Football Banning Orders Analysis of Consultation Responses

4. Football Banning Orders

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q10 to Q15. These sought respondents’ views on the role of FBOs and potential changes to the FBO legislation.

Q10. Do you think a Football Banning Order, which prevents individuals from attending football matches if they are found guilty of an offence of violence or disorder related to a football match, is a suitable punishment for a football-related offence?

Two fifths (41%) of those answering Q10 agreed that a FBO is a suitable punishment for a football-related offence, while three fifths (59%) disagreed. Levels of agreement varied considerably by respondent type, however. Just under one quarter (23%) of campaign responses felt that a FBO is a suitable punishment, while 77% did not. Agreement was higher among 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.

Q11. Do you think Football Banning Orders should be extended to include other behaviours which can be prosecuted as an offence, but do not include behaviour or actions which meet the definition of violence or disorder, such as possessing drugs or an offensive weapon?

Among those answering Q11, three quarters (76%) 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 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 FBOs to include other behaviours.

Almost two thirds of respondents left an open comment in response to Q11. Around two thirds of all comments were from the campaign response, which disagreed with extending the scope of FBOs. Beyond the campaign response, behaviours which respondents felt could be covered by an extension included possession or use of weapons, knives or objects used as missiles, misuse of drugs, and possession and use of pyrotechnics.

Campaign response

The campaign response began by outlining opposition to any extension.

“No, it is not considered that extending the scope of Football Banning Orders to include other behaviours which can be prosecuted as an offence but do not include the behaviour or actions which meet the definition of violence or disorder such as possessing drugs or an offensive weapon would lead to a reduction of football related violence and disorder and may have the effect of creating an atmosphere of oppressive surveillance to the detriment and financial stability of Football Clubs due to loss of match day revenue.” – Campaign response

The rest of the campaign response to Q11 set out two issues. Firstly, the response 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. Specifically, the response cited Stirling University’s Institute for Social Marketing and Health, which published a study in 2023 about alcohol consumption among UK football supporters, that suggested: “further research is needed to fully understand the true extent and impact of controlled drugs on fans’ behaviour in both football and other sports, especially in the context of assessing the ramifications of this issue for potentially reforming regulations”.

Regarding the use of offensive weapons, the campaign response cited a Police Scotland Freedom of Information (FOI) response (FOI 25-3755) that only two FBOs were issued for an offensive weapon in the period from 2016 to 2026. Given this, the campaign response expressed the view that “with an estimated 5,000,000 spectators attending Scottish football matches every season, this would suggest that the use of offensive weapons in relation to Scottish football is not at a scale worthy of any changes to legislation.”

The second concern raised by the campaign response was that extending the scope of FBOs would encourage the misuse of stop and search powers. After outlining the basis on which stop and search can be applied, the response set out the view that any proposed extension of FBOs to include offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 2011 would lead to an increased use of stop and search powers without the need for a warrant or oversight and authorisation from senior officers.

“Stop and search is a significant intrusion into personal liberty and privacy and should be used only when proportionate and necessary. Extending Football Banning Orders in this way risks widening intrusive enforcement in and around football without a clear, evidenced necessity, undermining trust and the principle that people should be able to go about lawful activity without unjustified state interference…

The argument is that if there was a need for legislative reform that required the extension of FBOs to convictions for both the misuse of drugs and the use of offensive weapons, there would be ample evidence to demonstrate it.

Furthermore, the tactics primarily used to detect offences under both additional Acts, namely the use of stop and search without the need for a warrant or notifying the local community of potential infringements of civil liberties, would not be justified by the little impact they would have on reducing the potential for violence and disorder at football matches in Scotland.” – Campaign response

Other behaviours that could be included in an extension of FBOs

Most other comments provided at Q11 were made by non-campaign respondents who answered ‘yes’ to the closed question. These comments 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.

“Possessing offensive weapons and misuse of drugs should be included, naturally, as these are crimes in any scenario” – Individual

“Drugs, and cocaine in particular, taken at or around football, should be included, so as to hopefully deter some troublemakers from such behaviour. And there's no reason why this wouldn't also apply to possession of weapons.” - Individual

Many respondents, including some football clubs, also suggested that pyrotechnics should be included.

