different locations. Would it fall into a different category?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Any sporting event can apply and must meet the evidence-based threshold. On Royal Assent, we will publish the application process. I am happy to follow up in writing with my hon. Friend, but the event will be able to apply and make a case. That will then be on a case-by-case basis.

A further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision that ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. That will ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. That does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but it does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in group 12, I will set out additional safeguards that the Government consider necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate.

I turn to Government amendment 24. After extensive exploration, the Government believe that the Bill’s transport provisions do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events. They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time-limited events, with powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of the provision would not materially add to the Government’s support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we will not pursue legislation that we believe is not materially useful.

Finally, I turn to new clause 14. As the Committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure that the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable. In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry out enforcement of the advertising and trading offences under the Bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point; that is why new clause 14 introduces a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers the additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.

Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that it has incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. That includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the costs of administering an authorisation process and engagement with local businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend has done my job for me: I was just coming on to that point. The event must also be of strategic value to help us secure other events, but, to answer his specific question: yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the Open, Silverstone and the London marathon being the sorts of events that would be protected. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset last week, and as I outlined in answer to an earlier intervention, a wide range of events can apply, but they must meet an evidential threshold to receive those powers. It is worth noting that they may not want all of the powers in the Bill; they may simply want some of them.

In answer to the shadow Minister’s point about new clause 14, I have outlined the reasons why we included it. There is a balance to be struck, but we do not believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers.

[James Naish]

I have a small point that I do not think is covered in this clause, but maybe the Minister can confirm that. For people in my constituency, which has three international venues close by, parking and the cost of parking enforcement are very important. Will the Minister consider support for local authorities that take on that extra burden when major events come to town?

[Stephanie Peacock]

For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “section” insert

“in relation to a sporting event”.

This amendment contains a drafting refinement.

Amendment 23: in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “if” to end of line 13 and insert

“—

(a) the first and second conditions in section 3 are met, and

(b) in the case of a domestic sporting event, the third condition in that section is also met.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.

Amendment 24: in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not apply the transport provisions to a domestic sporting event.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will speak first to schedule 1, and then I will speak to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Schedule 1 sets out the scope and detail of the ticketing offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, it sets out the criminal ticketing offence, which will apply only in the part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the regulations. As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can apply the ticketing offence to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only with their consent.

An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be a ticket to the sporting event in question, including any opening or closing ceremonies or connected events, such as official cultural programmes, where those events are specified in regulations.

[James Naish]

During the 2012 games, there were a considerable number of test events, and also dress rehearsals for the opening and closing ceremonies and warm-up events. Would they be covered by the schedule?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event.

It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services.

The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts.

As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures.

Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution.

Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties.

Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit.

That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser.

Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely.

I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Advertising activity will not be an offence where it has been authorised under the Bill or where an exception applies. The schedule also enables enforcement authorities to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an advertising offence has been committed. That provides a proportionate and effective alternative to prosecution. The fixed penalty will be set by the enforcement authority, up to a maximum of £300, with a default amount of £200 where no amount is specified. A person will have 14 days to pay and avoid prosecution.

[James Naish]

The Minister will be acutely aware that for a lot of athletes, sponsorship is a key form of income. How will that type of sponsorship be covered in the regulations?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee.

The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard.

We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 17 and schedule 5 work together to provide a practical transport framework for major sporting events where extra co-ordination is needed. The basic point is straightforward: major sporting events can place real pressure on local roads and transport networks, and those impacts do not stop at local authority boundaries.

Schedule 5 provides the framework for dealing with such impacts, allowing transport plans to be prepared, reviewed and revised, where needed, and it provides for temporary road traffic measures to support the safe and effective operation of an event. That framework is practical and proportionate. It requires consultation with the relevant authorities, including local traffic authorities, local authorities and the police so that local knowledge is built from the start. The powers are also temporary and time-limited. They are there to deal with a specific transport impact of a major sporting event, not to create a permanent change in how local roads are managed.

Clause 17 complements that framework; it recognises that some events will affect more than one local traffic authority area, and that effective traffic management may therefore require authorities to work across boundaries. The clause allows regulations applying schedule 5 to designate one or more local traffic authorities for the purpose of paragraph 3. In practice, that ensures that the temporary traffic arrangements can operate in a joined-up way where an event affects more than one area. However, I will be clear about the safeguard: a local traffic authority may be designated only with its consent. This is not about taking powers away from local authorities, or about overriding them; it is about enabling co-operation on an agreed basis, where that is needed to manage the real-world impacts of major sporting events.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

When one authority consents, but a neighbouring authority does not—I have the River Trent as a genuine administrative boundary between Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire county council—what are the provisions? In that scenario, the county might say yes, but the city no. If that is not clear, will the Minister consider the matter further?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whenever we plan major sporting events, we want to do it with consultation and in collaboration. We would have that ongoing conversation. I will come on to outline the reserve backstop power if that simply cannot happen. He provided a hypothetical, which is hard to comment on—I can speak to him in slower time outside Committee—but we have a backstop power if we cannot get agreement.

