Rangers FC: Football discrimination case ends in defeat for one avid supporter - Anita Mulholland

The topic of football is no stranger to the workplace; it can be either a subject of camaraderie and shared interest, or a divisive area of tension between colleagues.

However, recently an employee, Mr Eddie McClung, argued that he was treated less favourably by his employers, Doosan Babcock Ltd and NRL Ltd, because of his avid support for Rangers FC, and sought compensation as a result.

Mr McClung explained that he had been a Rangers fan for 42 years, and spent most of his excess income on games. He attended at least two home matches a month, and felt that it got him out of his bed with a “spring in his step”. He had club membership and supported their charitable organisations. He subscribed to Sky Sports to watch all of their games and match interviews, and he would tune in to their podcasts. He was also a strong supporter of the monarchy and unionism and he submitted that these were commonly shared traits amongst Rangers fans. He believed his support for Rangers was a “way of life”, and considered it akin to a religion.

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from workplace discrimination on the basis of their “religious or philosophical” beliefs. To be considered a “belief” under the Equality Act it must be genuinely held, more than a mere opinion, relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life; attain a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, without conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.

Anita Mulholland is an Associate in the Employment law team at Addleshaw Goddard

This is not the first time the Employment Tribunal has examined whether a modern lifestyle practice amounted to a “belief” under the Act.

In 2020, it was determined that ethical veganism could meet these criteria, because it related to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and had a consistent and cogent doctrine.

On the other hand, "vegetarianism” did not amount to a philosophical belief, because the reasons behind the lifestyle were too broad.

In Mr McClung's case, the Judge did not doubt that he was a devoted supporter. However, it was acknowledged that there is a difference between “support” and “belief”.

Supporting a football team such as Rangers is 'way of life' for some, but a Judge ruled it should not considered to be a 'belief under the Equality Act

While a supporter of a football team might be "actively interested in and concerned for the success of” their team, that is not the same as holding a belief that something “exists or is true”, nor does it have an impact on a weighty or substantial aspect of human life.

The Judge noted that Rangers FC considered themselves a club for "everyone and anyone” and being a supporter of the monarchy, the Union or a member of a religious sect was not a prerequisite to being a fan.

Furthermore, the reasons and manner in which fans chose to support Rangers varied widely. The Judge therefore determined that Mr McClung's belief did not fall within the scope of the Equality Act.

The outcome of this is not surprising. A finding to the contrary would potentially have opened the floodgates to a wide range of claims from fans and supporters across a range of media.

Generally, beliefs connected to organised religion, gender and national governance would have a better chance of success of raising this type of claim in the Employment Tribunal, as they are far more likely to meet the required criteria.

However, for now, the taboo of football discrimination alone will remain on the bench.

Anita Mulholland is an Associate in the Employment law team at Addleshaw Goddard