Football Banning Orders Analysis of Consultation Responses

5. Other considerations

At the end of the consultation, respondents were asked if they had any further comments.

Q15. Do you have any further comments on how you believe the current legislation can be improved?

Just under two thirds of respondents left an open comment at Q15, of which two thirds were the campaign response. Of the remaining third of comments, many reiterated points which had already been made at other questions and are covered in this report. Given this, they have not been detailed here to minimise repetition. However, these included, in order of prevalence:

• The belief that FBOs are unnecessary, reiterated by several.
• Some repeated their support for the regulated use of pyrotechnics at games.
• Calls for more engagement between clubs, authorities and fans was mentioned by some.
• Some reiterated their feelings that football fans are treated and targeted unfairly, particularly in comparison to fans of other sports.

Campaign response

The campaign response also used Q15 to summarise key points made at previous questions, primarily the opposition to extending the use of FBOs. As mentioned in other questions, 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, and moving away from what they described as an ‘escalation of coercive powers’. 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.

“Overall, the case for expanding the routine use of banning orders is not supported by the broader context of Scottish football. Attendances remain high and supporter behaviour overall is overwhelmingly positive, which suggests that policy should remain proportionate and targeted rather than moving towards automatic or presumptive sanctions

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. Exclusion from football is not simply the loss of a pastime. For many supporters, it means removal from a social network, a routine, and a community that provides structure and support. Given the well-documented links between social isolation, loneliness and poorer mental health outcomes, particularly among men in Scotland, the use of exclusionary measures should be carefully limited to cases where they are clearly necessary to prevent further violence or disorder.” – Campaign response

Suggestion for future legislation

The next most prevalent theme, after the campaign response, was that several 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. This included widening the spaces covered, such as pre- and post-match venues and online forums. Offences recommended for inclusion included drug offences, online hate crimes, and harassment associated with the Scottish football team, players or clubs. One respondent suggested greater clarity across the framework to improve understanding and the exercise of powers.

“The existing definition of ' football-related ' offending is too narrow and does not adequately capture behaviour occurring online, or the change in modern-day supporter engagement with the game. Consideration should be made to expanding the statutory definition to include online threats, harassment, and incitement directed at players, officials, or club staff. In addition, it should include disorder clearly linked to football but occurring away from match venues, such as coordinated online behaviour that contributes to real-world risk and harm to an individual and their family’s wellbeing.” - Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland

“Any reform of Football Banning Orders must remain tightly focused on preventing violence and disorder, rather than regulating lawful expression, opinion, or non-criminal behaviour. Clear boundaries are essential so that supporters can have confidence that sanctions are applied only where conduct meets a defined criminal threshold.” – Individual

A small number of respondents suggested that a person should be given a FBO as soon as they are charged at the game, even if they are not convicted in courts or tribunals. Other suggestions, each mentioned by one respondent, included fining parents of offending minors, considering custodial sentences over banning orders, ensuring police officers are required under law to issue a written notice of a banning order, extending banning orders to include the match-day town or city where the supporter’s club is playing, and considering community payback tasks as part of the banning order.

Support for the consultation

Some respondents, almost entirely football clubs or football bodies, used Q15 to highlight their support for proportionate reform of the FBO framework and for the consultation more generally.

“Peterhead FC welcomes the consultation and supports targeted, proportionate reform of the Football Banning Order regime. We would welcome continued engagement with the Scottish Government, football authorities and Police Scotland to ensure Scottish football remains safe, inclusive and enjoyable.” – Peterhead FC

“We welcome the opportunity to evaluate Football Banning Order legislation in its current format. We now look forward to the outcome of the consultation, which will help ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose for today’s needs and the future.” – Police Scotland