Schedule 5 contains a reserve backstop power for the Secretary of State. That exists for a straightforward reason: if essential temporary traffic measures are needed for an event, and a local traffic authority has been asked to act but has failed to do so within the period set out in the schedule, there must be a way to ensure that the measures will still be put in place. The backstop is not the normal way of working; it is a fall-back to protect delivery where necessary. Taken together, schedule 5 provides the framework, and the clause helps that framework work properly across local boundaries. They are practical and proportionate provisions, with consultation, consent and clear limits built in.

Ticket Price Regulation: Live Events

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend is so right. We have seen that happening with venues such as the Royal Opera House and the ballet, which are perceived as elitist, correctly or incorrectly, and we do not want to make an elitist system more elitist. The systems benefit people who have the luxury of spending time refreshing their screen all day.

My hon. Friend’s remark reminded me that I found an article in The Times from January 2025, which says that touts are

“loathed as parasitic…but…they provide a valuable service”,

sorting

“the hassle and risk of finding new buyers”

and reselling tickets. What?! I think that there is an important bit missing from that sentence—“at a vastly inflated mark-up price”. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

These practices do have their defenders. When I was trying to get signatures for my Bill, there was resistance from some Tories, with some saying—“Some Might Say”—that this is the free market and that we cannot have interference in all parts of our lives, yet our constituents want this change. They deserve transparency. They should not be at the mercy of predatory touts who exploit fan loyalty to sell off tickets secondarily at an astronomical mark-up, shutting out the masses, as everyone has said, from accessing cultural events that enrich us all.

I have also said in my Bill that there should be a maximum price cap and that tickets should have the price printed on them as early as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, after the adrenalin rush of the virtual queue, there is pressure when reaching the front to snap up what is left, if someone has had the time to get there, which leaves some fans with buyer’s remorse afterwards—“How much? How many thousands did I just pay?” But by then it is too late.

In a different article in The Times, the same writer says:

“While I might struggle to justify paying thousands to watch England play”

—this article was about the world cup—

“the truth is that others are willing to pay.”

It is the “harsh reality” of the market, but it does not need to be like that. I found an interview with Robert Smith where he said that his longevity is due to the fact that he prices things affordably. He wants people to come back; he wants people to wear the T-shirt. He still makes a profit, but it does not have to be at the maximum price point that the market allows.

With Viagogo and StubHub, however, “There’s no limit” in terms of multiples. Children were left in tears recently at the Co-op Live arena in Manchester. They wanted to see the girl group KATSEYE, but, when the real tickets sold out within seconds, their parents were forced on to another one of those horrible sites, Hellotickets, paying £568 for four tickets, only for their kids to get to the venue and find out it was for over-16s only. There was notification of that, and no recourse. It is awful.

Not all resellers are baddies. Twickets is an ethical resale site. The Royal Albert Hall, the Roundhouse, LW Theatres, Ed Sheeran and Adele all use it as a partner. It allows tickets to be sold only at or below the original face-value price; it actually prohibits any increase. Every listing is checked manually to ensure that there is a real ticket behind it. It might not necessarily be a case of doing that. A maximum multiple or percentage could be put in, because there might be a genuine reason—not being able to make the date, for example—for having to resell the ticket.

The other one that caught my eye was the Tickets For Good app from Sheffield, which has distributed 1.4 million surplus unsold music, theatre, comedy and sport tickets. It donates or heavily discounts the tickets for key workers and individuals on low incomes. As all hon. Members have said, things like that open up live arts and opportunities, because let us not forget that for many even the face-value price is a stretch.

Music is so important for wellbeing, social connection and all those things. I have to say, I remember when tickets were not so expensive. The first ones I bought were for Blur at the time of “Modern Life Is Rubbish”. I bought a pair of them for £8 each from the Kentish Town Forum. I went to a window and a lady—I think the cleaner—said, “I’ll have to get the right person”. When they came along, I handed over the cash and got the change.

I have not done a calculation factoring in current inflation for those tickets, but I have done for some tickets bought by my constituent Ros Cowan. In 1984 she saw The Smiths at the Hammersmith Palais in my borough—I have actually seen Rick Astley and Bros in the same venue—and the price was £3.50. She said that in those days a student like her could go and have a few drinks at the bar and afford to get home. Factoring in the Bank of England’s multiple of inflation, that makes £12 in today’s money, so these things have gone up. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) and I are the same age—or the same bracket, anyway—and remember when these things were not so expensive. The elasticity of demand, Madam Deputy Speaker—don’t you love it!

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

One thing that has changed over time is the fact that there is now so much emphasis on live performance for musicians to be able to make an income. Perhaps my hon. Friend agrees that we need to look closely at streaming services, because the market has become distorted so that there is such a great emphasis on making money through touring.

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

James Naish Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

Just over 14 years ago, we lifted the curtain on the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic games. It did not disappoint: 29 gold medals, super Saturday, Usain Bolt winning medal after medal—sporting moments that will remain with us for the rest of our lives. But London 2012 did more than that. It told our national story on the world stage, and it sent a clear message to future British athletes that there should be no ceiling to their ambition.

Fourteen years on from London 2012, I still meet athletes who talk about that moment as the moment that changed their lives forever: when they were inspired, when they saw something, and when they thought, “I can do that.” That is why major events matter. They bring world-leading athletes and competitors to our shores. They show children across the country where ambition and talent can lead them. Perhaps not all of those children will go on to be the Mo Farahs and Jess Ennises of their generation, but they will, because of the power of sport, go on to live richer, larger lives.

