A Scottish Employment Tribunal has decided once and for all, that despite Diego Maradona’s famous quote stating that ”football isn’t a game, nor a sport, it’s a religion”, legally speaking this is not the case.
29 September 2022
Case Study
In McClung -v- Doosan Babcock, Mr McClung claimed that he had been discriminated against due to his allegiance to Glasgow Rangers Football Club. Mr McClung’s primary argument was that that support for a football club should be given the same protections under the Equality Act 2010 as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.
The Tribunal heard that Mr McClung was a lifelong football fan, having attended his first match when he was eight, and that he spends most of his disposable income on football matches. Mr McClung gave evidence that he normally attends at least one or two home games every month, along with away games and cup games.
Mr McClung alleged that his manager excluded him from work opportunities because of his love of Rangers and that he had been subjected to discriminatory comments, including one colleague’s remark that Mr McClung was “unusually okay for a Rangers fan”.
He told the Tribunal: “I live my life in accordance with being a Rangers fan. I don’t go to church. I go to Rangers. It’s a belief to me.
“If people say their religion is protected, how many times do they go to church? I would argue it’s as important to me as someone who has a religion.”
The Tribunal was told: “He never misses a match and considers it a ‘massive’ part of his life. It motivates him to do and be the best he can.”
Case Study
After hearing representations from both Mr McClung and his employer, employment judge, Lucy Wiseman, ruled that being a football fan is “a lifestyle choice, rather than relating to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”.
She added: “However fanatical [Mr McClung’s] support for Rangers, it lacked the required characteristics of cogency, cohesion, and importance.
“I say that because support for Rangers has no larger consequences for humanity as a whole, nothing underpinning it beyond a desire for the team to do well/win and no impact on how people lived their lives.”
Judge Wiseman went on to say that it instead resembles “support for a political party”, which prior cases have determined is also not a philosophical belief attracting the protection of the Equality Act 2010.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More