Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Together, my amendments would provide greater protection of sports rights data, measures to tackle gambling black markets and an opportunity to catch up with many other sporting bodies and countries with measures to reduce gambling harm. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, if no one else wants to follow the noble Lord, I will add my support to the case that he is making. Like him, I raised this at Second Reading, and I agree with every word he has said, so I do not want my noble friend the Minister to think that this a one-man show of someone who has specific views on gambling. We have to be aware of the significant pressure felt by those who get caught up in gambling. Predictive events and things of this kind are difficult to keep on top of, and it is hard to know what the next challenge might be. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord have a deal of validity, whether or not they are exactly what we should be doing, and I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to a genuine concern.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I wanted to allow some time to raise and discuss the important issue of gambling advertising—I was hoping for more discussion of it. I note that I support Amendments 37, 41 and 44. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has already made the case on gambling very strongly, and it was something I raised at Second Reading, so I will speak chiefly to my Amendments 42, 45, 49 and 52, which are about fossil fuel advertising. They seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies. We could hardly have picked a better day to be debating these amendments, given the heatwave that the UK is currently facing. One significant impact of that heatwave will be on many sporting events. Many people’s intention to do all sorts of physical activity will be, for very good reason, curtailed in the coming week.

In the Bill, we are talking about highly valued, important events, and they should not be used as platforms to boost the reputation of damaging industries whose products are driving the events that we are currently experiencing. Sponsorship is not philanthropy. Companies invest in sport because they know their association with trusted institutions improves their public image and strengthens their social licence. With this Bill, we have the opportunity to ensure that the biggest events in this country that we host do not become a vehicle for greenwashing. We note that young people are a significant part of the audience of many of these events, and that they are the people who will have to bear the consequences for the longest time.

As I raised at Second Reading—and it became very much a basis for these amendments—this is not something we are dreaming up. Britain would not be able to claim to be world-leading should the Minister say, “Yes, I entirely agree with you” and adopt all my amendments. France became the first European country to ban advertising for fossil fuel products in 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces. As I said at Second Reading, a number of councils have already shown leadership. Today, we are seeing leadership arriving in Westminster from the rest of the country; this is a place where we could find some more leadership on that. The UN Secretary-General has called for restrictions on fossil fuel advertising similar to those applied to tobacco.

I move to my next set of amendments, which are related but different. Amendments 43, 46, 50 and 53 are about the advertising of less healthy food. There is a huge and similar kind of contradiction of promoting sport as a route to health and well-being while simultaneously allowing sponsorship from products that undermine those outcomes. These and other amendments seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drinks. We are talking here about the major ultra-processed food and fast food brands, which are, sadly, major suppliers of the British diet; we are all paying the price for that.

The gap is that Ofcom does not regulate sports sponsorship deals; we have regulations about junk food advertising, but not about sponsorship. Therefore, Ofcom cannot do anything about watching a sporting event and being bombarded with advertising for McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and so-called sports drinks like Powerade. Those brands appear everywhere. We do not see adverts for tap water, though it would be quite nice if we did—let us put that down as a thought. This creates a health halo effect: products are conceived and often advertised as compatible with a healthy, active lifestyle when their nutritional profile is anything but.

Public health bodies and parliamentary research have consistently identified marketing as a key driver of childhood obesity. The Government already have policies on direct advertising to act in this area, and historically we saw the bans of cigarette advertising that had to be continually strengthened. We need to see the same thing for ultra-processed and other unhealthy foods. We have an accepted principle that the marketing of less healthy food to children is a legitimate public policy concern. These amendments address an inconsistency in public policy. Sport should be used to inspire healthy lives, not as a platform to promote the consumption of foods we know will shorten people’s lives and make them less healthy.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am tempted to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was saying, but not quite in the way he suggested; I am tempted to follow up what he said about referees, particularly in the Scottish context, not least because my Scottish team of Motherwell bore the brunt of some of the difficult decisions that were made. He also mentioned the difficulty that footballers seem to have in coming out as gay. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that one of the reasons why we need banning orders is that there has been so much homophobia, as well as many other problems, in football in recent years.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Without wanting in any way to defend the remark that our member made, it was made in the heat of the moment and in the context of an exchange of insults with a rival group of fans. None of those other fans complained or said or showed in any way that they were upset or offended. There is also absolutely no evidence that they were gay—they were just Chelsea fans. Does the noble Baroness nevertheless think that, if he is convicted, a five-year banning order involving draconian restrictions on his liberty is an appropriate and proportionate punishment?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I know nothing of the detail of what was said, the circumstances or whatever, but, as someone who has attended football matches in many stadia over many years, I know that some very unpleasant things happen and we need the ability to have football banning orders where appropriate.

