Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

Sport, as the Government rightly recognise, has a unique power. It brings people together in a way that little else can. It inspires, unites and instils pride in our communities. When we host major sporting events, we do not just celebrate sport—we generate real economic benefit, create jobs and, as we have heard, inspire the next generation. The Bill is a step in the right direction, creating a common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful delivery of future major sporting events. However, many in the sector regard it as a missed opportunity.

The Bill is, by design, narrowly drawn. It applies only to events that are

“of a kind that is not regularly held … in the United Kingdom”

and are

“likely to be of significant international interest”.

In practice, as we have heard, that means it is tailored to one-off international tournaments such as the Euros, the World Cup or the World Athletics Championships. Although the criteria are open to some interpretation and there are certainly questions to be asked about which other events may be included in the future, which I am sure we will discuss in Committee, what is clear—it was reiterated by the Minister in her opening—is that the current definition excludes the very events that define Britain’s global sporting identity: Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix, to name but a few. As we well know, these are not occasional events. They happen year after year, and year after year they deliver precisely the benefits that Ministers rightly want to champion: economic growth, international prestige and community pride.

So for me the main question that arises in relation to the legislation we are discussing today is quite a simple one: why should one-off international events be given protections deemed necessary for their successful delivery, while those same protections are not to be offered to iconic homegrown events that have been a regular part of the UK’s cultural calendar for generations?

Ministers have said that the legislation will help make it easier for the UK to host major sporting events, creating jobs and investment, and that is extremely welcome. Yet the definition of the eligible events in the Bill as currently drafted is very restrictive and denies Ministers the flexibility to support the full breadth of the UK’s world-class sporting calendar. The skeleton nature of the Bill, setting out the framework but naturally leaving much of the detail to secondary legislation, means that regular UK events that are not covered by the provisions could become increasingly at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in relation to securing sponsorship over time, for instance.

These are not just abstract concerns—there will be practical consequences as a result. As Alex Kelham and Freya Davey of Lewis Silkin highlighted in a recent article, the Bill as it stands leaves a clear gap by its exclusion of regularly held UK events. They point out:

“These events collectively bring enormous economic value to the UK”


and are routinely impacted by a number of the challenges that the Bill seeks to address.

Take ambush marketing, for instance. At present, major events organisers are forced to rely on private legal remedies to tackle it—which are costly, complex, and often insufficient. In Schedule 4 the Bill introduces a stronger statutory protection against unauthorised commercial association, and that is very welcome. But why should those provisions and protections be reserved for one-off events? Why should an international tournament benefit from clear statutory rights while a world-renowned, regularly held UK event has to continue to rely on imperfect private law remedies?

The Bill itself already contains a flexible framework, allowing Ministers to decide how protections apply to different events currently within its scope. I do not believe that extending that flexibility to established, regular UK events would be radical—rather, it would be an entirely logical extension of the Bill’s provisions.

At a time when the sector is already under strain due to a variety of challenges, including rising policing costs, the implications of Martyn’s law, increased employment costs, regulatory pressures and higher business rates, the absence of the protections from the proposed sporting framework set out in the Bill to major UK-based events organisers which are excluded feels particularly acute.

We are told that a major events strategy is forthcoming; again, that is very welcome. However, without the legislative ambition to match, there is a risk that it will fall short of what the sector needs and is asking for. If this Bill acknowledges that protections such as those against ambush marketing are insufficient, the answer is surely not to apply them selectively but to strengthen them more widely—not just for the events we hope to host, but for those that already define us. The Government should and I hope will grasp the opportunity to expand the Bill and ensure that regularly held events can be as successful as possible.

I am sure we will discuss this in Committee, but I encourage the Minister to go further and extend the provisions in the Bill to include annual, nationally significant UK-based sporting events. When will the Government publish their major events strategy, and how does the Minister see this legislation fitting within a genuinely comprehensive approach that includes, rather than excludes, the UK’s iconic homegrown events?

Finally, there are powers in the Finance Act 2014 to exempt overseas competitors and officials accredited by the organisers from income tax for the period of major events—such as the upcoming Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, where regulations have recently been passed to do that. Given the desire to bring together the suite of powers to cover the respective events in this legislation, is the Minister confident that those existing provisions are sufficient to ensure a joined-up and responsive approach to major events being hosted in the UK?

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.

The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and

“held in connection with the sporting event”.

This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

The purpose of these amendments is very simple. They seek to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and all the transport provisions that are included in this Bill. Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. These amendments would widen the scope to designate the five parts of the sporting events framework set out. Their aim is simply to future-proof the Bill so that powers can be conferred by the appropriate authority if there is a reasonable case to do so.

For example, if greater powers were devolved in relation to transport provision then the legislation would enable devolved authorities to apply these powers without needing to change primary legislation again. There simply is nothing more behind them than that. These amendments are part of a package of amendments that I have tabled or signed that seek to extend the scope of the Bill to include major, regular, UK-based events and to ensure greater flexibility in the potential use of the framework provisions. I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing this when we discuss group 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.

We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.

That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.

I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.

Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.

Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.

The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.

We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect.

Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good.

All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game—I am afraid that is me—wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events—events woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions—maybe one or maybe a number—from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation.

I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because it shows how they are wanted across the sector. We are grateful for the support expressed by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the ECB, the FA, the London Marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics, all of which have written in support of our amendments.

As they state, the Bill “establishes enabling legislation”. Any use of the provisions in the sporting framework would still require the agreement of the Secretary of State following a request from the relevant body, and that decision would then be subject to affirmative approval in Parliament. Opportunities for primary legislation in this area do not arise often, so we truly believe it is sensible to include these powers now so that, if a compelling case were made in future, Governments would be able to act quickly and effectively. As the sporting organisations themselves have made clear:

“We envisage that any request submitted by a sporting event would be accompanied by supporting evidence explaining both the challenges faced and the benefits that would result from the provisions being applied”.


I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this issue. I know that they have also had constructive discussions across the sector. I recognise that the Government are sympathetic to the arguments for extending the framework to major regular UK sporting events that are likely to be of international interest and to bring significant social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. For that reason, we had hoped with fingers crossed that the Government might have been in a position to bring forward their own amendment at this stage, but unfortunately that has not proved possible.

I believe this gap must be addressed before the Bill leaves the House. I hope the Government will be able to accept these amendments or commit to bringing forward their own at Third Reading. If not, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he calls a Division. I am grateful that the Government, as my noble friend said, have agreed that my Amendment 13 is complementary, so that this debate can continue in the Commons.

This is ultimately a question of future-proofing the Bill. These amendments would not guarantee support for any event or require the Government to exercise these powers. They would simply ensure that Ministers can respond where there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. Our world-class regular UK sporting events generate billions for the economy, attract international audiences, showcase the best of us and inspire participation across the country. This Bill provides an opportunity to support those events more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not left outside the framework it creates. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical means of achieving that objective, and I hope that, along with an England win tonight, the Government feel able to accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

13: Clause 3, page 3, line 7, leave out “interest” and insert “or national interest,
(aa) that the sporting event organiser has asked for the sporting events framework to be applied,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and one in the name of Lord Addington change the sporting events framework conditions to include more regularly held events of both national and international interest and to require a request from the sporting event organiser.