Not selling alcohol at football is not "discrimination"

The ban on alcohol in the stands comes from a time when hooligan trouble was a regular feature at matches, that's pretty much ancient history now with changes in social attitudes and lower tolerance of poor behaviour.

Most (all?) clubs sell alcohol in the ground so people can get drunk and troublesome if they want to, so the ban doesn't make much difference in practice, it's just not much of an issue now.

That said, I don't think the ban should be lifted, people sloshing drinks around in cramped seating areas are a pain. It's just as bad at concerts when you get soaked by idiots carrying more plastic glasses than they can manage while they 'sorry' to everyone they shower with beer as they squirm past.

You can drink alcohol at many other sports, including rugby, and cricket. But not at football.

How is that not discrimination to football supporters?

There is definitely an argument that football gets used as a stage for thugs, people who would fight because they want too, it was also well known that even in the 80s lots of thugs would travel to the towns where their team was playing - but not actually go to the games - hence football was used as a stage!
And not affected by the alcohol ban.

For info in many countries (including many in Europe) it's possible to take a beer/alcoholic drink to your seat, or even get a drink (including beers) from the vendors who roam the aisle per match and during half time.

That doesn't seem to result in widespread problems with drunken fans....

On the one hand, yeah football fans aren’t a protected characteristic and it’s not illegal discrimination under the Equality Act. But “discrimination” isn’t only a legal term. It can also be used just to mean treating similar people or situations differently without a good reason.
The “minimises real discrimination” bit is a stretch too. Moaning about not getting a pint at the match doesn’t erase racism or sexism. It’s not a zero-sum thing.

Just part of his working class, man of the people schtick. Anybody who spectates at football and other sports in the UK can see that football fans are the most thuggish, so should totally be treated differently than, say, fans at Wimbledon or Twickenham.

But it is discrimination. Protected characteristics are a legal technically. The word discrimination has meaning within and
beyond that context. Here it is used in the general sense correctly.

I’m not sure that he is comparing it to discrimination against those who are discriminated against because of protected characteristics. But people are treated differently due to the sport they support. I read it as that was what he was referring to. As a football fan, they way I’ve been treated in the past based on this hasn’t been great at times.

I don't like the conflation of legal categories with what is and isn't descrimination in a logical sense. You can descriminate against any group, we just have legal protections for some specific groups, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to descriminate against a group that isn't on the list. Just that it won't be classed so legally.

That being said... If there is evidence that football fans are behaving worse when drunk than fans of other sports/events, then removing alacahol is a logical and sensible consequence. Their right to drink doesn't triumph others rights to safety etc.