Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I agree with his highlighting of concerns about the greed and denial of principles that have been associated with too many major sporting events recently. That is something I will come back to. It is important that this Bill acknowledges those risks and dangers and considers what kind of events we will be hosting.

I start by saying what a pleasure it is to take part in what has already been a very rich and informed debate. Major international sporting events are important to so many individuals: for pure joy, for engagement in social activities, and for—we hope, at least—encouraging physical activity of their own. Of course, they are also important in providing communities with new facilities, infrastructure and opportunities.

However, we know that major events have not always lived up to their promises or the hopes people held. This Bill is a real opportunity to make sure that future events do just that. The Green Party and I broadly welcome the Bill. It is sensible not to have to keep creating a different piece of legislation for each individual event, and this is a practical measure that is clearly heading in broadly the right direction.

I want to associate myself with a number of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, such as culture being included in the Bill—certainly cultural events associated with sporting events—but I think we could also ask broader questions. We have seen so much depletion of the cultural life of this country, driven by austerity, by Brexit, by educational suppression of creative subjects, and in some cases by a desire to discourage individual critical thinking. It is important that we look to international inspiration and international support to grow that.

I also share the noble Baroness’s concern that we are not going far enough on anti-ticket-touting or ensuring that events are protected for free-to-air TV. This is still important to so many people. Even though much of what people watch now is through the internet and social media, there are still a lot of people we cannot leave behind.

I very much agree and associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. An amendment to ensure that we build in “inclusive by design” is something we should see. I would further comment, reflecting on earlier debates in your Lordships’ House, that those who are attacking diversity, equity and inclusion measures for ideological reasons should listen to the noble Lord’s speech to understand how important it is that these measures continue.

I want to pick up on the immensely powerful and important speech—as we all expected—from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and her point about soft power. As she stressed, the nature of the event, how it turns out, and its outcomes for individuals, communities and society are important not only on their own terms but to how Britain is regarded around the world. In that context, the UK Soft Power Council has, unfortunately, not met for seven months. A recent PoliticsHome article described it as “drifting towards oblivion”. That is disturbing, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

I come now to some specific points concerning amendments that I may consider tabling to this Bill, depending on the Minister’s response. The first relates to Schedule 2, “Advertising provisions”. We have already ensured that we remove tobacco sponsorship from sport because of its impact on public health. Should we not also consider preventing fossil fuel companies advertising and sponsoring major sporting events? This has been called for by the UN Secretary-General, who has said there should indeed be restrictions similar to those applied to tobacco. Various countries have made progress in this area. France has already banned fossil fuel products advertising from 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces from 2025. Of course, many local communities around these islands—including Edinburgh and Sheffield, to mention two that I know about—have already taken action on this.

We can look back to the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics for lessons that we might learn. Public health in the UK is so poor. Surely, if we are going to put significant public investment into these sporting events, as we inevitably will, we need to make sure they do not do significant damage to public health. There should surely be restrictions on the nature of the products being advertised or, indeed, forcibly sold at these venues.

I note that major sponsors at London 2012 were McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken. That was subject at the time to criticism from a number of senior medical officials; indeed, the London Assembly passed a motion calling for a ban on junk food sponsors. We saw a real problem whereby food sellers were forced to prominently display Coca-Cola advertising and products, with very limited space for alternative products. This, of course, is a product linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and obesity. Surely, the Bill should be looking to address some of those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already given us a sneak preview, and I will not go on at length as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will be discussing this, but the issue of gambling sponsorship and advertising has to be considered. This is, of course, a huge issue when it comes to football. I am afraid I am not going to celebrate the very modest measure whereby next season, there will be a voluntary ban on advertising on the front of shirts. That is what you might call the minimum possible we think we can get away with. The economic costs of gambling to the country are very well known and I am sure will be rehearsed later. I note that Italy, for example, banned most gambling advertising through a “Dignity Decree” in 2018.

My final point concerns sustainability standards. Again, London 2012 unfortunately did not live up to many of the promises made before the Games on waste reduction targets, resource use and use of renewable energy. Also, they failed to use locally grown food and fair trade products, in part, again, because of the influence of those sponsors and contracted suppliers.

Surely, we should be thinking back to the soft power point. We should be ensuring that we produce genuinely “world-leading” events—a phrase popular on both the Government and Opposition Benches in this place. Paris sought to host the lowest carbon Olympic Games ever; it did not always live up to this. Surely, we can do better than Paris in future events. Yes, international bodies are starting to mandate those standards, but we can surely demand that the events we cover under this Bill go further.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to these proposed amendments, I have sympathy with a number of points, particularly as they relate to gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made very clear the logic behind what he is asking for in these amendments.

