Football Banning Orders Analysis of Consultation Responses

Executive Summary

A public consultation on Football Banning Orders (FBOs) was held from 1 December 2025 to 23 February 2026. In total, 903 valid consultation responses were received. Of these, 384 (43%) were identified as the same campaign response. Of the remaining responses, 437 came from individuals, while 49 were from individuals who were identified as police officers, and 33 from organisations, including 22 football clubs, four football bodies, four legal and criminal justice organisations, and three other organisations.

Most (86%) of those answering attend football matches frequently (11 or more times per season), 11% occasionally (one to 10 times per season), and 3% never attend. In addition, 11% of those answering were involved in running regulated football matches in Scotland, and 89% were not. Almost three quarters (73%) of individuals identified as police officers and 93% of organisations were involved, but very few campaign responses (1%) or other individuals, i.e. excluding individuals identified as police officers (8%) were involved. Seventeen individuals (2% of all respondents) indicated they had been given a FBO.

Experience of football in Scotland

Almost half (46%) of those answering felt the behaviour of football fans in Scotland had changed for the better in the last 10 years. One third (33%) felt there had been no change, while one in five (20%) felt it had got worse. Much of the perception that behaviour has improved was driven by the campaign response; half (51%) of campaign respondents felt behaviour has got better, with the remaining 49% believing it has not changed. While smaller proportions of other respondent types noted an improvement, they were more likely to perceive a deterioration in behaviour. In particular, 80% of individuals identified as police officers indicated that fans’ behaviour has got worse.

When presented with a list of behaviours and asked which, if any, they felt had changed, the biggest concern highlighted by those answering was pyrotechnics. One quarter (24%) felt the setting off of pyrotechnics had got worse, and one fifth (21%) felt the possession of pyrotechnics had got worse. While fewer than one in five selected each of the other behaviours, there was more concern about sectarian behaviour (19%), throwing missiles (17%) and verbal abuse (17%) than other behaviours. In open comments, many non-campaign respondents highlighted an increase in antisocial behaviour, citing examples of intimidation, fighting and violence between different groups of supporters.

In contrast, the campaign response reiterated the view that football fans’ behaviour has not worsened. Some other individuals also commented that there is no evidence that supporters’ behaviour has deteriorated, that in some cases it has improved, and that football games continue to be safe environments.

Among those answering, 87% had not been discouraged from attending football matches because of fans’ behaviour, while 13% had. All campaign responses and four fifths (79%) of other individuals who answered indicated that they had not been discouraged, as did 83% of organisations that answered. The campaign response presented evidence to highlight the high level of attendance at football matches, to illustrate that people are not being discouraged from attending. Beyond the campaign response, other themes evident in open comments included opposing views on the safety of football matches and the extent to which people have been discouraged from attending. Some non-campaign respondents who had not been discouraged most frequently commented that matches are safe, behaviour has not worsened, and that any incidents arise from a small minority of attendees. Conversely, a recurring theme raised by some other respondents was that they had been discouraged from taking their family, particularly their children, to certain matches. Many respondents cited specific behaviours that had discouraged them from attending football matches. Most commonly, several respondents cited concerns about sectarian behaviour, in particular singing and chanting, followed by concerns about pyrotechnics, and the potential for antisocial behaviour and violence at matches.

Almost three quarters (72%) of those answering indicated that they would not like to see more done to tackle and prevent the behaviours identified. The remaining 28% indicated they would like to see more done. This view was driven by the campaign response, almost all (99%) of whom felt nothing additional needed to be done. Among other individuals, three fifths (61%) felt no further action was needed, but 39% indicated they would like to see more done. Other groups were far more likely to support further action, including 94% of individuals identified as police officers and 97% of organisations, including 95% of football clubs. The campaign response rejected the prospect of additional penalties or sanctions, instead calling for consideration of the broader context and the positivity found within the football community. Beyond the campaign response, the most common themes, in order of prevalence, were calls for stronger sanctions, improvements to policing and crowd management, discussion of specific behaviours, calls for football clubs to take greater responsibility for the behaviour of their fans, and concerns about disproportionate responses to football fans’ behaviour.

Seven in ten (70%) of those answering felt that the police, criminal justice system, football authorities or football clubs are doing enough to address disorder. The remaining 30% felt they were not doing enough. Most (94%) campaign respondents felt sufficient action is already being taken. Among other individuals, three fifths (58%) felt enough was being done, but 42% indicated they would like to see more done. Other groups were far more likely to disagree that enough is being done, with 81% of individuals identified as police officers answering ‘no’, as well as 88% of organisations, including 86% of football clubs. The campaign response expressed the view that current policing costs are excessive and that the existing policing levels are already sufficient. Beyond the campaign response, other themes included comments about policing of matches, concerns about disproportionate responses to inappropriate behaviour, and the role of football authorities and clubs.

Football Banning Orders

Two fifths (41%) of those answering agreed that a FBO is a suitable punishment for a football-related offence, while three fifths (59%) disagreed. Agreement varied by respondent type. Just under one quarter (23%) of campaign responses felt that a FBO is a suitable punishment, while 77% did not. Agreement was higher among other individuals (49%) and notably higher among individuals identified as police officers (88%). Organisations were also mostly in agreement (97%), including all football clubs and football bodies.