“There are behaviours prosecutable as criminal offences which, while not always falling within the statutory definition of violence or disorder, nevertheless pose a clear risk to safety. From a club perspective, pyrotechnic misuse and online abuse linked to football matches present particular concern. Recent incidents, including serious injuries caused by flares and online threats directed at match officials, demonstrate the need for a framework that reflects modern risks. Any extension should be carefully defined, focused on safety, and applied through judicial discretion.” – Peterhead Football Club

“Football Banning Orders (FBOs) should be extended to cover a wider range of offences, including possession and use of pyrotechnics, drug offences, and carrying offensive weapons. These behaviours contribute to an unsafe environment and undermine efforts to maintain public order at football matches.” – British Transport Police

Other behaviours, each mentioned by some respondents, were noted, in order of prevalence:

• Verbal or physical abuse towards match officials, stewards or police.
• Using social media or other online channels for either abusive behaviour or to incite dangerous or violent behaviour. (This issue was particularly prevalent in comments from football clubs.)
• Dangerous, violent or antisocial behaviour, with respondents noting concerns about general disorder outside and within the stadium.
• Alcohol misuse, and drunken and disorderly behaviour.

A few respondents called for sectarian behaviour, including singing and chanting, to be included, while the same proportion suggested offensive behaviour based on protected characteristics, e.g. racist or homophobic behaviour, should be included.

A small number of respondents each suggested other behaviours that could be considered. These included using face coverings and hiding your identity, pitch invasions, promoting overtly political messaging or demonstrating support or raising money for banned organisations, sneaking fans without tickets into matches and using laser pens.

Age-related comments were left by a few respondents. These expressed concerns about young people being involved in inappropriate behaviour, and either called for education of this group or for FBOs to be extended to those aged under 16, so they are in line with the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland (aged 12).

Some respondents, mostly individuals, expressed the view that FBOs should be extended to any behaviour or offences that could pose a risk at a game of football, or to any individuals who have existing criminal convictions.

“Any behaviours whatsoever which are anything other than a person turning up to watch a game of football and behaving themselves. I don't see why this is even a question. If you are drunk, in possession of drugs or offensive weapons, missiles, pyrotechnics, cause disorder, verbally abusive, then you should be banned for life from attending football matches.” – Individual

“If an individual is a known perpetrator of violence or disorder, they should be banned from matches even if offences are not committed inside grounds.” – Forfar Athletic Football Club

Finally, a small number of respondents who answered ‘yes’ to the closed question cited behaviours they felt should not be included in an extension, as well as those that should. Two felt possession of drugs should not be included, two mentioned pyrotechnics and flares, and another mentioned flags, banners and posters.

Other reasons against an extension of FBOs

Some other non-campaign respondents, most of whom answered ‘no’ to the closed question, cited reasons why they felt FBOs should not be extended to include other behaviours. A range of views were noted within this theme. Most commonly, 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 specifically felt it demonstrated a desire to target football fans compared to supporters of other sports or attendees at other events.

A few respondents stated that existing legislation and approaches should be sufficient to manage the types of disorder mentioned in the question (i.e. possessing drugs or an offensive weapon), and felt that there is no need for a FBO to be applied in addition to convictions for those offences.

“Are there not existing laws which cover possession or a weapon or drugs? Why would you receive an additional punishment for doing something at a football match, but not if the offence took place in a pub, nightclub or other sporting event?” - Individual

A small number of respondents, including a mix of those who answered ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the closed question, cited concerns about the effectiveness of FBOs. This included views that they are ineffective, do not act as a deterrent, are not properly enforced, and are too vague. On the latter point, a few respondents questioned who would define what constitutes offensive behaviour, or called for legislation to be much more specific about what constitutes a reason to issue a FBO.

Considerations for the continued use of, or extending, FBOs

Specific considerations about an extension of FBOs were primarily raised by some football clubs, as well as the Football Safety Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS). Most answered ‘yes’ to the closed question, but a few did not answer. As noted above, 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.

