The legislation, first filed by state Representative Carole A. Fiola, would enable — but not require — bars and restaurants with liquor licenses to sell alcohol an additional hour past current closing times, starting Monday through July 31, albeit with the blessing of local licensing boards.

House lawmakers scaled the language back from the original bill, which had proposed allowing the later last call through Aug. 31.

“Summer 2026 presents a unique opportunity for Massachusetts,” Fiola, a Fall River Democrat, told lawmakers ahead of their vote Thursday. “While we may refer to it as soccer, football is the world’s most popular sport. . . . This bill will help capture economic opportunity.”

Pushing back last call has gained a drumbeat of support in recent weeks among leaders, including Mayor Michelle Wu, Governor Maura Healey, and state Senate President Karen Spilka, who have said the bill would help local businesses benefit from an expected surge of visitors for the World Cup matches at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough.

In Rhode Island, whose border is less than 30 miles from the stadium, Governor Daniel J. McKee signed a similar bill into law last week. Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington — states either hosting World Cup matches or geographically adjacent to those hosting the tournament — have also approved measures to extend alcohol sales hours.

Wu has said city officials have been preparing for late-night crowds regardless of whether the bill passes, noting that some World Cup matches and related festivities are expected to run late into the evening. The city is, for example, allowing businesses that are licensed to close at 1 a.m. to apply for temporary permits to extend their hours to 2 a.m.

“The question isn’t whether it will cause people to be out and about,” Wu said. “It’s whether people will have something fun to do that also supports our local economy.”

The support marks a notable shift among legislators who have long been resistant to boozy measures. A repeated proposal to end a 40-year ban on happy hours has faced an uphill battle on Beacon Hill.

“Massachusetts has a persistent fun problem,” said state Senator Julian Cyr, a Provincetown Democrat who has proposed lifting the ban on happy hours in the last two legislative sessions.

“We’re an outlier in how restrictive we are with alcohol consumption,” he added. “In Massachusetts, you can gamble to your heart’s desire and buy cannabis legally. Why can’t we have happy hour or later last call?”

The Massachusetts Restaurant Association, which represents about 1,800 restaurants, said the short trial period for the later last call allows bar operators to try something new, according to the association’s president Steve Clark.

“Why not?” he said. “Rarely do you get the opportunity to pilot things.”

Among those excited to test the waters is Oran McGonagle, who can see the FIFA Fan Festival at Boston City Hall from his perch at the Dubliner, which the Irish native owns and operates.

McGonagle said the Dubliner has already added a back patio to expand capacity, complete with 15 brand-new televisions, food, and bar service. Fans coming from other countries will expect later service, he said, and he is excited to welcome visitors.

“Anything that is pro-bar, pro-getting people energetic, I’m all about,” McGonagle said. “And anything positive toward bars and nightlife might open the door for something to happen in the future.”

George Aboujaoude, owner of Committee in the Seaport and Eva on Newbury Street, is a 30-year nightclub industry veteran who also ran Bijou Nightclub and HUE Boston.

He said the industry has, for years, asked for later last call. He recalled being told that the city doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it, even when Boston hosted the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Aboujaoude said he would consider pursuing the later license at Eva, but not at Committee, which is already open until 2 a.m.

“Extending hours can create additional revenue and opportunities,” he said. “I’d love Boston to become more open to business.”

Aboujaoude and others, however, are approaching the idea with caution. They note the liabilities that come with serving people who have been out drinking all day. MBTA service also ends around 1 a.m., leaving employees and patrons alike to find alternative ways home late at night.

Bartenders around Boston have also lamented the possibility of their shifts dragging deeper into the night.

“When you are serving drinks after midnight or 1 a.m., you are serving the people who have more than they should have had already. You open yourself up to liability,” said Chris Lute, owner of the bar, Miracle of Science, in Cambridge.

He said that while he supports an operator’s right to decide how late they stay open, a 3 a.m. last call “is not appealing to me.”

Nick Stoico of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross.

Twenty-eight lawmakers dissented Wednesday as the Massachusetts House voted to set new terms around what state Auditor Diana DiZoglio would be able to review in the legislative audit voters authorized her to carry out in 2024.

Almost all House Democrats voted for the measure, which also proposes to make more state government records accessible to the public. Three Democrats — Cambridge Rep. Mike Connolly, Attleboro Rep. Jim Hawkins and Fall River Rep. Alan Silvia — joined the body’s 25 Republicans in voting no.

Speaker Ron Mariano said the bill responds to an ongoing call from voters for more transparency out of Beacon Hill and provides a path forward in lieu of a what he called “politically motivated audit conducted in violation of the Constitution.”

Leaders of the House and Senate have resisted DiZoglio’s audit push, arguing that a probe by the auditor’s office would run afoul of the separation of powers laid out in the state Constitution, bringing the legislative branch under the review of a piece of the executive branch.

“We are not accountable to any constitutional officer,” said Rep. Mindy Domb, an Amherst Democrat. “We are only accountable to our constituents.”

Taunton Rep. Lisa Field, a Democrat in her first term, said she was among the 72% of Massachusetts voters who backed the audit ballot question in 2024.

“Due to legitimate concerns and questions about constitutional privileges and separation of powers, we have been stuck on this audit issue for more than a year,” Field said. “Let’s not be like Washington, D.C. and accept such gridlock — not about the audit and not about public records. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good progress.”

The House’s bill would authorize DiZoglio to review what it defines as the “administrative functions” of the Legislature, going back to the 2021 fiscal year. Those areas include the adoption of annual budgets, official audits of the House and Senate by independent firms, spending by both chambers, and the execution of any financial settlements with lawmakers and employees.

It would also newly apply the state’s public records law to the governor’s office, and create a process by which people could request and receive certain legislative files.

Massachusetts is currently the only state where the Legislature, governor and judiciary all claim to be exempt from the public records law.

Warren Republican Rep. Todd Smola described the process that led up to Wednesday’s vote as opaque in and of itself. Mariano last week said the House would take up what he called comprehensive transparency legislation, but did not say when or what, specifically, the bill would do.

The bill was circulated to members of the House Ways and Means Committee around 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, and committee members had a little over a half hour to vote on whether to advance it. Smola, the ranking Republican on the committee, said during that 34-minute window, “we had members on both sides of the political aisle that were calling each other back and forth to say, ‘Can you explain this portion to me?’”

“We are so much better than the process that has unfolded,” he said. “And for the sake of people that are asking us for transparency, that is not transparency. That’s the opposite of transparency.”

Rep. Michael Soter, a Bellingham Republican, said he was particularly concerned with a part of the bill that removes the courts from settling disputes between the auditor and the Legislature.

He said that by setting its own rules around an audit, the House would be “ensuring the auditor can only see exactly what we allow her to see and nothing more.”

It’s not clear yet if the Senate will pass the bill. Last week, state senators voted to turn over a limited set of documents to DiZoglio. The documents the Senate plans to provide mirror the records she would be allowed to review under the House bill.

Asked if he expected the Senate to agree to the legislation, Mariano on Tuesday said only, “I talked to the Senate.”