Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, nearly 100 years ago my grandfather was an Olympic athlete. In 1932, he asked for time off work to travel to New York and onwards to Los Angeles on the Olympic train alongside all the other European participants. He did not win a medal, but his performance was featured in the cover story of Track Stats magazine last March. Known as “Flying Fuller”, he was Britain’s fastest man. Back then, sport was the amateur game. When he was alive, he told me how Lord Burghley dropped the baton in the 4x100 relay. It was a shame, he told me, because they had practised the handover in the changing rooms beforehand. It was different times—the epoch of the gentleman amateur.

I mention all this because sport is grounded in people, community clubs, the fellowship of teams and the tension of individual competition. It is the great leveller, and we can be proud that Britain has codified many of the great global sports. I know why this Bill is here. It is because the promoters of the truly global events have lobbied for it. I know because I have spoken to some of them. They have their sports rights to defend. They have signed up the big global brands. There are pallet-loads of merchandise to shift. They have told the Government that unless they pass this Bill, we will never get another sporting event in our nation. It is nonsense. That is what I would say if I was them, but we have been suckered by that. Money often follows sport, but sport cannot and should not be only about the money. This Bill makes sport all about the money, by law.

It will be said that we have had similar Bills before for the Olympics. That is right, and a completely bespoke effort was needed and justified. But the Olympics in 2012 were the exception, not the rule, and this Bill will make the exception the rule, in an unwanted, unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into our sporting and cultural life. Because each event is different, we will most likely need special purpose Bills for the crown jewel events anyway.

I am not against these Bills. I welcome the Euro 28 tournament. There will be circumstances and scope that will need to be negotiated, and if this Bill pertained to Euro 28 alone it would have my full support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier in this debate, we do not need legislation for many of these events. In providing an evergreen framework, perversely, all the Bill does is give away any and all negotiating leverage that we may otherwise have. As the noble Baroness, Lady Davies—who is not in her place—observed, we could end up bidding against ourselves. It prompts promoters to ask for even more, and counterintuitively it weakens our ability to land these events, because game theory tells you that.

It has been said that the Bill is just for a one-off such as the World Cup or the Euros, but that is not what the Bill provides for. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wood—whose comments I associate myself with—said, it is all a bit woolly. The press notices talk about the big tournaments, but it could end up with international table tennis or where there is a fuzzy boundary between sport and entertainment; wrestling and boxing have been mentioned. These are all less lustrous than the crown jewels. If we pass the Bill unamended, the rugby internationals or the Ryder Cup mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye—who is not in her place either—will all clamour to be included. They are already asking; it is a slippery slope.

That is where I have my problem with this Bill, but also with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, who seeks to expand the scope still further. There is a mission creep here that trespasses on the grittiness, the sweat, the highs and lows, and the visceral untidiness of sport. I am concerned because there are powers to designate zones around stadiums, or other undefined places, where trading will be made illegal. I asked the promoter of one of these events how far that exclusion zone may extend. He said, “Well, certainly between the transport interchanges and the stadium”. That was his minimum expectation.

Consider that 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road in south-west London. Every type of food from around the world is available, from licensed food vans and stalls set up in front gardens where enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There are old boys selling memorabilia and tat, the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club with its pop-up gazebo frying chicken wings for a couple of hours before the game. That is part of the grittiness. It adds to the day’s pleasure. Yet it is going to be made illegal on pain of a £50,000 fine, even if they have a licence—yes, a fine for the burger flippers from the Cubs and Scouts raising money for the jamboree, or for the home owner who is going to be doubly burdened by the mansion tax. Under this legislation, only expensive cardboard burgers, plastic tat and gassy lager sold in soulless, overpriced stadium concourse concessions will be permitted.

There are other provisions in the Bill to prevent online trading by mobile phone or other internet devices at an event. It seems to me that this amounts to a ban on closing out a bet on a game in progress from your seat, in an affront to the fan who likes a flutter. As most apps are based in Gibraltar, I am not quite sure how it would be enforced anyway.

But it gets worse, and I associate my comments with those of the noble Lord, Lord Wood. It will be illegal to pass on a ticket to a friend if your plan changes—say your Mum has fallen over at home or whatever. We all want to avoid the bots but, frankly, the ticket sellers and organisers have not worked hard enough to stop the scammers hoovering up all the tickets. Rather than sorting this omission at source, the Government are going to go after the little guy. If the Bill is passed, where will be the incentive to fix this problem? Instead, the fan is going to be forced to surrender tickets to the organisers, who can then resell them for whatever they like, as we have heard of in the FIFA World Cup, and by outlawing peer-to-peer platforms such as StubHub along the way.