Unfortunately, on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while I am extremely sympathetic to the issue of climate change, and I will not buy all sorts of things in plastic or plastic bottles and the like, I worry because we are talking about adding things to an ever-extending list; every time we get to a major sporting event, we will look at whether we should add on other things that operate in other countries.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just spoke about an established principle, and I think that is a far better route by which we should operate in terms of these international sporting events. In other words, our established principles of advertising as they operate in this country should be the principles by which the major sporting events should operate. We cannot spend our time trying to run ahead of policies we have, whether in relation to age-related matters or food and drink-related products.

I have spoken critically on a number of occasions in this Chamber about Coca-Cola and its sponsorship of major sporting events. However, it is a very difficult road we will go down if we start adding on one thing after another—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

To make it clear, when I was talking about an established principle, I was talking about the fact that we have restricted advertising of these products—particularly to children. Therefore, it is a question of how far that restriction goes; it is not about doing something new.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification; I was not absolutely clear on whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another.

I want to make an observation on a comment the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made on the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to sporting events as ones of “chance” on two occasions. There are a fair number of medallists in this Chamber today who may think, “Well, it wasn’t chance that got me a gold, silver or bronze medal”. Equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other won—though there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an error at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

In moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendments 26 and 79. We on these Benches think that we should consider events that are in scope of this Bill as part of the free-to-air listed events regime for audiences in the UK, so that those who wish to follow a sporting event but cannot obtain a ticket due to cost or availability can still follow the event without incurring extra costs and potentially having to pay for a subscription; and, secondly and really importantly, because it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest and participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event is not behind a paywall.

The Minister mentioned the Lionesses. Thanks to the BBC championing and broadcasting women’s football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses’ triumphant journey in both European and world tournaments, there are new audiences in stadiums, as well as on screens; and, most importantly, it has inspired women and girls to take up the sport. Similarly, there is the legacy of Channel 4 and the Paralympics, and I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier about encouraging and enabling disabled kids to get involved in sport.

It is in the power of the DCMS to review listed events—the “crown jewels”, as they are known. The amendment I am proposing would create an opportunity to revise the list, and this follows a concerning trend where fans’ rights to enjoy events on free-to-air television have been gradually eroded. For the first time, the finals of the Champions League—football is the sport of the day—Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. If the Government intend to host such great sporting events in the UK, as we have been discussing today, the British public deserve the right to be able to watch them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is very much the leader of your Lordships’ House in this space. I am here having signed Amendments 15 and 26 to show cross-party support, so I will be brief.

As the noble Baroness set out, we have seen a gradual erosion of people’s access. We often discuss access to the right to participate in sport, but there is also the access to being part of the whole sporting experience and to view major events live. Free-to-air broadcast is what keeps major sporting events genuinely public, rather than turning them into elite viewing that is available only to those who can afford subscription television or other sources. If access depends on payment, watching sport becomes unevenly distributed, with lower-income households at a clear disadvantage. In practice, that particularly excludes, or risks excluding, many children and young people from the shared experience of watching major sporting events with their peers and their communities. Free-to-air coverage ensures that money is not a barrier to participation in what is a common cultural space, where sport is experienced collectively rather than privately. That broad access is something that gives sport extra public value, and that is why it is important to protect it as something that belongs to everyone, not just those who can pay.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree with the proposed amendments for a number of different reasons; first, because the terminology “free to air” is a complete misdescription. You have to pay £180 for your TV licence. It therefore is not free—that is, for the 88% of the population who choose to pay for their TV licence. The number of people who choose not to pay for a TV licence has been rising for many years. I say 88% because the latest figures published say that 12.5% of all viewers do not pay for a television licence.

Secondly, there is the question of competition. The essence of sport is competition. It is a very odd state of affairs whereby one says that broadcasters can compete but, by the way, we will restrict the competition in certain fields. We were debating in the previous set of amendments the question of assisting people who face disadvantages in society. Again, it is a very odd state of affairs whereby one broadcaster might be willing to pay much larger sums to broadcast a particular event, and in that process guarantee substantial funds to the underrepresented groups, but they are not allowed to because the event concerned is a crown jewel. So not only do you lose out because the broadcasting may be inferior; the funding might be inferior as well.

Thirdly, my concern is that the crown jewels were a product of a different technological era. Sport is now broadcast on a whole range of different platforms, and none of us in this Chamber knows what the platforms are going to be in five or 10 years’ time. Therefore, to decree in this piece of legislation that you can have certain sporting events, and I noticed that it suggested that they might be extended only on—I will use the jargon although I have indicated that I do not agree with it—a free-to-air basis, when multiple levels of platforms will probably be available in a few years’ time does not recognise the changing technological world in which we live and which the sporting world will have to adapt to.