Football Governance Bills [Lords]: Second Reading
342Ayes
70Noes
Carried · majority 272 · Government won235 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 342 · No 70 · DNV 235 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 28 April 2025 to give the Football Governance Bill its Second Reading in the Commons, approving the principle of creating an independent regulator for English football. The motion passed by 342 votes to 70. Second Reading is the stage at which the House decides whether a bill should proceed at all; a vote in favour does not pass the bill into law but allows detailed scrutiny to begin. The bill would establish a new statutory body to oversee the financial sustainability of professional football clubs in England. Supporters argue it would protect clubs from the kind of financial collapse that has already affected clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, and give fans a formal voice in how their clubs are run. Those opposed contend that statutory regulation risks government overreach into a private industry and could deter commercial investment in the game. Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour, with 273 votes across the Labour and Labour and Co-operative groupings and no votes against. The Liberal Democrats added 48 Aye votes. The Conservatives provided the bulk of the opposition, with 67 of their MPs voting No and only one voting Aye. Reform UK's three voting members also opposed the bill. The bill had already passed through the House of Lords before arriving at this Commons stage, and subsequent Lords report stage votes in July 2025 show the legislation continuing its passage, with the Third Reading in that chamber passing 415 to 98.
Voting Aye meant
Support creating an independent regulator for English football to safeguard clubs and fans from financial mismanagement
Voting No meant
Oppose statutory regulation of football, arguing it risks government overreach into sport or stifles commercial freedom
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 Aye
245
0
116
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
1
67
48
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
47
0
24
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
2
0
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 aye · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (74 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0