Football Governance Bill [HL]: Third Reading
415Ayes
98Noes
Carried · majority 317 · Government won136 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 415 · No 98 · DNV 136 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 8 July 2025, the House of Commons voted to pass the Football Governance Bill at Third Reading, giving it final approval before it received Royal Assent and became the Football Governance Act 2025. The vote passed by 415 ayes to 98 noes, a majority of 317. The Act creates the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), a new statutory public body for English football. It introduces a mandatory licensing regime covering clubs in the top five English leagues, around 116 clubs in total. The IFR will assess the suitability of club owners and directors, impose duties on clubs to protect their home grounds and heritage, require clubs to consult fans before changing crests, shirt colours or club names, and collect a levy from licensed clubs to fund its work. The Act also gives the IFR backstop powers to intervene in revenue distribution between leagues if the leagues cannot agree a settlement themselves. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 299 Labour MPs and all 36 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the bill, as did all 63 Liberal Democrats, all four Plaid Cymru members, and all four Green MPs. All 85 voting Conservatives opposed it, joined by all six Reform UK MPs, four Democratic Unionist Party members, and one independent. There were no notable cross-party rebellions in either direction. The bill had faced sustained Conservative opposition throughout its passage; earlier on the same day, the Commons rejected Conservative-backed amendments at Report Stage by comfortable margins, continuing a pattern established at Second Reading in April 2025, when a reasoned amendment opposing the bill was defeated 337 to 74.
Voting Aye meant
Support establishing statutory regulation of English football, including a licensing regime for clubs, stronger owner suitability tests, and fan protections against changes to club heritage
Voting No meant
Oppose creating a new statutory football regulator, likely citing concerns about government overreach into a private sports industry or the regulatory burden 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
299
0
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
—
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
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
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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