Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As others have said, it is a pleasure to speak after such an august gathering of former Olympians, sporting legends, relatives and “Flying Fullers”. Of course, it is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, back and making his points in his inimitable style. This really is the Lords at its best.

While I am talking about the Lords at its best, I have to add that we saw more sporting legend being created last night in the parliamentary tug of war: two noble Baronesses who are in the Chamber—my noble friend Lady Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah —won against the House of Commons MPs. There has been much talk today about other sporting events that should be included. I think we saw another one last night that should be included in this legislation.

As many have said, sport has been central to our national story. Football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, squash, darts, snooker—the list goes on—were all invented in the UK. We built Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wembley: cathedrals of competition; places where the human spirit is tested and celebrated in equal measure. From Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile on a track in Oxford, to the golden summer of 2012 when London showed the world how to host the Games with grace and greatness, this nation has a sporting tradition that is the envy of the world. It is precisely because we cherish that tradition that we must get this legislation right. It is in that spirit that the Opposition will approach the Bill.

Like everyone in the Chamber today, we support the purpose of this Bill. We recognise that many of the provisions stem from requirements put in place by UEFA, FIFA, the IOC and other governing bodies, but while supporting the intention of the Bill, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Hayward, have concerns about the chosen route to get to the final destination. The most fundamental concern is that this is skeleton legislation. I understand the intention behind having such a framework, but there are many things that we do not know.

As others have mentioned, the Bill does not tell us which sporting events will be designated. We have broad criteria, but we do not have the full details. We know the Government have at least two events in mind, the Euros in 2028 and the bid to host the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, but we do not know which other events might be included in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the men’s Rugby League World Cup. As a rugby supporter, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Hayward that the Rugby League World Cup has been hosted in the UK seven times. The Rugby World Cup has been hosted quite a few times and will be in the future. That is a frequently regularly occurring event that definitionally would be ruled out by this Bill. I think we would all say that we want these major events to be included in the Bill, and we want the UK to be bidding for them.

The Cricket World Cup is another example, even if it does expose us to being beaten by the Germans, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said. As my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, set out, there are also concerns about those sporting sectors and cultural events that will not be covered by the Bill: Wimbledon, the Open and the British Grand Prix, to name just a few. Why do the Government believe that they should not receive the protections that we have seen from ambush marketing, for example?

The Bill states that the event must be of significant international interest and gives a few examples, but it does not set out clearly how these tests will be applied in practice. How large will an event have to be to be considered? How many spectators and visitors will be required? How will the Government determine the scale and reputation of an event? These are all questions that need answering.

Nor do we have an idea about the length of time the regulations could be applied for, the scope and the size of possible event zones or the exceptions to advertising and trading offences. Many of these crucial details will be left entirely to Ministers, despite the concerns set out by many about the impact on local traders, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Young among others.

A future Secretary of State could designate events that Parliament never contemplated when passing this legislation. We are writing a blank cheque and trusting future Governments of whatever complexion to fill in the amount responsibly. That may be an act of faith, but it is not an act of scrutiny, and, as we all know, scrutiny is what we, the Lords, do best.

The current approach is to pass bespoke legislation when needed, such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. There are many benefits to this. It allows for greater specificity, with legislation that mirrors the unique requirements of the event and, crucially, it means that Parliament can better scrutinise the Government’s intentions. There is a risk that this vague framework will not be specific enough for individual events, meaning that additional provisions may very well—almost definitely—be needed to be made for those future events, but, as asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when this happens, what scrutiny will be in place for them?

When it comes to Committee, we will be tabling amendments to probe and clarify the scope and scale of those powers. For example, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 contained a specific exemption from the ticket touting offence for charitable auctions, recognising that legitimate charitable activity is categorically different from commercial touting for profit. Also, as my noble friend Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, set out, there are legitimate fan-to-fan ticket exchanges that should be considered that add to the access available for spectators to go to see the game. This Bill contains no such provisions. Indeed, every exception is left to the Secretary of State to specify in regulations. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Parliament should not leave to regulations what it can and should write into the Bill. We will be pressing for possible exemptions, particularly a charitable exception to be included in the Bill. I was also taken very much by the points made by my noble friend Lady Davies about the importance of free-to-air TV coverage of these events.

