Football Banning Orders (FBOs) are intended to keep serious troublemakers away from football. Few would dispute the legitimacy of that objective.

But with the number of orders in force in England and Wales now at its highest level for 14 years, as the new season begins it may be time to ask whether the legal framework surrounding football has become broader than was originally intended.

The latest Home Office figures show that 2,460 FBOs are currently in force – the highest figure since the 2011/12 season. An FBO can prevent an individual from attending football matches and, in certain circumstances, restrict overseas travel for up to 10 years.

The case for robust action against serious violence, racism and organised disorder is straightforward. Football should not be a place where criminal behaviour is tolerated and banning orders remain an important tool for protecting supporters and communities.

The more difficult question is where the boundary should be drawn.

Football has developed a distinct legal and policing framework over decades. Conduct which might otherwise be dealt with differently can carry significant consequences when it takes place in or around a match.

That includes offences such as entering the playing area, throwing an object inside a stadium, possessing or using a pyrotechnic device, discriminatory or grossly offensive chanting, public order offences and entering a stadium without a valid ticket.

For many supporters, the potential consequences will come as a surprise. A moment of poor judgement can result not only in a criminal conviction but potentially in a banning order with restrictions extending well beyond the match at which the incident occurred.

That distinction deserves closer examination.

There is no doubt that serious violence, racism and disorder should be dealt with firmly. But it is legitimate to consider whether aspects of the current framework remain proportionate and continue to distinguish appropriately between organised disorder and lower-level offending.

That is not an argument for weakening the law. Rather, it is an argument for examining whether the law is being applied in a way that remains proportionate to the conduct in question.

There is also a practical consideration. The criminal courts are under substantial pressure, with significant delays across the justice system. That inevitably raises questions about how limited police, prosecution and court resources should be deployed.

Football-specific offences exist for understandable historical reasons. But legislation created in response to particular problems does not necessarily remain perfectly calibrated as those problems change.

Supporters should certainly understand the law and the consequences of crossing its boundaries. Education and awareness can prevent people becoming involved in the criminal justice system in the first place.

At the same time, parliament should periodically ask whether the legislation remains necessary, proportionate and effective.

Football banning orders have an important role to play. The question is whether the framework surrounding them has struck the right balance between protecting the public and unnecessarily criminalising behaviour that could be dealt with in other ways.

With FBO numbers at a 14-year high, this is a debate worth having before the next generation of supporters inherits the same framework.

Laura Baumanis is a criminal defence solicitor at Olliers Solicitors in Manchester