The main arguments advanced in support of repeal of the provisions relating to offensive behaviour at football included:
the lack of time for adequate scrutiny of the 2012 Act during its parliamentary passage (see section on Procedural History above) and consequent flaws in drafting
the lack of clarity in defining "offensive behaviour" and the criticism that the 2012 Act was consequently illiberal, unfair and arbitrary in its application
the targeting of football matches and criminalisation of football supporters by contrast with other sports or events which might equally be viewed as involving antisocial or sectarian behaviour
that the 2012 Act infringes of human rights and freedom of speech
whether the 2012 Act was needed in light of existing legislation to address the behaviour in question
the negative impact on police/football supporter relations following implementation of the legislation
Those opposed to the repeal of the provisions relating to offensive behaviour at football, provided the following reasons:
the 2012 Act was effective in challenging antisocial and sectarian behaviour and should therefore, be retained
the legislation provided a powerful message that such behaviour was not acceptable at football matches and its repeal would give the impression that such behaviour was permissible
there was no alternative proposal to replace the 2012 Act with something else
instead of repeal, the 2012 Act could be amended to address any weaknesses
With regard to the provisions dealing with threatening communications, arguments in favour of repeal were similar to those supporting repeal of the offensive behaviour provisions in terms of lack of clarity within the provisions; human rights and freedom of speech issues; and the existence of other legislation which would cover the offences in question.