There is a notable absence of any time limit on the duration of regulations implementing this framework. Once a designation is made and regulations are laid, Ministers may keep them in place for as long as they see fit. This is novel. Section 16 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act stated that the trading offences could begin only 21 days before the Games began and must end five days after the Games ended. The Euro 2020 Act stated that the provisions could be in force only from 1 June to 12 July.

We suggest that the Government consider a maximum time limit for the regulations to be in effect, to ensure that the restrictions put in place are not in place unnecessarily. Many noble Lords have mentioned that the richness of the event is about seeing local traders. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, that I had the privilege—Chelsea lost, so the dubious privilege—of going to the FA Cup final the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed drowning my sorrows with my family afterwards in many of the fine establishments around the area. That added to the richness of the experience for me. We need to think carefully about making sure that this richness can be included or, if it is ruled out, that it is for the minimum time necessary to fit the requirements of the IOC or other bodies.

We must be cognisant of the impact of large sporting events on local communities. Of course they bring enormous benefits, but there are also costs. Competition organisers and local authorities should be duty bound to ensure that full clean-up responsibilities are put in place when major sporting events are held. We will explore this when the Bill comes to Committee.

We cannot consider legislation designed to attract and support major international sporting events without addressing the economic backdrop against which it arrives. As set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Government ask us to believe that Britain remains an irresistible destination for the world’s greatest sporting occasions—and so it should be. But the organisers of international events make choices, and they make them based on costs. High levels of taxation, an Employment Rights Act that has imposed new and significant burdens on employers, a national insurance increase that functions as a direct tax on jobs, and a substantial increase in the minimum wage—these are real costs that have to be borne by businesses. These businesses include the events companies, the hospitality sector, the security firms and the thousands of workers in the supply chains that make a major sporting event function. Britain’s attraction as a host depends not only on our sporting heritage and our infrastructure but on the commercial viability of operating here.

The Government cannot simultaneously proclaim this Bill as a statement of ambition for British sport and pursue policies that make Britain a more expensive and more regulated place to do business. The two are in tension, and Ministers have to explain how they intend to resolve it.

Finally, as many noble Lords have mentioned, we must address the question of scrutiny. Regulations implementing this framework will use the affirmative procedure, but only the first time. Any subsequent regulations amending or extending the regime will use the negative procedure. In other words, Parliament will scrutinise the framework once; after that, Ministers can modify it with no requirement for approval. Your Lordships will know that this is a significantly weaker arrangement than that provided for in the Olympic Games Act in 2006, which required the affirmative procedure for all such regulations. There is no principled reason why the standard should be lower for this Bill than it was for that previous legislation. If regulations are significant enough to require parliamentary approval once, they remain significant enough to require it subsequently.

At its heart, the Bill is about protecting fans, maintaining the integrity of access to events and giving our country the best chance of winning the right to hold those competitions. On these aims, the Opposition are united with the Government. But good intentions do not excuse the need for proper scrutiny. We owe it to the fans in the stands, the charities seeking to raise funds and the businesses that make these great occasions possible to get the details right. We will work constructively in Committee to improve the Bill. I look forward to the debates ahead.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

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

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I too start by declaring my interest as a Chelsea season ticket holder, and while I will not speak too long about Chelsea’s Club World Cup success, I will note that three of the four big European and world tournaments were won by English clubs—I can even say that half of them were won by Chelsea. We can see that we currently have a very successful game. Also, four of the starting 11 were English players and one, Cole Palmer, was the player of the tournament and even had President Trump celebrating alongside him. If only we could teach him to do the Palmer rub, we would really be there.

