Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. I congratulate Linsey Farnsworth in another place on the initiative she has taken and, particularly, the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on the Bill, both in another place and indeed here today. I wish him well—all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the Bill and consider some of its implications.

I too will share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this. The Football Spectators Act 1989 was a Bill that I piloted through the Commons as Minister for Sport. The subsequent Act that he referred to, the Football (Offences) Act 1991, addresses broader forms of football-related disorder, allowing for the banning orders, which do not make, as has rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a prosecutable offence. It is important and may be helpful, especially when we get to Committee, to reflect on the conversations that took place at the time of the original Bill, during the Thatcher and the Major Governments. Thirty-five years on, some of those same arguments were raised by Katie Lam in another place and echoed during the Bill’s proceedings.

No law can be effective unless you have the resources to bring the perpetrators to justice, and the cost of policing will be substantial. As Katie Lam clearly stated:

“It is … right that we give police and organisers the tools that they need, not just to remove people in the moment, but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1253.]


When the original legislation was first considered, this proposal came up, and concern was expressed by the police, some of the clubs and politicians about how well the offences could be policed and how much additional policing costs and stewarding would follow.

Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on Private Members’ Bills who and was also around at the time, back in the early 1990s, stated in Committee on this Bill in another place:

“I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it ... there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1251.]


This was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the Bill and it remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in Committee. Today, however, the Government have the opportunity to say that they will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available. Sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour.

It is interesting that, in introducing the Bill, the noble Lord referred to the importance of adjusting it to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit ticket or the wrong ticket would effectively be exempt because this is a very narrow Bill. I hope that that would be included. I promise I am not going to push this to votes in Committee, but I think it is something that we need to look at very closely. It is a classic example of where the CMA has been given powers and those powers have not been used effectively; the resources have not been there to make sure that this problem of modern-day ticket-touting has been addressed.

There are literally thousands of people who go to football matches illegally—I will come to the laws that cover that—with tickets that have been acquired through bots or the secondary market. Many are rejected on entry. That unauthorised entry in itself often causes a fracas or problems because the individuals concerned feel that they have been unfairly treated.

So if we are going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this Bill, and if this Bill is going to be worth more than the paper it is written on, which I believe it will be, the Government have to commit to ensure that the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities—in particular, for the police to be available on day one, while football clubs will need to invest in training, stewarding ticket systems and support staff. We knew this when considering this offence and drafting the Football (Offences) Bill back in 1991.

We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all, the political climate at the time when we bought the first two Bills, now Acts, did not warrant going further than we had with onerous but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football-related disorder.

In looking at the Casey review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards, leaving, “Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable” and her recommendations for stricter enforcement within the stadium, which can be read across into clubs as a whole. I think this was a clarion call to recognise that there are people who are willing to risk unauthorised entry to football matches—who the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, called the “mindless thugs” at Wembley that day—and a wake-up call for football clubs and venues, such as Wembley, that host national and international matches, to install and modernise their entry systems and ensure that their stewards are well trained and capable of strict enforcement of club, FIFA, UEFA and FA rules at matches.

It is important to recognise that a central and growing issue is the existence of some stadium, event and club employees who are, regrettably, bad apples willing to break the rules of the club and assist or facilitate entry with an invalid matchday ticket, which adds to the problem that the Bill seeks to address. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid matchday ticket, yet this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority, of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry.

Last season alone, four stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimile tickets, and they benefited financially. That small but relevant number of corrupt stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment. On matchday, the purchaser is made aware of which turnstile to go to with the facsimile and which member of staff to speak to. The purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket; the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium and takes his payoff. In one recent case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match.

This practice is, regrettably, becoming more prevalent. A simple clause making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or a matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use would plug this loophole that can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this Bill seeks to address.

