Football Governance Bills [Lords]: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading
74Ayes
337Noes
Defeated · majority 263 · Government won235 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 74 · No 337 · DNV 235 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Seventy-four MPs voted on 28 April 2025 to block the Football Governance Bill (Lords) at its Second Reading, using a procedural motion known as a Reasoned Amendment. The amendment, put forward by the Conservatives, set out objections to the bill in principle and sought to prevent it progressing further. It was defeated by 337 votes to 74. The bill aims to create an independent regulator for English football. A Second Reading vote in favour of a Reasoned Amendment would have effectively rejected the bill at its first substantive parliamentary hurdle. The defeat of the amendment means the bill can proceed to further scrutiny. The legislation affects football clubs across the English pyramid, their owners, and fans, particularly around financial sustainability and governance standards. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 246 Labour MPs who voted backed the bill by opposing the amendment, as did all 48 Liberal Democrats and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted. All 70 voting Conservatives supported the amendment, joined by three Reform UK MPs and one Independent. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The Conservatives' use of a Reasoned Amendment reflects their continued opposition to the bill's approach to regulating football, a position they have maintained since the bill's earlier passage through the Lords.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Reasoned Amendment, opposing the bill's current form and seeking to block or delay its passage through Parliament
Voting No meant
Oppose the Reasoned Amendment, backing the Football Governance Bill proceeding to further scrutiny in Parliament
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
246
115
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
70
0
46
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
47
24
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
29
13
Independent
—
1
7
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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