So we start off in a good position, and I have to add my thanks to the Minister. I think she took some political risk in bringing back amendments to the Lords when everything had obviously passed here already, and opening this up to possible further challenges and ping-pongs. She did that because she thought it would make this a better Bill, and I support everything she was trying to do and the intentions behind that, because I think it has made it a better Bill. While I agree with both my noble friends, the two Lords Moynihan, that there are dangers in the introduction of a regulator, and with my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Maude that we need to ensure that it is a light-touch regulator, this is an improvement—but there are dangers still out there. I think we all remember the long conversations we had about the risk of UEFA, and we need only to look at the last few days, with the demotion of Crystal Palace, to see that we have to be sure that we are not doing anything here that falls foul of UEFA.

The Minister was at pains to confirm that UEFA was on board with the last version of the Bill. What we see now is, of course, quite a different version in terms of the backstop. It is a better version, particularly with the removal of what we all thought was a fairly crazy pendulum mechanism. However, it allowed the Government to say at the time, keeping to one of the UEFA golden rules or red lines, that a decision has to be a football decision. In the past, it can be said of the pendulum that it was either an FAPL or an English Football League solution. Now that the regulator is able to negotiate to find its own solution, which is very sensible measure that I support, UEFA could argue that we are now imposing a potential government solution. It is the right approach to take, but has the Minister sought similar assurances from UEFA that this new backstop does not fall foul of some of its red lines, and that it is as comfortable with this new version as it was with the old version?

That said, this is a better version, and I thank the fab four Cross-Benchers for bringing together this solution. I am sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are not in their usual places to take their laps of honour. It is a sensible amendment which tries to lead to a negotiated outcome with compromise, rather than the arbitrary pendulum mechanism.

At the same time, it is very sensible—and I know David Kogan was very involved in this—that the regulated board are now responsible for the decision, with the removal of the expert panel, and they are willing to be accountable for that decision. I have known David Kogan for some 15 years and, like others, I truly believe that we have a real expert with deep knowledge of the game and sports rights; he is a valuable addition. As so many of these issues are judgment calls, I feel much better knowing that we have David Kogan’s judgment. We all have to accept that the appointment process was perhaps a bit unfortunate. Can the Minister say where we are with the investigation, and when can we expect an outcome? Obviously, we would all like to get him on board as quickly as possible.

I conclude by thanking the ministerial team, the Bill team and all noble Lords for their work during what has been a long, thoughtful, informative and good process, which has ultimately improved the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for a constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place and for their very kind comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring the Bill back, which was to ensure that we get a better Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for their support for changing the backstop mechanism. I am grateful too for the support for, and confidence across your Lordships’ House in, the Government’s preferred candidate.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulator as taking a light-touch approach, and I am grateful to all those involved in helping us get this over the line in a much more match-fit state than it left us. I note the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. I will send a transcript of the debate to the chair designate, although I am confident that he is following the debate and is already aware of the need—and their call—to tread lightly.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, asked how we would incorporate evidence from the “state of the game” report. Under the amended model, it would be explicit that the regulator must use the “state of the game” as the basis for its decision. The regulator must explain in its notice how its solution addresses the evidence from the “state of the game” report. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals, which the regulator must take into account. The regulator can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a wide evidence base for making a decision. This is a more evidence-based and data-driven process than before. We are also proposing an extension of the final proposal stage to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution based on evidence.

The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. As noble Lords will know and as I have stated previously, UEFA has written to confirm that it is content with the Bill and the FA has confirmed it. Its issues were with the previous Government’s version of the Bill and requiring the regulator to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy, something we have removed and something your Lordships’ House clearly debated at some length.

Past examples of Italy and Spain legislating in relation to football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer reassurance. Italy in 2008 and Spain in 2015 legislated setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither association has faced consequences from UEFA. I will return to exactly where we are with the process a bit later.