If done right, these events leave lasting legacies, they help to fund grassroots projects and they break down the barriers to opportunity, and we should not be shy about saying that here in the UK, we are really, really good at delivering them. From the women’s rugby world cup, to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, to the European athletics championships in Birmingham, time and again we have welcomed the best of the best and put on an incredible show.

Our Government are not going to stop there. Over the next few years, we will host the 2028 Euros and the Tour de France grand départ, but I want us to go further, I want us to be bolder and I want us to be bigger. I want us to harness the power of major events, to build social cohesion, bring people together, spread opportunity and deliver long-lasting change to communities whose contribution has not been seen or valued for far too long.

Alongside our bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup, I am delighted that we have submitted a bid to host the world athletics championships in 2029. We are also clear that this Government would love to see the Ryder cup return to the UK, and we are continuing to explore at pace a bid for an Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England for the first time.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am the MP for Rushcliffe, where we have Nottingham Forest’s City Ground and Trent Bridge, the world-renowned cricket venue. We also have the National Water Sports Centre, which is one of three locations in England with a 2 km rowing lake, but it has lacked investment over many years. For us to be able to bid for a northern Olympics, we are likely to need that type of venue to be within our collective offer, so will the Secretary of State meet me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to look at the investment that needs to go into that site via UK Sport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She is passionate about Silverstone, and she is absolutely right in all the points she makes. We must never be complacent about it; we must strengthen and build on all the great sporting events that we have in this country.

Sport also strengthens Britain’s reputation overseas. Few countries combine our extraordinary sporting heritage, wonderful venues, broadcasting expertise, enthusiastic crowds and experience of putting on major events that the whole world wants to see. It is therefore very much in our national interest to ensure that the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world to host these big events.

That is the context in which the Opposition approach the Bill. We support its underlying objective and will support its Second Reading. It absolutely makes sense, and it is in this country’s interests, to create a standing legislative framework of this kind.

When the United Kingdom bids to host a major international sporting event, the governing body will commonly require host country guarantees covering matters such as ticketing, commercial rights, advertising and transport. Historically, Parliament has often had to legislate specifically for individual events. There is an obvious inefficiency in recreating substantially similar provisions every time Britain secures another major tournament. If we know that certain protections are repeatedly required, it is reasonable to place a common framework on the statute book that can be tailored to the needs of individual events. This should make Britain a more competitive prospective host and give international sporting organisations greater confidence that the protections they require will be available.

That confidence is vital, as international competition to host major sport is fierce. Countries across the world understand the prestige that these events bring, the visitors they attract and the economic activity they generate. We cannot simply assume that Britain will continue to win the rights to host them if we become less accommodating than our competitors. We need to make the strongest possible case for the UK, and part of that is demonstrating that when we make commitments as a host nation, we have the legal framework to deliver them quickly and effectively.

With that objective in mind, there is much in the detail of the Bill’s proposed framework that we support. It is right that organisers should have effective tools to prevent professional ticket touts from exploiting supporters; it is right that genuine sponsors, who may invest very significant sums in making an event possible, should receive reasonable protection against businesses falsely passing themselves off as official partners; and it is plainly sensible to have the capacity to make temporary transport and traffic arrangements when hundreds of thousands of additional spectators may be moving around a city or region.

[James Naish]

The Secretary of State moved on from this quickly earlier. I wanted to talk specifically about transport arrangements, as in my constituency, we have three international venues in very close proximity, and it can be extremely difficult for the residents who live in that area. Would the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that local councils have the power to enforce the transport plans that are put in place, so that the residents in the areas hosting these major sporting events can live alongside those venues?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is really important that we explore this in more detail in Committee. This obviously requires a bit of balance. We need to consider both sides of the matter to get to the right place. This is a great starting position, and hopefully we will have a lot more detailed discussions as the Bill moves through the House, assuming it passes Second Reading, which it looks likely to do.

We are not concerned about the concept of the Bill, and colleagues in the other place approached it in exactly the same spirit: they supported the principle, while working constructively to improve the legislation. I want to acknowledge the important work undertaken in the other place to ensure that the framework is of benefit to not only major one-off international tournaments, but the great recurring sporting events already woven into British national life, which the Culture Secretary mentioned. As originally drafted, the Bill risked producing the rather peculiar result that an international tournament visiting Britain for the first time might qualify for these protections, while Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix might not. That was a significant gap, and Opposition peers, including Baroness Evans and Lord Parkinson, worked closely with colleagues across the House, and with the sporting sector, to address it.

The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the London marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics were among those supporting a widening of the framework to include repeat events. These great recurring events are not simply fixtures in our sporting calendar, but strategic national assets. They attract international audiences, support thousands of jobs, generate significant economic value and serve to showcase Britain around the world. We should therefore always seek to maximise the opportunities and returns that they bring.