Three quarters (76%) of those answering indicated that FBOs should not be extended to include other behaviours, while 24% indicated that they should. Clear opposition was recorded in the campaign response, where all respondents indicated that there should not be an extension. Similarly, two thirds (67%) of other individuals felt they should not be extended, while 33% felt they should. Support was higher among individuals identified as police officers, and among organisations, with 85% and 93% respectively in favour of extending.

The campaign response began by outlining opposition to any extension, then set out two issues. Firstly, it expressed the view that there is a lack of evidence that shows misuse of drugs or the carrying of offensive weapons is more prevalent among those attending football matches in Scotland, or evidence that there is a correlation between the misuse of drugs or carrying offensive weapons as a motivating contributor to violence and disorder at football matches. The second concern raised by the campaign response was that extending the scope of FBOs would encourage the misuse of stop and search powers.

Most other open comments were made by non-campaign respondents who supported an extension. These typically cited one or more behaviours that respondents felt could be included in an extension of FBOs. By far the most prevalent behaviour, cited by many respondents, was the possession or use of offensive weapons, including knives. Next most commonly mentioned, also by many respondents, was the possession or misuse of drugs. Many respondents, including some football clubs, also suggested that pyrotechnics should be included. Specific considerations about an extension of FBOs were primarily raised by some organisations. These responses typically highlighted pyrotechnic misuse and online abuse linked to football matches as a particular concern, requiring a review of FBOs. However, the importance of judicial discretion was noted in these responses.

Some other non-campaign respondents cited reasons why they felt FBOs should not be extended to include other behaviours. Some respondents felt extending FBOs to include other behaviours is unnecessary, describing such a move as an overreaction, draconian, or an example of overreach of government or police powers. A few stated that existing legislation and approaches should be sufficient to manage the types of disorder mentioned in the question, and a small number cited concerns about the effectiveness of FBOs.

Four fifths (79%) indicated that the definition of a ‘Regulated Football Match’ should not be expanded to include all football matches, while 21% felt that it should. Opposition to this proposal was clear among campaign respondents (100% ‘no’), and was also evident among other individuals (67% ‘no’ compared to 33% ‘yes’). Support was higher among individuals identified as police officers (77% ‘yes’).

Three quarters (74%) of those answering indicated that a sheriff should not be able to consider applying a FBO on conviction for the offences mentioned under the 2022 Act in every case, while 20% felt the sheriff should have this option, and 6% were unsure. Almost all campaign responses (99%) felt the sheriff should not consider this in every case, as did 64% of other individuals. However, support was higher among individuals identified as police (90% ‘yes’), as well as organisations (86%), including football clubs (86%).

The campaign response stated that existing legislation, including the 2022 Act, has not impacted the use of pyrotechnics in Scottish football and that further action is unlikely to deliver behaviour change. The response outlined alternative approaches that were felt to be more appropriate. Several non-campaign respondents made a similar point, suggesting that a more effective approach would be for greater regulation and collaboration between all parties – clubs, football authorities, supporters groups, and the police - to ensure pyrotechnics can be used safely.

Among those who supported the proposal, the most prevalent theme, raised by some non-campaign respondents, was the danger posed by pyrotechnics. These respondents suggested that pyrotechnics could be harmful when used in crowds, with the potential for injury or death. They therefore felt that anyone intending to use pyrotechnics in a way that could pose a risk should be subject to appropriate sanctions. Some football clubs that commented on this question expressed the view that judicial discretion should allow a FBO to be considered in every qualifying case where the statutory conditions are met.

Three quarters (76%) of those answering felt there should not be a presumption that an FBO will be granted upon conviction of a football-related offence in Scotland, while one quarter (24%) felt there should be a presumption. All campaign responses, and 65% of other individuals who answered, were opposed to a presumption being in place. However, the vast majority (96%) of individuals identified as police officers were in favour of a presumption being in place. Organisations that answered were also generally in favour (74% ‘yes’ and 26% ‘no’), but the strength of support varied by organisation type.

Other considerations

The campaign response emphasised support for creating a legislative framework that focuses upon long-term behaviour changes, using diversification and education for low-level offending, mandating and resourcing supporter engagement by clubs and authorities. They also reiterated that increasing the routine use of banning orders could interfere with the experiences of fans, particularly impacting individual liberty and removing social networks and access to a shared community.

Several non-campaign respondents made suggestions for future legislation. A few supported updating legislation to include a clear definition of football-related offences, which they felt should include a broader definition of antisocial behaviour related to players, teams and clubs.

Conclusion

The responses to the consultation do not present a clear consensus on changes to FBOs. This analysis highlights support from some individuals and most stakeholder organisations for stronger and more flexible FBOs, contrasted with strong public opposition from many of those who responded (principally in the campaign responses), citing a lack of evidence of the need for change and concerns about negative impacts on fans and fan culture.