“Recent incidents, including serious injuries caused by flares and online threats directed at match officials, demonstrate the need for a framework that reflects modern risks. Any extension should be carefully defined, focused on safety, and applied through judicial discretion.” – Arbroath Football Club

It should be noted, however, that although it raised the same points as other clubs, Falkirk Football Club answered ‘No’ to the closed question, and additionally stated:

“From a club perspective, pyrotechnic misuse and online abuse linked to football matches present particular concern, as does discriminatory behaviour and glorification of proscribed terrorist groups or violent acts. Club banning orders should be sufficient in this regard, though we would welcome a wider debate amongst clubs, football authorities, NGOs, government and law enforcement about how a football-led solution could be consistent, effective and interact with others.” – Falkirk Football Club

A small number of organisations expressed support for FBOs, though noted specific considerations:

• While Raith Rovers FC made the same points as most other football clubs, they expressed their view that “FBOs should be used as a targeted tool, directed at individuals whose actions place others at risk, and not in a way that unnecessarily impacts law‑abiding supporters or attendance at matches”.
• Falkirk FC noted it would “be concerned if due process was weakened, leading to a sharp increase in banning orders for poorly defined “offences” as well as the risk of inconsistent application”.
• The Law Society of Scotland felt it was reasonable to consider extending FBOs to include the possession of offensive weapons, fireworks, or pyrotechnic articles, but was unsure of the inclusion of possession of controlled drugs and called for more evidence on the need for this to be part of any extension.
• One anonymous organisation questioned whether new legislation should encompass ‘hate speech’, and how effectively social media comments could be policed.

The SPFL and Scottish FA expressed support for the continued use of FBOs in appropriate cases, but also recognised that there could be a need to consider whether the legislation could better reflect current match-day profiles and behaviours. They also made the following suggestion for how the legislation could be improved:

“One amendment to the legislation proposed by the SPFL and Scottish FA is to allow the conditions of an FBO to be tailored. The current FBO is inflexible with stringent restrictions, which has led to some hesitance on the part of the judiciary to impose an FBO on certain occasions. If the conditions attached to FBOs could be tailored from a menu of available conditions, then an FBO could be granted and conditions imposed that directly relate to the behaviour that necessitated the ordering of an FBO rather than giving Sheriffs a binary choice between no FBO or an FBO with all conditions attached, which is currently the case.” - Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association

Professional Footballers Association Scotland made the following suggestion:

“Club-imposed bans and legal FBOs seem to the outsider to operate independently, which can create confusion and limit the overall impact of sanctions. We suggest a protocol is created for clubs to refer serious cases to Police Scotland for FBO consideration leading to improved information sharing between clubs, police, and prosecutors. This would support a coherent, joined-up approach to tackling disorder.” – Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland

While not expressing a view on an extension, the response from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service focused on this aspect of the consultation. It stated that it is unclear from the consultation how many additional cases the expanded measures may apply to, and noted a few potential impacts. These included increased levels of prosecutions from FBO breaches, increased volumes of applications for variation and termination of FBOs, and the need for changes to its case management systems and for rules of court to support the policy intention.

Q12. The definition of a ‘Regulated Football Match’ in the 2006 Act does not include all matches that take place in Scotland. Do you think this definition should be expanded to include all football matches?

Among those answering Q12, 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 individuals (67% ‘no’ compared to 33% ‘yes’). Support was higher among individuals identified as police officers (77% ‘yes’).

Opinion varied by organisation type. One third (32%) of football clubs that answered were in favour of expanding the definition, compared to higher levels among the small number of other organisations that answered.

While there was no open follow-up question to Q12, a small number of organisations, including Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland, Aberdeen Football Club and Football Safety Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS), noted potential challenges to expanding this definition.

“Legislative changes in this area should be approached with caution to avoid creating unintended burdens or operational difficulties for the wide range of football activities conducted across Scotland. Many football matches, from youth fixtures to community events, are organised by volunteers and lack the professional safety infrastructure found at SPFL, SWPL or Scottish FA venues.” – Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland

“The FSOAS does not support a blanket expansion. Many matches, particularly at community or youth level, have low-risk profiles and limited resources. Any change should be targeted, proportionate, and operationally practical. Safety Officers at these levels should continue to carry out appropriate risk assessments and plan accordingly.” – Football Saftey Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS)

The Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022

The Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 (the 2022 Act) introduced new offences related to pyrotechnics and gave the police stop and search powers where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person may be in possession of a pyrotechnic in a public place, which are relevant to football matches. An offence of possessing a pyrotechnic at or around a regulated football match under the 2022 Act would not automatically lead to a sheriff being able to grant an FBO as part of the sentence for conviction. Any football-related breach of the 2022 Act would need to meet the threshold of violence or disorder in the 2006 Act before an FBO could currently be granted.

Q13. Do you think a sheriff should be able to consider applying a Football Banning Order on conviction for the offences mentioned under the 2022 Act in every case?