As originally drafted, the Bill was principally aimed at major one-off or infrequent international events, but amendments made in the Lords widened that framework, so that our great recurring UK sporting events of national or international importance, such as Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix, can also ask to benefit from its protections. That does not mean that every protection in the Bill will now automatically apply to every one of those events every year, but where a major recurring event can demonstrate a genuine need for one or more parts of the framework, it can ask the Government to apply them. Ministers must then agree, and any use of the framework will remain subject to parliamentary approval. Baroness Evans put the principle neatly when she described the Lords’ approach as providing opportunity, not obligation. It is a sensible and proportionate approach, and I welcome the assurances that have been given that the final legislation will deliver that objective and allow our great recurring events to benefit from the framework.

I understand that there may be some technical tidying required as the Bill proceeds through this House, and we will engage constructively with the Government on that work to ensure that the Bill does what is intended. The sporting sector has worked hard to secure this change. I was hopeful that the Culture Secretary could reassure the House today that the Government remain committed to delivering it in full and to preserving the substance of what was achieved in the Lords, and I believe we have heard that from her today. I thank her for that.

There are inevitably some further areas that we will want to examine as the Bill enters Committee stage. That is not because we oppose the powers themselves, but because a permanent legislative framework needs to strike the right balance between giving organisers the protections they require and avoiding unnecessary burdens on those affected.

The first such area is the impact on existing businesses. One of the central reasons why we want major sporting events in Britain is the economic activity that they generate. We want visitors filling hotels, restaurants and pubs, we want local businesses benefiting from increased footfall, and we want traders to share in the opportunities created when tens or hundreds of thousands of people arrive in an area. There will plainly be occasions when crowd safety, security or legitimate commercial arrangements mean that some restrictions are necessary, but the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that a substantial proportion of street traders in affected areas may be unable to trade while restrictions operate. Colleagues in the other place pressed Ministers on that point and secured a useful change, requiring existing trading licences to be taken into account. The Government also committed to work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative arrangements when an existing trader cannot remain in their usual location. In Committee, we will want to ensure that the practical arrangements around notice, authorisations and treatment of existing businesses are fair and proportionate.

The same principle applies to advertising. We support action against genuine ambush marketing. Official sponsors make substantial investments in major sport and are entitled to protection. At the same time, the framework should operate sensibly for existing advertisers and should distinguish between falsely claiming an official association with an event and legitimate commercial activity, such as a company truthfully promoting an athlete whom it genuinely sponsors.

In the Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay raised the concerns of the Advertising Association. The Government undertook further engagement with the industry, which we welcome. It would be useful to have an update from the Culture Secretary on how those discussions have progressed. Again, that strikes me as exactly the kind of detailed matter that could be worked through constructively in Committee.

Finally, clause 25 gives the Government a broad standing power to provide financial assistance in connection with sporting events. There is a certain lack of clarity about what the criteria and eligibility for such payments would be. I ask, again, that that be considered further in Committee.

We all want Britain to remain one of the finest places in the world to host major sport. We all want to attract new world cups, European championships and other global events, as that is good for the sporting sector, our economy, the country and our people. We are fortunate that Britain starts from a position of considerable strength, with its world-class venues, experienced organisers, passionate spectators, internationally recognised events and a sporting heritage that few countries can match. Now we must capitalise and further build on those strengths to fully unleash the sector’s potential. The Bill can meaningfully contribute to that.

Our task now is to preserve the improvements made to the Bill in the other place, so that we deliver on the intention of ensuring that our great recurring events are properly covered. The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and the ambition behind it, and we will support its Second Reading while working constructively with the Government to improve and clarify it further as it proceeds through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Perhaps then we can turn the tables and see Conservatives benefit from Labour’s hard work, rather than the other way around.

[James Naish]

I must say, I think that was the case with the 2012 games, if I am not mistaken, which were won under a Labour Government but delivered under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

The point I wanted to make was about the development of a long-term vision. Certainly in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, we are doing a lot of work on something called the Trent Sports District, which is taking our excellent venues and painting a long-term vision of what they can do for our city and area. That is exactly what he is saying about individual events, so does he agree that using sport as a regeneration and visioning tool is an excellent way to bring everybody together in a cross-party way to secure long-term benefits for an area?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other point he makes is that, when we do these events, it is often one individual city or one particular location that gets a lot of the focus. There seems to be a trend at the moment, which I quite like, of having multiple venues and often multiple countries, even when hosting major international events—we saw that this year with the world cup. We have often bid on a four-nations basis, which can be beneficial, and we will continue to do so. That goes back to the point that the economic benefit can be so considerable that it is great if we can spread it outside the M25. It is important that we do that. I do not want to be negative about London—we have amazing sports venues in London—but we always need to think about London-plus, if London is the anchor.

As the former Sport Minister who oversaw the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I am familiar with, and therefore welcome, many of the framework provisions that go deep into the weeds of event organisation on matters such as ticket sales, unauthorised advertising, brand protection, transport logistics and so on. Previously, they had to be considered in discreet Bills for each and every event, which clearly does not make sense. The basic logic for this Bill is therefore sensible.

Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are some changes that we would like to see, along the lines of what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. In particular, many in the Lords expressed a concern that the definition of “events” used in the Bill initially seemed to cover way too narrow a group. I therefore appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments. Indeed, I remember us having a conversation about the matter at Silverstone and how there is some logic to including many of the important domestic events.