I have been told by an organiser of one of these crown jewels events that fans will be able to surrender their tickets as little as 30 minutes before the game. All that will do is encourage hopefuls to turn up at the turnstiles and then be disappointed when, 10 minutes before the game, there is no ticket to buy. You could not make it up. If organisers and ticket marketers tried harder on the initial ticketing, we would not need these provisions at all. I need to ask the fundamental question: what is so bad about

“exposing for sale an event ticket”,

in the words of the Bill, to your Facebook friends? How is that so bad that it justifies a £50,000 fine?

I also want to know how this legislation will dovetail into the Government’s consultation on banning zero-hours. In Committee, I plan to introduce a carve-out for sporting events, because there are no guaranteed hours in sport; Fergie time tells you that.

I am not going to go on about unauthorised association, but it is so loosely defined that it could affect a bed-and-breakfast operator who simply suggests that they are not far from the event, or the struggling pub running a tournament sweepstake.

This Bill will sanitise sport, restrict choice, increase costs and damage the enjoyment of the day. Why can we not see that this harms, not strengthens, our negotiating power? Why have we got it in for the Scouts and Guides raising money for the jamboree, the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger and the bucket hat rather than the baseball cap, the fan who fancies ale rather than lager, or the geezer who just wants to place an in-game bet from the comfort of his seat in the middle of the game? Why are we on the wrong side of our sporting life?

This Bill is unnecessary. Last week, the Financial Times asserted that the Premier League was a national asset. It was right, and it has become so without the unnecessary provisions in the Bill. It is a sledgehammer to miss a nut and will reduce the simple enjoyment of the small pleasures of going to the game.

Now, I know that part of sport is knowing when you are beaten and I can tell from the House this evening that I am not going to win this one—but I have made my point. We must guide against mission creep. We must get the balance between the private interest and the public good right because, if we fail to do so, the fans at Old Trafford, Anfield and other places will, like the fans of Saudi Arabian golf, tell you the unintended consequences of putting the money first and the fans second.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I would not dispute that there were serious problems that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they are now being used far more extensively than intended in the legislation that the noble Lord took through this House, for much more trivial misdemeanours —nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.

I declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who is being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans “rent boys” at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained. It is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he has been charged with.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that, if our member is convicted, she will be seeking a banning order. His hearing is not due to take place until September 2027 and, in the meantime, he has been banned from his team’s stadium for the duration of the 2026-27 season and told that, if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it, at over £1,000 a year, and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, which is a Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat—and, to judge from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.

This is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was

“fleeting, non-violent …part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport”,

and a “momentary lapse of judgement”. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five-year banning order if he is convicted. Even the noble Lord would not, I am sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgment.

Why do I think that an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this Bill? For one, it is perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by the Bill will be added to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match, or a food vendor without a clean-zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Lord made the point a moment ago that a trader without a licence could be banned. Under this Bill, even if you have a licence, you are still subject to a fine of up to £50,000. Having a licence is of no consequence in this Bill. You can follow all the rules and be licensed by the local council, but it counts for nothing. It is another infringement on trade.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. He makes the point that I was trying to make even more forcefully. Even those with licences, nevertheless being unauthorised to sell merchandise, food or drink outside a stadium, could find themselves being given football banning orders if they are convicted of one of these new criminal offences. Even if there is nothing in the Bill as drafted before our House today that says these offences could be added to Schedule 1, what guarantee do we have that they will not be added in Committee, which has happened as I have followed the passage of various Bills through this House numerous times before? Bills change a good deal, and I would not be at all surprised if those offences were added to Schedule 1, and anyone convicted of them could be subject to a football banning order.

Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in law to prevent football banning orders being imposed on fans visiting from overseas. The purpose of this Bill, we have been told, is in part to prepare the country for the 2028 UEFA men’s football championship, which, as we have heard, will take place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. An amendment limiting the circumstances in which banning orders can be imposed on fans, including those visiting from the continent, will make Great Britain a more attractive destination in 2028 for lovers of the beautiful game. For those reasons, I hope to table an amendment in Committee reversing the expansion of the authoritarian banning order regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.