Football Governance Bill [HL] Report Stage: New Clause 3
86
Ayes
—
340
Noes
Defeated · Government won
221 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on New Clause 3 during the Report Stage of the Football Governance Bill [HL] on 8 July 2025. The new clause, which would have added specific additional provisions to the football governance framework, was defeated by 340 votes to 86. The government voted against the amendment, and it did not pass. **Why it matters:** The Football Governance Bill establishes a new independent regulator for English football, and this vote concerned whether to expand the scope of that regulatory framework beyond the government's preferred boundaries. The defeat means the additional specific measures proposed in New Clause 3 will not form part of the legislation. Those who backed the clause argued that more comprehensive regulation was needed to address issues not fully covered by the government's approach, while the government and its supporters maintained that the bill as drafted strikes the right balance without adding further regulatory requirements. **The politics:** The vote produced a striking cross-party coalition in favour of the new clause, with the Liberal Democrats providing 64 of the 86 ayes, joined by Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK, and several independents. Labour and its Co-operative Party allies provided all 340 no votes, with no rebels breaking ranks on either side of the Labour benches. The lopsided result reflected Labour's substantial Commons majority rather than any particular consensus on the policy merits. The same day saw the bill pass its Third Reading by 415 votes to 98, confirming broad overall support for football regulation even as specific amendments were rejected.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding New Clause 3 to the Football Governance Bill, likely an opposition or backbench amendment seeking to alter the bill's regulatory framework
Voting No meant
Reject New Clause 3, maintaining the bill as drafted by the government — the large No majority (340 vs 86) is consistent with the Labour government whipping against the amendment
426 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 221 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
300
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
38
4
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
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
1
0
—
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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