As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that does not necessarily mean everything all the time, but we can pick and choose elements of the Bill. That always causes complexities in such Bills, because it can cause some challenges, so we probably need to build in some flexibility. I am sure that, later on, as we go through the Bill’s stages, we will be able to work that out. There is a clear and strong feeling on behalf of the major domestic sporting events that were mentioned—Wimbledon, the grand prix and so on—that we do right by them and, quite frankly, make it easier for Government in dealing with those things. Again, let us just use a hefty dose of common sense.

There are a couple of other sport-related matters, which I would like to raise, that should be considered in the wider context of the Bill, and I would genuinely appreciate the Minister’s views on those in her closing comments. She will be aware of speculation about allowing alcohol sales at football games. The Conservatives introduced an amendment to the Football Governance Act 2025—I say “the Conservatives”, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is sitting on the Front Bench—for a consultation on lifting the alcohol ban in top-tier football. Unfortunately, despite a lot of agreement cross-party, that amendment was shot down by the then Labour Government. Will the Minister now reconsider that, and is the Bill an appropriate vehicle or opportunity for that consideration? For example, would alcohol sales be restricted at some of the events that we talk about in the Bill? Similarly, are the Government reconsidering the 3 pm blackout rule? That is nothing to do with the Bill, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot.

I also want to touch on something that has been mentioned before, which is the listed events regime. Is that being reviewed, particularly in the context of the events being considered in the Bill? If there is Government support for hosting an event and taxpayers’ money is being put into it, there is a reasonable expectation that attendance and viewing of that event should be maximised in-country to maximise the overall benefit and inspiration that these things can provide. Is this therefore a good time to reconsider the listed events regime, particularly for events supported with taxpayers’ money and held in the home nations?

BBC Sport’s fantastic coverage of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games achieved record-breaking audiences on TV, streaming and online. I was fortunate, as the Ministers were, to attend the Glasgow Commonwealth games this year. The city and the organisers put on a fantastic show, particularly given the circumstances of how the games came about, which I think most people are familiar with. It was a deliberately smaller-scale event than the Birmingham games, and although the coverage on TNT Sports and Channel 5 was good, it did not get the breadth of coverage and therefore achieve the level of awareness in-country that we would have had, for example, had the BBC or another major broadcaster secured those rights. That raises questions about what the BBC is bidding for and how much it is bidding. That is definitely a debate for another day, though an important one.

I will end there by confirming that I broadly support the Bill and I certainly look forward to engaging constructively with Ministers as it goes through its remaining stages. I hope we will see some amendments supported by all parties.

English Rugby

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and my Lancastrian wife will be delighted that rugby league was brought into this debate, as she always tries to convince me when I am watching league that it is better than rugby union. I absolutely take his point about targeted support and I am sure the Minister will, too.

Government support has made a difference where it has been targeted effectively. Through arm’s length bodies such as Sport England, almost £14 million has been awarded to grassroots rugby from the legacy funding for the 2025 women’s rugby world cup. Since 2009, nearly £50 million of national lottery funding has been invested in the women’s and girls’ game, with £11.8 million of funding confirmed between 2022 and 2027.

That investment has had positive results. We have seen that clearly in the growth of the women’s game. The Red Roses have become one of the most dominant teams in world sport. They have won three rugby world cups, including the most recent one in 2025. At that tournament, they defeated Canada in front of a record crowd of over 81,000 spectators at Twickenham. They have won 20 women’s six nations tournaments, achieved 18 grand slams and hold the record for the longest winning streak in international rugby union, with 33 consecutive victories. Since 2022, the funding has also supported a 35% increase in the number of age-grade girls playing rugby, and over 43,500 women and girls are now registered with the Rugby Football Union.

Despite that success, however, the women’s professional game still faces major structural challenges. Many players in Premiership women’s rugby remain semi-professional. They train and compete at the highest level, while also holding down second jobs. If we want the women’s game to continue growing, we must ensure that facilities are appropriate, that funding is sustainable and that players are able to become fully professional.

The Government can play a role, not in controlling the sport but in supporting its development, and the same is true at grassroots level. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we have extraordinary rugby clubs: Bridport; Dorchester; Puddletown; and Sherborne. They represent everything that is good about community sport. However, even as we celebrate their achievements, we must expand the game. Grassroots rugby needs more targeted Government investment, particularly in the most deprived communities.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Nottingham Rugby is based in my constituency. It plays in what was formerly known as the Championship and is now known as the Champ. The reality is that funding for the Championship, which is the second tier of rugby in England, has fallen sharply in recent years and my local club is genuinely struggling to stay afloat.

The hon. Gentleman has talked about women’s rugby being largely semi-professional rather than professional. The truth is that the same is true in the second tier of men’s rugby as well. Does he agree that that raises genuine questions about the viability of rugby? And if he does, would he also agree that it would be wise for Ministers to genuinely look at how long the game can survive?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, I would quite happily have a whole other Westminster Hall debate on how we raise the level of the Championship, or the Champ, because the difference between the Prem and the Champ now is enormous. There are better models elsewhere. For example, we can look at France and the success of its second division—the “D2”, although I am not sure how that is pronounced in English. It is markedly different to second-tier rugby in this country.

