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
The House of Commons voted on 8 July 2025 on Amendment 18 to the Football Governance Bill, which had returned from the House of Lords for its Report Stage. The amendment, which proposed an alternative approach to how football would be regulated under the Bill, was defeated by 338 votes to 178. The government opposed the amendment, and it fell by a margin of 160 votes. The Football Governance Bill establishes a new independent regulator for English football, covering the financial sustainability and governance of clubs across the professional game. Amendment 18 sought to modify the framework through which that regulation would operate, representing a challenge to the government's preferred model. Its defeat means the government's original approach to football governance regulation remains intact, moving the Bill closer to becoming law without the structural changes the amendment's supporters sought to introduce. The legislation affects professional football clubs, their owners, fans, and the broader football pyramid. The vote split almost entirely along party lines, with all 298 Labour MPs and 38 Labour and Co-operative MPs voting against the amendment, while all 89 Conservative MPs present, all 63 Liberal Democrats, and smaller parties including Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and the DUP voted in favour. There was a notable cross-party coalition behind the amendment despite its defeat, reflecting a broad but ultimately insufficient opposition to the government's specific regulatory design. The same day saw two other amendments defeated and the Bill pass its Third Reading by 415 votes to 98, suggesting wide overall support for football regulation even among those who backed this amendment.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 18 to the Football Governance Bill, proposing a change to the regulatory framework for football
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 18, preferring the bill as currently drafted without this modification
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
63
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
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
Your 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