Football Governance Bill [HL] Report Stage: Amendment 18
178Ayes
338Noes
Defeated · majority 160 · Government won132 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 178 · No 338 · DNV 132 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Amendment 18 to the Football Governance Bill was defeated in the Commons on 8 July 2025 by 338 votes to 178. The bill, which establishes a new Independent Football Regulator for English football, was at Report Stage, the phase where MPs debate and vote on proposed changes before the bill proceeds to its final Commons reading. The precise content of Amendment 18 is not available from the debate record, so its specific effect on the legislation cannot be stated with certainty. The Football Governance Act creates a mandatory licensing regime for clubs in the top five English leagues, strengthens tests for club owners, protects club heritage assets including stadiums, and gives the regulator backstop powers over revenue distribution between leagues. Any amendment at this stage would have altered one or more of those provisions. Given that the amendment was defeated by the government's large majority, it is likely that the government opposed it and whipped Labour MPs accordingly, though the absence of debate extracts means the precise policy stakes cannot be confirmed. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 336 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted went into the No lobby, while Conservatives (89 Ayes), Liberal Democrats (63 Ayes), and smaller parties including Plaid Cymru, the Greens, Reform UK, and the DUP all voted Aye. Six Independents voted Aye and one voted No. The bill passed its Third Reading the same day by 415 votes to 98, suggesting broad overall support for the legislation despite opposition disagreements on specific provisions.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 18 to the Football Governance Bill, the specific content of which is not available from debate excerpts
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 18, backing the bill as it stood without this change — likely the government's position given the No side's large majority
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
298
63
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
89
0
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
38
4
Independent
—
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
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
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 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