Football Governance Bill [HL] Report Stage: New Clause 1
167
Ayes
—
346
Noes
Defeated · Government won
133 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on a proposed New Clause 1 to the Football Governance Bill during its Report Stage on 8 July 2025. The amendment, which sought to add additional regulatory powers or protections to the Bill beyond the government's preferred framework, was defeated by 346 votes to 167. **Why it matters:** The Football Governance Bill establishes a new Independent Football Regulator for English football, and this amendment would have expanded its scope or strengthened its powers beyond what the government had designed. Its defeat means the Bill continues on the government's preferred terms, without the additional regulatory provisions the amendment's supporters believed were necessary to protect clubs, fans, or the wider game. The outcome shapes the practical reach of the new regulator once it comes into operation. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. All 340 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs present voted against the amendment, while Conservatives (91), Liberal Democrats (64), and smaller parties including Reform UK, the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party, and Traditional Unionist Voice all voted in favour. The Green Party sided with the government against the amendment. There were no notable rebels within the Labour bloc. This sits within a broader legislative journey in which opposition parties have repeatedly attempted to strengthen the Bill at various stages, with the government consistently holding firm on its original approach.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding New Clause 1 to the Football Governance Bill, likely proposing an additional or alternative regulatory provision beyond what the government's Bill contains
Voting No meant
Reject New Clause 1, backing the Bill as drafted by the government without this additional provision
513 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 133 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
302
60
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
91
0
25
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
38
4
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
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
0
1
Opposes the Bill as political overreach; argues it risks regulatory scope creep, excessive costs on clubs, potential UEFA/FIFA conflicts, and lacks credibility due to governance concerns around the IFR chair's appointment.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,369 words) →
Defends the Bill as necessary to protect football fans and clubs from irresponsible owners; argues the regulator will be operationally independent and amendments are largely unnecessary given existing safeguards.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,612 words) →
Supports the Bill's principles but believes it could be strengthened with amendments on free-to-air TV access, mandatory golden shares for fans, human rights vetting of owners, gambling restrictions, and player welfare schemes.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,282 words) →
Supports the Bill but advocates strongly for new clause 13 on neurodegenerative care scheme for former players, arguing it addresses a moral obligation to footballers suffering from dementia and related conditions.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,524 words) →
Supports the Bill and advocates for new clause 8 on ticketing fairness and new clause 6 on financial abuse protections for players; argues football should remain accessible to working-class fans.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,175 words) →
Supports the Bill and amendments addressing player welfare from neurodegenerative conditions and strengthening fan protections, particularly the golden share concept.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (410 words) →
Questions Conservative consistency in opposing a Bill they drafted; expresses concern that neurodegenerative disease affecting players requires urgent action beyond the Bill.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (222 words) →
Supports the Bill; challenges Conservative hypocrisy on transparency regarding UEFA/FIFA correspondence and highlights that Conservatives originally promoted independent regulator concept.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,444 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0