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, allowing it to advance to detailed line-by-line scrutiny. The vote passed by 342 ayes to 70 noes. Second Reading is the stage at which the House of Commons debates the general principles of a bill before deciding whether it should proceed further through the legislative process. The bill, if enacted, would introduce a new independent regulator for football clubs in England, aimed at protecting fans and ensuring the financial sustainability of clubs. The vote means the bill moves forward rather than being rejected at this early stage, keeping alive the prospect of formal oversight being imposed on the football industry for the first time. The legislation would affect clubs across the professional football pyramid, their owners, and supporters who follow them. The division fell largely along party lines. Labour MPs, including those elected under the Labour and Co-operative banner, voted unanimously in favour, as did the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most other smaller parties represented. The Conservatives provided the overwhelming majority of the opposition, with 67 of their MPs voting against and only one voting in favour. Reform UK's three participating members also voted no. The bill has a notable legislative history stretching back to the previous Parliament, and related votes in the Lords in July 2025 show the legislation continuing to progress, with a Third Reading in the upper chamber passing 415 to 98.
Voting Aye meant
Support creating an independent regulator for English football to protect clubs, fans, and the pyramid structure of the game
Voting No meant
Oppose the Football Governance Bill, likely on grounds of excessive state intervention in sport or concerns about regulatory burdens on clubs
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
48
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
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
Your 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