Virtually all noble Lords have welcomed the Bill, as I do. It is necessary that we have as much power as we can to make sure that events such as Euro 2028 go well. Many people have spoken about the importance of different sports and sport generally to the economy, society and the whole psyche of the country. When I think about sporting events, because of my particular interests I think about football. Noble Lords opposite are smiling, because they have heard me talk about this on many occasions. It is important to my family. During the football season, each of us looks at the football results and knows which of our colleagues will be smiling on Monday morning. It is a very good test. I am still smiling, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for mentioning this, but 10 days ago I was at Wembley with my family when Bolton Wanderers won promotion to the Championship. My noble friend Lady Morris and I were comparing notes on this just a little while ago.

Football is important. The preparations being made for Euro 2028 are important, but there are issues that colleagues have raised on the Bill that are worth emphasising. Although we all more or less support the Bill, it has aspects that could be tightened up or go a little further. Ticket touting has been mentioned by many others. I think there is an impression that it is a series of one-off events; in fact, it is a pretty big industry. My noble friend Lord Mann called it “organised crime”. It is right to take action, but is the Minister sure that the penalties are severe enough, given the nature of the people we are talking about? Like many others, I would like to see this apply to domestic competitions and non-sporting events as well. This Bill, as has been mentioned, applies just to international events, which means we cannot talk to or amend it in ways that we might want to so that it covers domestic situations. However, we can learn from some of the problems we have in domestic sporting events to try to make sure we get some of these things right.

Advertising has been mentioned. It is not a straightforward issue, nor one that is completely in the Government’s control, because there are international contracts. FIFA, UEFA and any other governing body will do its own deals on sponsorship and advertising, and then of course companies will spend a great deal of money and effort circumventing those restrictions. I acknowledge that it is a complex problem, but the Government are thinking along the right lines here. Over recent years, we have had lots of changes and dire warnings about what would happen if we banned certain types of sponsorship. I remember the discussions about football and tobacco, and the threats we were told existed when Formula 1 was forced to give up tobacco advertising. It was supposed to be the end of Formula 1—it was not. However, it is a really difficult issue because this is a changing picture and a very different, challenging situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, next season in the Premier League, betting companies will not be allowed on the front of shirts. It is a welcome, small measure. It is probably because clubs feared something more draconian but, at the same time, some clubs now say that they will have betting companies on the front of their training shirts, which are also very visible and seen by many, and indeed replicas are bought.

I mention this not because it is covered by the Bill but because it illustrates the changing nature of the challenge we are facing. It is a moving target, and it is the same with gambling. We are soon to see prediction markets being regarded as products and the Gambling Commission in the UK has regarded prediction markets as a “betting intermediary”, so they would be covered. However, they are not classified as such in other countries, so, again, there is always going to be a problem with implementation, and a real challenge for the Government and those who monitor sporting events.

The other issue that I want to raise is transport. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct someone to prepare a transport plan in connection with a sporting event. This is very sensible and I welcome it, and I wish we had such plans for more sporting events, especially domestically. However, the Bill seems to concentrate on roads. We need plans for roads, but I am old enough to remember when there were “Cup Final Specials”: trains which went from the towns that were playing in the cup final. Now, almost every big event at Wembley is marked by train travel problems. Indeed, at the match that I was at 10 days ago, fans from Bolton had to be advised to make alternative arrangements because of the difficulty of getting to Wembley for 1 pm on that Sunday. The day before, when the Championship play-off was being held, there were no trains whatever from Middlesbrough to London. Again, there was no co-ordination, which made it difficult.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way? Do I understand that she is advocating, for the events that would fall within the ambit of this Bill, the prevention of strike action? It would be welcomed by many people to save the inconvenience she mentions and would do a lot to level the playing field.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. On this occasion, there were no strikes involved in those disruptions.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she advocating for Great British Railways to unite the railway companies so that it is all under one umbrella?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I have thought of raising this with our noble friend Lord Hendy, who seems to be on top of all those issues.

