Politicians from the three main parties and football supporters' groups have united in calling for the Football League to make public who owns its clubs after the league approved as "fit and proper" the offshore owners of Leeds United while keeping their identity private.

The sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, said: "Fans of any football club have a right to know who the owners are. We want to see greater supporter representation in the running of football clubs and far greater accountability. The League should insist on clubs making public to their supporters who owns them."

He was joined by the Conservative shadow sports minister, Hugh Robertson, who argued: "As with Parliament and many other areas of public life, transparency is going to be an increasing requirement and expectation. That includes publicly identifying the owners of football clubs. Football should reform its governance, to include greater supporter representation on the board of clubs."

That call was echoed by the Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate, Phil Willis, who has long criticised the anonymity of Leeds' ownership, routed via companies in offshore tax havens. "At the very least, supporters of a club have a right to know who owns it. As an act of faith and goodwill, I hope the Leeds United board now publish the documentation they have presented to the Football League so that all sense of mystery can be removed."

The Premier League does now require its clubs to publish the names of all shareholders with stakes of 10% or more, but the Football League does not. Instead, clubs must tell the League's chairman, Lord Mawhinney, and three other senior executives, who the ultimate owners are, but the information is not made public.

Leeds have declined requests from the Guardian, following the League's ratification, to say who the ultimate owners are. The only response this week came from Peter Boatman of Château Fiduciare, the Geneva-based financial administrator of Leeds' holding company, Forward Sports Fund. "It is not necessary for you to have that information," he said.

The politicians were joined by the Leeds United Supporters Club, the national Football Supporters' Federation and Supporters Direct in calling for League clubs' owners to be publicly identified. "Like all football clubs, Leeds United's character is that of a public institution wrapped in a privately owned business and that creates a mismatch," said Dave Boyle, the chief executive of Supporters Direct. "The authorities can recognise that public nature by sending a clear message: you can remain a private anonymous citizen, and you can own a football club, but you cannot do both."

Boatman was named last May as an FSF director and confirmed this week he had passed the fit and proper person test. He pointed to the progress Leeds have made on the field and financially this season, and said questions about who owns the club would be seen as unwelcome criticism with the club pushing for promotion. He added that no information has been withheld from the League.

Summing up Leeds' position under the current ownership, Boatman said: "The situation at the football club has improved immensely, which is very satisfying when some other clubs are in serious financial trouble. We have never denied information to the Football League and although I cannot confirm or deny who the shareholders are, the only thing I can say about the structures we control is that they are all above board."

The League's approval of Leeds' owners follows inquiries it began in October after the Guardian revealed that the club's chairman, Ken Bates, had revised his account of its ownership at a court case in Jersey. In January last year, Bates' solicitors told Jersey's royal court, which is hearing a dispute between Leeds and a finance company, Admatch, that he and his long term financial adviser, Patrick Murrin, jointly owned "management shares" in the club's holding company, the Forward Sports Fund.

In May, Bates swore an affidavit stating that the previous statement had been "not correct" and "an error on my part". In fact, he stated, he did not own a management share in FSF. The affidavit attached a letter from Château Fiduciare, which said FSF had 10,000 shares, owned by shareholders who have not been named.

The League confirmed it had written to Leeds seeking clarification because directors and 30% shareholders in its clubs must be identified to it and passed as fit and proper people who have no recent criminal convictions and have not run a football club into insolvency twice. The League made no further comment until a spokesman said last month: "The Football League has concluded its enquiries regarding Leeds United's fit and proper persons test documentation and has addressed the issues raised with the club. Following further information from Leeds, the League is now satisfied that the club is compliant with Football League regulations."

No further details have been released. Sutcliffe this week acknowledged the moves the League has made in securing detailed financial information from clubs and requiring outstanding tax to be paid, but said "more can still be done" to make clubs more transparent. A League source said clubs currently have "no appetite" to introduce a rule requiring their owners to be made public.

Mawhinney, who is due to retire this month after seven years in which he has overseen a series of reforms, did indicate that he believes the League should go further. "We have come a long way," he said. "Clubs cannot play in our league unless we know who the beneficial owners are. Could we do more? Yes – but it is a matter of priorities. Eventually I think football will be strengthened if the ownership of clubs goes public."