I intend to put down an amendment to new Clause 1A(1)(b) which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in Committee an important change meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did there would be no offence committed. Under this legislation, bad actors, particularly under new Clause 1A(3), will simply tell customers that, if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith. Altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but cause many of the problems that the proposers of the Bill are seeking to avoid. A clause such that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria, and discussions could take place with clubs, regulators and, indeed, fans to make sure that this is practical and enforceable. Simply requiring anyone to believe that they had purchased something generally wrecks the good intentions of the proposed legislation.

In Committee, I will turn to the expensive and massive problem, which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the past 10 years, of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout is known to have more than 1,000 memberships at a Premier League club. It is estimated that that business alone—the unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market—costs between £100 million and £200 million of illicit business per annum, which is nearly £1 billion during this Parliament. It just shows how important it is to make sure that a genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket and that we tackle that problem.

This may not be the right Bill to do that, but it is certainly the right Bill to talk about it, in Committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell tickets on the secondary market in the UK unless you are authorised by the event, organiser or club. That is what Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was for—it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches—but it is not policed and the law is flouted. Again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that a well-intentioned law is properly policed and implemented.

These are just some of the issues that I hope we will be able to look at in detail. The Bill is exceptionally well-intentioned and has been worked through very hard. In Committee and subsequent stages, I believe we could look at making it even more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about, keep thugs out of the game in which they have no place and make sure that true football fans enjoy it, while also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much-abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes of unauthorised entry to football matches.

I wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of the Bill. I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport and on making sure that issues such as this—minor in some ways, not huge legislation, but important to the future of football—find their way on to the statute book and win widespread support among the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective framework for football in this country.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the Bill and the principle of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will repeat nothing of his points but merely make observations to add to them.

I think Members of the House would be shocked at the prices for the average secondary market ticket for the Premier League today. The amount of cash and profit that can be dispensed to others in precisely the way the noble Lord articulated is greatly underestimated, as are estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League going through the secondary market. This is very big business.

One point that the noble Lord did not make but that needs adding is that the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. Dublin is a huge centre for that but there are many more outside this country. That is the business model. The term used to me by the people with the most expertise in this field is organised crime, and that is what this is. It is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash-in-hand business outside a stadium, who are still recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They are only a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, big money, and that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration in Committee is whether FA Cup fixtures should be included, because then you have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture, and the problems associated with it, away from the norm.

There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures. At Oxford United last March, I witnessed—although the police intervened after 10 minutes—the most ingenious of attempts. A van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand. A ladder, which was more like a window-cleaning device, was raised and, in great comfort, two fans started to observe the fixture from on high. Such was the angle of the ladder that they may well have technically been inside the stadium. I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the true fan—but one without a ticket—may attempt to see a fixture.

I put this question for consideration to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: the old Scratching Shed at Leeds United could be climbed from the outside. Whenever a fixture was full and the gates were locked, fans of all ages would climb on to its roof. The stands at the same stadium these days would not facilitate that, but there are clubs promoted to the National League where a similar concept would apply. The question, “What is illegal entry?”, needs a bit of consideration, because fans are ingenious and there are many ways in which things can be done that may not totally fit with health and safety regulations.

When I first went to football, I was getting in for free, not by going through the turnstile but by being lifted over it. That is my point regarding FA Cup fixtures because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. Until school dinners became particularly good, with treble massive servings, I was capable of being easily lifted—at a quite mature age really—over said turnstile, and at the time that guaranteed free entry. So that is an interesting question.

I appreciate that Scotland is not included in this, but on my last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club, for a fixture of great interest, it was unclear when kick-off time was. I arrived early, when the turnstiles and ticket office were closed, walked into the stadium through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun by the time I remembered, my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket. I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office and then enter via the turnstile to get legal access. The point about the definition regarding ingenious fans—or, in that case, fans who did not have a clue what time kick-off was—is an interesting one, particularly in the National League.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I cannot leave that anecdote without recalling a story that I hope I am allowed to share, in the spirit of this debate. I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the House was completely packed. On the day when I was winding up, the House was totally full because the Bill was a major issue at the time. There was that moment before the Minister winds up when the House goes silent, and Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, “It’s all right for him. He can get in under the turnstile”.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, that shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted. I am considering when that could be used, before the Bill becomes law, to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match that he is keen to watch.

