Football Governance Bills [Lords]: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading
74
Ayes
—
337
Noes
Defeated · Government won
235 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 28 April 2025 on a reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservative opposition to block the Football Governance Bill at Second Reading. A reasoned amendment at Second Reading is a procedural motion that, if passed, would have prevented the bill from advancing any further. The amendment was defeated by 337 votes to 74, meaning the bill was allowed to proceed to its later parliamentary stages. **Why it matters:** The Football Governance Bill proposes to establish an independent regulator for English football, with powers over club finances, ownership and broader governance standards. Defeating the reasoned amendment allowed the bill to continue its passage through Parliament, keeping alive legislation that would introduce statutory oversight of professional football clubs for the first time. The bill is aimed at protecting fans and preventing clubs from collapsing under financial mismanagement, affecting supporters of clubs across the football pyramid. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Seventy Conservatives voted in favour of blocking the bill, joined by three Reform UK members and one independent, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the smaller parties present all voted against the amendment. There were no notable cross-party rebels in either direction. The bill had originated under the previous Conservative government before being carried forward by the current Labour administration, placing the Conservatives in the unusual position of opposing legislation they had themselves promoted, which provided a significant part of the political backdrop to the debate.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Football Governance Bill from progressing, opposing the creation of an independent football regulator in its current form
Voting No meant
Support the Football Governance Bill proceeding through Parliament, backing the establishment of an independent regulator for English football
411 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 235 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
247
115
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
70
0
46
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
48
24
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
29
13
Independent
1
6
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3
0
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
1
—
The Bill puts fans at the heart of football, establishes necessary financial sustainability safeguards, and David Kogan is highly qualified and independent; Conservatives are hypocritical for opposing a Bill they introduced.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,163 words) →
The Bill has been fundamentally altered from the Conservative original; David Kogan's appointment as regulator chair is a Labour crony appointment that destroys independence; the expanded regulator will increase costs on smaller clubs and risks UEFA sanctions.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,887 words) →
Kogan's appointment is corrupt: a Labour donor getting £130,000/year (half-million pounds over Parliament) on a £75,000 investment, plus donations to other Labour MPs; this violates the independence requirement and echoes UEFA's warnings about political interference.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (422 words) →
The Bill is almost identical to the Conservative original; claims about UEFA bans are false scaremongering; the Bill will protect fans and communities, and Conservatives are making a 'crazy decision' opposing their own legislation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,117 words) →
The Bill should be supported to ensure financial sustainability and heritage protection, but Liberal Democrats want even stronger measures on gambling regulation, human rights tests for owners, and free-to-air broadcasting.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,171 words) →
The Bill faithfully implements Dame Tracey Crouch's fan-led review; parachute payments must be considered to address unsustainable resource distribution (92% of funds to 25 clubs); the regulator's backstop powers are necessary.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,695 words) →
Concerns about parachute payments deterring investment in the Premier League; the regulator should not intervene in competition matters; the Bill risks over-regulation and killing the golden goose of English football.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (404 words) →
UEFA has expressed concerns about the Bill; the Government should publish UEFA's confidential letter so Parliament can be properly informed before voting.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (74 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0