Rugby must be a sport open to everyone, and not just those who happen to attend traditional rugby-playing schools. Where state schools have had the right funding and support, they have thrived in school competitions, fuelled rugby academies, inspired a new generation of rugby fans and shown what is possible with the right conditions. The sport needs far greater diversity, and participation from people of all backgrounds and socioeconomic circumstances. It is not just good for society but good for the sport, because a larger, more diverse player pool ensures that we have the best players and the strongest competition.

That means that rugby must exist in more state schools across the country, but there has been a worrying decline in school sports provision. Data from the Youth Sport Trust shows that the number of hours of PE and sport delivered in schools has fallen by more than 45,000 hours since 2012. That cannot be the direction of travel if we are serious about the health and wellbeing of our young people.

The Government have announced reforms, such as the new school sports partnerships and the national enrichment framework, and they are very welcome steps, but when will those programmes be implemented? Will they be in place for the next school year? Can the Government guarantee that there will be no cuts to school sports funding? School sports need stable, multi-year funding. Active children are more likely to remain active adults, so it brings enormous public health benefits.

The RFU has also begun important work to expand the sport in schools. In 2024, it commissioned a review of rugby union in education, focusing on sustainability and participation. One of the most exciting initiatives is the roll-out of T1 rugby, which is a non-contact version of the game developed by World Rugby. In the 2024-25 season, T1 rugby reached 1,800 schools and around 80,000 students, with a near equal mix of boys and girls. Within four years, the programme aims to reach more than 5,000 schools. It shows what can be achieved when organisations work together with a clear strategy.

Government Departments must do the same. Education policy and sports policy cannot exist in isolation. If the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport collaborate effectively, rugby can reach schools and communities that have never had access to the sport. That means providing equipment, time to have PE on the curriculum, proper time and training for teachers so that they have the confidence to coach, proper facilities to get changed in, pitches to play on, and access for all children to boots and sports clothing so that they are able to play.

We must also recognise the role that rugby can play beyond the pitch. Sport is an important form of soft power. Football, music and the creative industries project British culture across the world, and rugby can do the same. Players such as Maro Itoje, Ellie Kildunne, Henry Pollock, Sadia Kabeya, Ellis Genge and Meg Jones are more than just elite athletes, they should be ambassadors for this country.

We should also recognise the serious financial challenges facing the professional game. Prem rugby has grown in popularity, attendance figures are rising, stadiums are filling and broadcast audiences continue to increase, but financial sustainability at the top of the pyramid remains a real concern, despite those successes. Several Premiership clubs continue to carry significant losses. Collectively, clubs owe large sums in pandemic loans issued through the Government support scheme. During covid-19, the Government provided £123.8 million in loans to premiership rugby clubs, which was 57% of the total amount to sports organisations. Champ clubs received a combined £4.8 million in loan support.

That was vital support that helped clubs survive the pandemic, but the financial model of professional rugby is fragile. Clubs such as Wasps, London Irish and Worcester Warriors have entered insolvency in recent years, unable to pay back the huge amounts of debt owed to the taxpayer. Even among the surviving clubs in the Prem, there are significant financial losses. Figures for 2025 showed that the biggest annual losses were £7.5 million at Saracens and £7 million at Sale Sharks, but every Premiership club recorded a loss, highlighting the financial pressures facing the professional game, even as it works to stabilise after the disruption of recent years.

The Government have been very supportive through the loans system, and I hope that we will hear a firm commitment from the Minister that that will continue, but it is not acceptable for top-flight rugby.

[James Naish]

I want to put on the record that Nottingham Rugby took out a £900,000 covid-19 loan. Before the pandemic, it was receiving somewhere between £500,000 and £750,000 a year in a grant from the RFU, but that is now down to around £150,000, so that £900,000 covid-19 loan is simply not payable. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that covid-19 loans are now a real problem for those smaller clubs, and are becoming a burden that probably will not be payable?

[Edward Morello]

Yes. Even with the renegotiation and the favourable terms that the Government have provided, they are creating a long-lasting problem for both Prem and Championship clubs. I suspect that, if 21% of premiership football clubs had collapsed inside 18 months, there would be widespread calls for a national inquiry. Collectively, Prem rugby clubs carry £300 million of debt, and often rely on the generosity of wealthy owners to remain afloat.

We must acknowledge that reality, but we should not respond with pessimism; instead, we should focus on building a sustainable future. I welcome the Prem’s road map to becoming financially stable and ultimately self-sustaining. When that happens, the professional game will be able to support the wider rugby ecosystem, funding development pathways, supporting lower leagues and strengthening grassroots rugby. As we have discussed, at the moment the gap between the Prem and the Champ is just too wide.

Promotion and relegation have long been a romantic part of British sport: they represent the idea that any club with enough determination and talent can climb to the top; they add jeopardy and excitement, and I wholeheartedly support them. But that system can only work if the financial foundations of the sport are strong enough to support it. The last team to be relegated was Saracens in 2020. The last team to be successful after promotion was Exeter Chiefs. Investors must have confidence that clubs can remain viable whether they are in the Prem or in the Champ. Countries such as France have demonstrated that that is possible. The current choice for professional rugby in England is between ringfencing the Prem, attracting investment and building for the future, or persisting as we are, which risks losing the professional game and clubs forever, because at the moment we do not have the investment, the viewership or the money to keep it afloat.

Sherwood Forest: Tourism

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.