I will point out one other anomaly, despite the time. Literally the biggest game in English women’s football—the Women’s Cup Final—was held at Wembley last week and there was no service to Wembley on the Lioness Line. How ironic is that?

I welcome this Bill and its proposals. However, please can we learn some domestic lessons from this and have some domestic improvements, because there are many problems and challenges on the domestic, as well as the international, front?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Thirdly, seeking to balance these two objectives, the amended Bill recognises that this should be light-touch regulation, with the regulator intervening only where it is necessary. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill team for their efforts to engage with me and with other noble Lords to improve the Bill. I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill team on their significant achievement in managing this Bill and, mixing the sporting metaphors, getting it over the line.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of what the Minister said this evening. It is right that we talk a little about the new arrangements for mediation and the backstop. The original amendment was overcomplex, but many of us were concerned about the binary nature of the choice that was to be made. For many of us, the important factor in finding a way forward was that we maintained a backstop, because we are not talking about negotiations between equal partners. That is why we needed the retention there; that is very important. I congratulate Ministers on finding a way through this which is satisfactory to everybody who expressed concerns and wanted to move forward.

I welcome what the two previous speakers said about the new independent regulator. He is intent on making this job work and moving things forward very quickly, which is exactly what football needs.

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam, who cannot be here this evening, we are very impressed by and very much welcomed the engagement of the Minister in this House, my noble friend Lady Twycross. It is a model of how Ministers, Back-Benchers, civil servants and external parties can react. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we have not agreed on every aspect of this Bill. That has been important.

I should declare my interest: I am looking forward to the new season, with Bolton Wanderers playing Stockport on that first Saturday—I think I am looking forward to it anyway. Bolton Wanderers went through all the problems that are very well known. I was struck, in the final stages of the debate in the other place, by how many individual MPs had to get up to say that their individual clubs had just gone through difficulties or were facing similar difficulties in the very near future; Sheffield Wednesday is the most obvious example.

The need for this Bill is well and truly proven. It is now in extremely good shape, and I congratulate those who have been involved. We should mention Tracey Crouch, who started this process with her review. I will also say that I am very pleased that three talented women Ministers have been the ones to see this through.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be reasonably brief. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, covered most of what I was going to say on the technical stuff. We sent the Bill back, and I think everybody agreed it was not perfect. Then we got this list of amendments back, and my heart sank at the thought of another 12 hours’ debate on each and every one of them. The only person whose eyes lit up was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who obviously gets paid by the hour by Manchester City. We are nine months into waiting for the 115 charges result; we are still playing a lot of extra time on that one, but let us park it. I am not sure who is the underdog in the game between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County, but it will be an interesting encounter.

We went over these amendments to try to find fault with them, to pick something out, and to see whether the Government were trying to slide something through. Honestly, they have improved the Bill tremendously, and that is partly because of the slight input from the regulator designate, who has clarified the situation. We were a little bit in the dark before about what we thought the role should be and what it was morphing from and to, but just talking to David and understanding his love of what he is going to do, and hearing the passion with which he speaks about being the regulator, tells me it is in safe hands.

I had a number of chairmen, not so much from Championship but from League One and League Two clubs, emailing me, and I said that it is going to be good for the game. That is really where I have always been: at the bottom of the pyramid. The Premier League is fantastic—it will flourish and it will carry on delivering—but League One and League Two clubs, and some of those in non-league clubs, will take a deep breath now and say, “Let’s see this happen”. It will give them that certainty and hope that there will always be something there for them when times are difficult. I have known football clubs that have had to come to local authorities and beg and borrow for assistance. That is a difficult thing to do with public funds, but we did it, and the benefits for the economy, for local councils and for shopkeepers are there now for all to see. The community is all football, and if you had any doubt about that, you would look at this.