Three quarters (74%) of those answering Q13 answered ‘no’, a sheriff should not be able to consider applying a FBO on conviction for the offences mentioned under the 2022 Act in every case. Of the remainder, 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 individuals. However, support was higher among individuals identified as police (90% ‘yes’), as well as organisations (86%), including football clubs (86%).

Almost three fifths of respondents commented at Q13, with seven in ten comments belonging to the campaign response. Beyond the campaign response, comments were relatively evenly split between those who opposed the proposal and those who were in favour. The analysis below, therefore, presents reasons for opposition and then support.

Campaign response

The campaign response expressed the view that the existing legislation, including the 2022 Act, has not impacted the use of pyrotechnics in Scottish football, and that further action, such as that proposed in the consultation, is unlikely to deliver behaviour change. The response outlined alternative approaches that were felt to be more appropriate.

“Scotland has already moved further down a punitive, and enforcement-led route on pyrotechnics... Despite this escalation in criminalisation and penalties, pyrotechnics have continued to feature as an ongoing issue in and around Scottish football, with arrests reported under the new offence within months of commencement. That persistence indicates that further punitive escalation is unlikely, by itself, to eliminate use, and that automatic exclusionary responses such as banning orders in every case risk repeating an approach that has not delivered the intended behavioural change… Where action against individuals is deemed necessary, football clubs can refer individuals to SACRO, as many already do. If clubs and the criminal justice system are encouraged to use these referral routes where appropriate, it can reduce the risk of reoffending by challenging behaviour, educating individuals on the impacts of antisocial conduct, and building communication and life skills in a way that exclusionary measures do not. A ban in every case would not be appropriate or proportionate. Sheriffs should retain full discretion to distinguish between low-level possession, reckless misuse, and genuinely dangerous behaviour, and should be encouraged to consider diversion and education routes first for low-level cases.” – Campaign response

In addition to the alternative approaches in the above quote, the campaign response advocated greater regulated use of pyrotechnics, as seen in other countries. For example, it cited the heavily controlled framework used in Norway, where police and fire authorities are able to approve usage inside stadia. The response suggests that this approach to harm reduction and managed compliance is more effective than the blanket approach proposed in the consultation, particularly for coordinated displays.

More generally, the campaign response noted the importance of football in providing a social connection and reducing loneliness among young men and working-class communities in particular. It cautions that expanding the use of FBOs has the potential to exacerbate social isolation, and they should therefore be “reserved for cases where a court is satisfied it is necessary to prevent violence or disorder, not simply imposed as a routine add-on”.

Reasons for opposing the proposal

Several non-campaign respondents reiterated a similar point as made in the campaign response, expressing the view that a more effective approach would be for greater regulation of the use of pyrotechnics. These respondents called for greater collaboration between all parties – clubs, football authorities, supporters groups, and the police - to ensure pyrotechnics can be used safely. Approaches that were suggested to work effectively included having dedicated areas or times where pyrotechnics can be used, areas where they can be disposed of safely, and education around safe use. A few respondents cited international examples of where this is done successfully, with one respondent highlighting how it can be done in Scotland. More specifically, a few respondents called for the use of pyrotechnics at football games to be legalised and regulated.

“Aberdeen now regularly have fireworks and smoke at their home European matches, which are set up by a regulated company adhering to strict safety standards. If this was done more regularly, fans would be less inclined to do this themselves in a stand.” – Individual

Several respondents opposed the proposal in the consultation as they felt that, when used correctly, pyrotechnics are not dangerous and add to the atmosphere at football games.

A less common view, noted by some respondents, was that the proposal is unnecessary and an overreaction to the actions of a small minority of attendees. These comments suggested that a blanket approach risked criminalising football fans, and that a progressive, harm-reduction approach would be more effective. A small number expressed the view that existing legislation should be effective, or that more could be done to limit the availability of pyrotechnics more generally. Related to this, a few respondents expressed the view that the proposal was unlikely to act as a deterrent.

Reasons for supporting the proposal

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, particularly if they are thrown, 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.

“Pyrotechnics are dangerous and have no place within the game.” - Individual

Some football clubs that commented on this question, all of which answered ‘yes’ to the closed question, expressed the view that judicial discretion should allow a FBO to be considered in every qualifying case where the statutory conditions are met. This view was also endorsed by the Football Safety Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS). Two clubs elaborated, noting that the sheriff should have the ability to consider the nature and gravity of the offence alongside the offender’s history and willingness to engage with authorities, for example.