Sherwood Forest Day is an opportunity for communities across Nottinghamshire to reflect on our heritage and celebrate what brings us together. I want to give a huge thank you to the Sherwood Forest Trust and Richard Townsley, the medieval sheriff of Nottingham, for all the work they are doing for Sherwood Forest Day and for our community as a whole. At the heart of all we are doing for Sherwood Forest Day are communities such as Ollerton, Edwinstowe, Blidworth, Rainworth and Clipstone—putting them back on the map and encouraging those from all over the world to visit and marvel at what we have to offer. We cannot do it alone, however. Celebrating our culture and history should not be left to only one day of the year; they should be honoured every single day.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As she knows, the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, has put the visitor economy at the heart of her vision for the east midlands region. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Centre of it All marketing campaign was launched last week. Does she agree that Sherwood Forest and the Trent sports quarter, which would be based in my constituency of Rushcliffe, have the opportunity to grow our visitor economy to the £1 billion target that Claire Ward has set?

[Michelle Welsh]

My hon. Friend is right: the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, is forever supportive of our tourism. Like us, she knows that there is still a lot more work to be done.

Many factors contribute to supporting a thriving tourism economy. Most notable for rural areas such as Sherwood Forest are adequate transport, support for business and community investment. Transport in rural areas such as parts of Sherwood Forest, including the more historic parts, is inadequate. Often, public transport is inconsistent: buses do not run in the evening or sometimes not at all. There is even a railway line named after Robin Hood that does not serve the majority of historic Sherwood Forest. How can we expect people to visit that historic land if they cannot access it—not only people coming from far and wide, but those who have it on their doorstep?

BBC Charter Renewal

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am MP for Rushcliffe in the midlands. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according Equity, the midlands generates 25% of the licence fee income, but less than 3% of it is spent in the region? Does he agree that regional disparities need to be looked at in the charter renewal process?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I also echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about the £100 million spent in Scotland and elsewhere to make sure not just that all voices from across all parts of the UK are heard and seen on the BBC, but that the production value, the jobs and the creative content are made in the regions. The BBC does quite well at that. As I said, it contributes £10 million a year, and the Scottish Government grant £14.8 million, including an extra £1.8 million, perhaps because the Deputy First Minister is a Gaelic speaker—tapadh leat for that, Kate. In reality, the budgets for Gaelic broadcasting have been frozen for 10 years, and in the case of Gaelic radio—the real mainstay of Gaelic-speaking communities —budgets have been worse. That means that in two years’ time, Gaelic broadcasting budgets will be worth just 50% of the launch budget.

S4C receives £7.5 million a year from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the transition to digital, while Gaelic gets nothing. In Ireland, TG Ceathair has €20 million for digital transmission; we have nothing. I do have hopes, though, because this is not about a begging bowl. Gaelic has created 320 jobs, and for every £1 invested, £1.34 comes back to fragile communities. I hope that the Culture Secretary and the charter review stay close to the language of the Green Paper, which promised to consider options to provide MG Alba with more certainty on its funding as part of the charter review.

I do not require a figure, but I would like guarantees from the charter review and the Government that there will be certainty of support for the Gaelic broadcasting service, not just as an incredible cultural asset but as an economic dynamo that will help the language and broadcasting to continue and allow us to tell our stories to the rest of the world.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I note that the Football Association sent a letter to Bill Committee members over the weekend, highlighting its concern about scope creep and how that may also interfere with what the regulator is meant to be tightly governed to do.

I would like to think that we would rather solutions were made within football. It is important that backstop powers are a clearly defined last resort and that the process encourages the principle of bodies working together to find a joint solution. Let me be very clear: by defining “relegation revenue” in statute and bringing parachute payments into scope, the Government risk triggering exactly the kind of interference that UEFA explicitly prevents in its statutes. Amendment 126 would remove subsection (3) in full. That would not abolish the regulator’s ability to consider fair distribution; it would simply make clear that internally agreed mechanisms, such as parachute payments, fall outside the regulator’s remit.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

On parachute payments, what is the shadow Minister’s view on the balance between sustainability and giving clubs a competitive advantage? Does he not think that the regulator could have a role to play in determining the extent to which parachute payments, which have grown considerably, are getting to the point at which their size distorts their purpose?

[The Chair]

Before the shadow Minister responds, I remind the hon. Member for Rushcliffe that the dress code requirements for Committee are the same as for the Chamber, which means a tie must be worn. I cannot see the hon. Gentleman wearing one. If he would like to put one on before he next seeks to intervene, that might make things easier.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson]

The spirit of the Bill is rightly focused on ensuring the financial sustainability of the game and, crucially, protecting the heritage of clubs by giving fans a greater voice. As I have said, we support the Bill. In the spirit of the noble aims of the Bill, we have tabled new clause 10, which proposes a simple but powerful safeguard: a mandatory “golden share” for fans. It would require all licensed clubs to

“issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust”

or equivalent democratic fan body. The share would grant fans a veto over fundamental decisions affecting the club’s identity and future, including relocation of its home ground, changing its name, altering its primary colours or badge, and entering or withdrawing it from competitions not sanctioned by the FA, Premier League or EFL.