I have no complaints about Chelsea becoming the world champions, but that was the most ridiculous competition in the most ridiculous place. Any regular football fan seeing two o’clock in the morning kick-offs was the Armageddon that was said would happen to us. It has not happened because we have got our Bill through; we have got our ducks in a line, and we will be able to protect the league that we love and cherish. I wish the Bill well on its way now. We can move forward. If the noble Baroness has nothing to do, she might want to help me out with the employment Bill tomorrow if she is free, because that is another challenging Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, despite the very kind words of my noble friend the senior Lord Moynihan, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I understand that we have to be careful in declaring our interests. I declare myself a season ticket holder of the Club World Cup champions of the world, whose games I have been attending since 1958—a time when many noble Lords were not even alive.

As we enter what we might call the final minutes of extra time on this Bill, it would certainly be churlish of me not to repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Maude about the Minister’s very careful and kind attention throughout this Bill, and the improvements that have been made as this Bill has come back from the Commons. But somebody must stand up and say that there is an opinion that can be heard in this House that a regulator is a really bad idea for this sector.

In saying that, I accept that it was our side, scoring, as you might say, an own goal, who started all of this. I hope that, if ever we come to power again, we have leaders who do not say, “There go the people, I must follow them”, but who think rather longer-term, not about how football fans respond to artfully constructed opinion polls but how football fans will react to the depredations of this regulator, however well-intended and good—and everybody on all sides has applauded the selection of the regulator—that will make this sector worse, and possibly very bad.

Why do we have this regulator? Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned, Bolton football club took some risks, went bust and got relegated. Is Bolton football club no longer? Has it now vanished? Oh, no, it is still around. For those who are not massively enamoured of or conversant with the world of business—it appears that most of the Cabinet is comprised of those who have never been involved in business—it may come as a surprise to know that this is how business works. You take risks and sometimes you go bust, then you get re-formed, as Bolton football club did, and you carry on, with the same fans and the same ground. They are in a lower division but can fight back and get re-elected to higher divisions.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Time is late, so I do not want to go through the whole history of Bolton Wanderers, but the noble Lord’s facts are not quite correct. What we are concentrating on here is that all clubs should have a better business approach to football and not just rely on wealthy local individuals or people who come along and buy up a club. We need a fit and proper persons test. That is the kind of progress we will be making. We need to make sure that, all through the pyramid, there is a better business approach to football. That is what the new regulator will help create.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. It is a pity we are discussing football and not chess, where maybe the clock would have been stopped to give me the time I would need in view of that lengthy interruption. The noble Baroness has made my point. In life, one takes risks. The fact that we have in this country the best football in the world is because enormous risks were taken in setting up the Premier League, and it has been enormously successful.

The noble Baroness was basically saying, “We know best and, to impose our view of how it should be—the non-commercial view—we will have a regulator. By the way, when we have the regulator, we will impose all sorts of little baubles on the Christmas tree”, as we discussed earlier in these debates. One example was EDI. She was basically saying, “We will impose EDI on all football clubs. Just as that pernicious doctrine is fading away, we’re going to impose it”. The Labour Party—God bless—won an election and has the right to impose these Bills. I am merely warning about what will happen.

I wrote to the Minister, who very kindly responded at length. The Labour Government often pray in aid the McKinsey studies on how EDI is a jolly good thing and leads to better organisations. I wrote to her pointing out that the McKinsey work has been completely discredited. She kindly wrote back to me saying, “Yes, I agree that the McKinsey work has been discredited, but many other studies have not been discredited and show that EDI is a jolly good thing”. So I called one of the most senior people at McKinsey and said, “Your studies have all been discredited, haven’t they?”. He said yes. I said, “Well, people are saying that there are many other studies that support the EDI idea”. He said, “There aren’t any. We’ve looked for them. They aren’t there”. The Minister did not give me examples—she may have examples, but she did not give me any in the letter—of anything but the utterly discredited McKinsey idea of EDI. That is just one example of the kind of baubles that have been put on this Christmas tree and that will make things worse in our industry.

It is indeed late, as noble Baroness said, and I will try to wrap up. We do not know best; the market knows best. The market has produced one of the most extraordinarily successful industries that we have in this country. We are going to try to take the market away and impose on it all sorts of rules. I am here just to put down a marker—