There are other points that need considering by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the Committee. First, facial recognition is coming in. Serie A already has facial recognition; it is not in widespread use, but the technology is required in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs that are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. I do not say that the interesting question of facial recognition “coincides”, but it sits alongside this.

Secondly, there is the issue of political agitators, whose aim is to get on the pitch—they have attempted to do so—and the question of players’ safety in relation to that is a factor. I think the last recorded case was an environmental protester of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety, which has rightly been taken as more important in recent times. That would actually back up the crusade of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to have this legislation come into place.

Thirdly, on policing issues, the last time this was a major problem in English football was not the Euro final. It was on 30 November 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa. In a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing. The police and the safety advisory group of Birmingham City Council had not banned Legia Warsaw fans; in fact, 1,002 tickets had been sold to them, and they came to the fixture. Their numbers had been restricted, but another 1,000 came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the matchday commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club, who then closed the turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both with and without tickets, could not get entry. That issue was identifiable; Legia Warsaw has had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour.

For anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, hooligans put their stuff online. There are now websites and social media that are openly available for everyone to see. If anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of those problems and when they are most likely to occur, there is publicly available information. Legia Warsaw is known for being in the highest category of ultra-fans, given the problems they cause. They are a significant group of hooligans, as that term is used. This Bill will complement that. There was no collusion with staff there. It was an attempt at a forced break-in at a stadium.

I note that there is inaccurate discussion in the media at the moment of that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, an official police report, which I would like to quote from a little, because it is about another set of football supporters who are characterised in it as fanatical. The report says:

“This is expressed, among other things, in the lighting of flares”,

but,

“according to UEFA … and our police, there is no animosity between”

them and the supporters of the team they were playing, and this was not a high-risk match. This was Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax in Amsterdam in November last year.

The report goes on to say that there was

“a special context, because of the war in the Middle East”.

The fixture also coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam. There was “a daily pro-Palestine demonstration” at the railway station. This is from the official report, and there were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time: Fenerbahçe supporters, from Alkmaar in the Netherlands.

I want to quote regarding a couple of incidents, because this has been put in the media wrongly, not factually. This is the official statement of facts—the feitenrelaas—from the Dutch chief crown prosecutor, or whatever the equivalent title is, and the chief of police for Amsterdam. It is something that could be considered in this Bill. Should there be a statement of facts every time there is an incident? It is a requirement in the Netherlands to have a statement of facts. The night before the fixture, on a street called the Rokin, the report says that

“Around midnight … 50 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestine flag hanging on a facade”.

That flag was removed and the video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by a Maccabi ultra-fan, one of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and other taxis were damaged. The hooliganism then was an issue and a problem.

The following day, the football match took place. During the day—the match was on an evening—there was one arrest by the police for a disturbance of the public order. There were no clashes between the fans or with local people. The football match took place, though there had been a problem because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a square in Amsterdam called Anton de Komplein. The report says:

“Upon arrival, this group splits up into small groups in search of the confrontation at the Arena”.


That is the Amsterdam arena: the football stadium of Ajax. Those are the specifics and the police deployment was there.

Additionally, it says in the next paragraph that there were

“social media messages confirming that there are groups … looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters”.

The police handled that throughout the day without such confrontations. However, the report goes on:

“After midnight, the problems arise due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods. These groups commit violent hit and run actions, targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. These incidents take place in various places in the city centre”,


and it lists the 14 streets where that happened. It says:

“The police follow up on all reports”,


and the police patrol intervenes,

“where threats are visible and manage to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, rioters manage to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries among Maccabi supporters. It appears to be particularly difficult for the police to take action against such flashpoints. Rioters move in small groups, on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again … Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered”,

and the police basically say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters disappears.