The golden share was an idea included in Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review, but it seems to have been forgotten. We are simply bringing fans’ voices back to the table. The Committee will, of course, be able to think of many instances where such a veto would have helped. I will raise three examples: the attempt by Assem Allam, the owner of Hull City, to rebrand the club as “Hull Tigers”; the relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes; and the time that Cardiff changed their shirts to red. The new clause aims to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. It would be a positive step; we urge the Government to accept it.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

The Hull City example is one I am very familiar with. I call the Minister.

[The Chair]

I am afraid I reneged on my duty to call Mr Naish. I think I was too interested in the point about Hull City.

[James Naish]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I want to place it on the record that the Notts County supporters’ trust got in touch with me over the weekend, and it is very much sympathetic to new clause 10. The trust was set up in 2003 to save the club when it was in administration, and it has played an important role in saving the club from being wound up. It fully supports any improvements in supporter representation, and its representatives specifically noted that they would like to see at least one independent supporter director on the board of all professional clubs, which measure would push in the same type of direction as the new clause. I recognise what the Minister has just said, but I thank the supporters’ trust for getting in touch. I also recognise that, where trusts are in existence, they are doing excellent things for their clubs.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituency, and I am pleased that he has been able to represent his local fan trust. The Bill will require fan engagement at all clubs with the adequate and effective means in place to deliver the licensing requirement. The regime does allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at each club, based on what is best in each club’s specific circumstances. A supporter director was considered by the fan-led review and support for the concept was mixed. The review concluded that

“a fan director rarely delivers on fan expectations.”

Clubs are welcome to introduce any additional engagement strategy that they think will be of benefit to them and their fanbases. Many clubs have already responded to the fan-led review, made decisions to push themselves beyond the recommendations, and implemented fan engagement strategies that they think will work best for their club. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that case.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I will not question the experience of my hon. Friend, whose military background is far greater than one I could even dream of on a PlayStation, let alone in practice. He makes a valid point that English football is much more than just the Premier League. We take enormous pride in all the leagues in our country, as we do for British football more broadly. They are some of the most watched leagues in the world, with amazing clubs and competition. Competition across the pyramid is what we seek to promote and preserve going forward.

The proposed European super league rightly provoked outrage from fans, clubs and Parliament itself, and rightly collapsed after pressure from all those groups, but we must be cautious about giving a regulator the power to prohibit competitions on open-ended grounds. As the Minister has said, the Premier League probably would not exist in its current form if we had sought to prohibit it around 30 years ago.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, as there is not a level of regulation, there is increasingly a welfare issue around the amount by which players are required to shrink their off-season to continue to play football? The commercial imperatives of clubs will potentially have a detrimental impact on the quality of the game.

[Mr French]

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment. We will seek to debate that when we come to our player welfare amendment, because we are concerned about increasing the length of the season to generate further revenues. The tournament in America and the Asia tour that has just taken place at Man United are probably the prime examples of the impact that can have on players. The English team, in their performance the other night, sadly looked quite tired. There is an issue around player welfare that we must all acknowledge, particularly given the demands to generate more revenues for the financial fair play rules. I thank the hon. Member for making that point; I am sure we will come back to it when we reach the player welfare amendment.

On definitions and discretions in the clause, the Bill defines a prohibited competition in quite vague terms, and it is ultimately left to the discretion of the regulator. The explanatory notes state that subsection (5) sets out some factors that the IFR must consider when deciding whether to specify a competition as prohibited. What are the criteria for a competition to be deemed prohibited? Will they be set in primary legislation, by guidance from the Secretary of State or by the regulator? Is there a right of appeal if a competition is believed to have been unfairly designated as prohibited?

On international alignment, there is another issue that we must highlight. We must accept that football operates in a global ecosystem, as we have discussed. English clubs routinely participate in international and cross-border competitions, whether that be the Champions League, the Europa League or the Club World Cup, as does the national team. How does the clause interact with UEFA and FIFA competition rules? What happens if, for example, a competition is sanctioned by UEFA but deemed prohibited by the football regulator, or vice versa? This is a real issue for the regulation. We would like some clarity from the Minister on how such a conflict would be resolved, because it would put clubs in a very confusing situation.

On enforcement and penalties, clause 45 creates a legal duty not to participate, but what are the sanctions if a club does so? One assumes that it would lead to licence revocation, but what else? Would there be fines or points deductions? What penalties will the regulator look to enforce? Will they be proportionate? Will clubs be given prior notice and the chance to make representations?

On unintended consequences, we must avoid stifling innovation and competitive evolution in the sport. Not every new competition is a threat; some may bring financial or structural benefits, or benefits for fans. As I and the Minister have highlighted, we must remember that the Premier League was technically a breakaway league from the old First Division. If that happened today, we believe that the Bill and the regulator would be responsible for preventing that league, and all the attributes and characteristics that we celebrate in this country, from existing. We have to look at innovation carefully, and the answer must not always be no if there are clear benefits to the country and to the game of football itself.

We support the aim of preserving the integrity of English football, but the clause must be clearly defined, tightly drawn and fairly enforced. A law designed to stop the next European super league must not become a tool for bureaucratic overreach or political intervention by the regulator. The game belongs to its fans and its communities, not to the regulator or the governing body. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on my questions, particularly those about how the international system would interact with a prohibited competition.