Football Banning Orders Analysis of Consultation Responses

1. Introduction

Background

Football Banning Orders (FBOs) aim to keep football games safe. A Football Banning Order (FBO) is a measure a court can make in addition to, or instead of, any sentence when a person is convicted of an offence involving violence or disorder related to football. Under the current legislation, a FBO restricts a person’s ability to attend regulated football matches in the UK.

The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced FBOs in Scotland. The provisions came into force in September 2006. This legislation has remained largely unchanged since then, and FBO legislation was last reviewed in 2011. Football supporter behaviour has changed and evolved over the last 20 years. This includes the use of social media and the way in which fans show support for their team. Behaviours and displays of support by fans for their club have developed in ways which were not considered when the current FBO legislation was first implemented and last reviewed.

The Scottish Government committed to considering a review of the FBO legislation after the introduction of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 and calls from Scottish football authorities. Following an FBO Working Group review, a commitment to consult on the current legislation was made in the Programme for Government in May 2025.

A public consultation on Football Banning Orders was held from 1 December 2025 to 23 February 2026. Across seven open and 14 closed questions, the consultation sought the views of the public and stakeholders on their experiences of football matches in Scotland and the role of FBOs.

Respondent profile

In total, 903 valid consultation responses were received^[1]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Of these 903 responses, 384 (43%) were identified as the same campaign response. This is where respondents used identical or very similar wording when responding to the consultation. Each of these responses has been counted separately and included in the analysis.

While 96% of campaign responses came from individuals (368 out of 384), 16 indicated they represented an organisation, with eight naming an organisation. These included Scottish Supporters Collective (3 respondents), Green Brigade (2), North Curve Celtic (1) and Block Seven (1). For clarity, throughout this report, these 16 responses have been treated as campaign responses, rather than organisation responses.

Of the remaining 519 responses, 437 came from other individuals^[2], and 49 were from individuals who were identified as working for Police Scotland (hereafter referred to as police officers, though some respondents may be wider police staff)^[3]. The remaining 33 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Table 1: Respondent profile

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 14 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 903 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering, can be found in Appendix A. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of everyone with an interest in this topic)
• Many respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to minimise repetition.
• In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 903 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 50 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 30 and 49 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 10 and 29 respondents, another theme
• A few / a small number, fewer than 10 respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.