Raith Rovers FC held a slightly different view, answering ‘maybe’ to the closed question. It noted that in some circumstances, mandatory consideration of a FBO could be inappropriate. It therefore supported an “approach that enables, rather than requires, sheriffs to consider FBOs where there is a clear and demonstrable link between the offence and risk at football matches, allowing the courts to exercise appropriate judgement on a case‑by‑case basis.”

A few respondents supported the proposal as they felt not enough is currently done to prevent the use of pyrotechnics and that it would be helpful as a deterrent if enforced.

Other views

Some respondents, of whom around two thirds answered ‘maybe’ and one third ‘no’ at the closed question, expressed the view that extending a FBO on conviction for the offences mentioned under the 2022 Act would only be appropriate where pyrotechnics had been misused or had a negative impact, and should not apply simply to the possession or use of pyrotechnics at a football match. More generally, a small number of respondents noted that the appropriateness of the proposal would depend on the circumstances, such as whether it was a first-time offence or the person’s age.

England and Wales

There is separate legislation in England and Wales for FBOs, the Football Spectators Act 1989 (the 1989 Act). An FBO applies only where a relevant offence has been committed. Relevant offences are listed in the legislation. There is also a presumption that FBOs will be made on conviction for all listed offences, unless the court considers it unjust to do so.

In Scotland, there is no such presumption. If an FBO is to be imposed, the court must consider whether it will help prevent violence and disorder. The court can consider the wider circumstances of the case, in line with Scottish Sentencing Guidelines, and whether a fine or other sentencing disposal is considered sufficient for a football-related offence involving violence or disorder without an FBO.

Q14. When someone is found guilty of a football-related offence for which an FBO can be granted, there is a presumption in England and Wales that an FBO should be applied. In Scotland, no such presumption exists. Do you think there should be a presumption an FBO will be granted upon conviction of a football-related offence in Scotland?

Among those answering Q14, three quarters (76%) 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 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.

Although there was no open follow-up to Q14, many respondents commented on this issue at Q15. These were primarily the campaign response, but their view was shared by a few individuals. These responses opposed a presumption as they felt it was important to preserve the decision-making power of the courts based on individual circumstances.

“FBOs are preventative measures that can significantly interfere with an individual’s liberty and positive mental health, and their imposition should remain a matter for the Procurator Fiscal and the courts to determine based on the specific facts of each individual case…

A presumption risks disproportionate outcomes for low-level or isolated offending and may undermine the Scottish criminal justice system’s emphasis on individualised and proportionate sentencing. It would also reduce the scope for diversionary and educational approaches, such as referral to schemes delivered by organisations like SACRO, which are designed to address behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending without the wider social harms associated with exclusion.

Rather than introducing a presumption, if an FBO must be given, then the Procurator Fiscal and the courts already have the discretion and the legal framework to impose one where strictly necessary. That discretion allows evidence, mitigation, and the individual circumstances of the accused to be properly considered and should be preserved rather than replaced with an automatic or near-automatic process.” – Campaign Response

The value of judicial discretion was also highlighted by a few organisations.

“This disparity in the application of FBOs underpins the Scottish football authorities’ view that the government should consider measures to improve consistency in outcomes while retaining appropriate safeguards and judicial discretion. It is important to be clear that a presumption in favour of an FBO upon conviction should not be interpreted as meaning that an order would be automatically imposed in every case. Judicial discretion and proportionality remain central to a fair justice system. A presumption, if introduced, would mean that a sheriff would normally begin from the position that an FBO is appropriate where the statutory conditions are met, but could still decline to grant an order where that would not be justifiable on the specific facts.” - Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association

“Offences encompassed by current public order statutes vary widely in seriousness, and in their connection to football. A blanket requirement to consider FBOs in every case risks disproportionate responses to lower-level or context-specific misconduct and undermines tailored sentencing. Maintaining judicial discretion better aligns sanctions with harm and risk. It is argued by some there is inconsistency across courts in the application of FBOs which can undermine public confidence and reduces the deterrent effect. In that case, consideration could be made to develop national guidance to ensure consistent criteria for seeking FBOs, clear expectations for prosecutors and sheriffs. In addition, transparent reporting on FBO usage and outcomes would improve fairness, transparency, and effectiveness.” – Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland