Philosophical Beliefs and the 2026 FIFA World Cup

For those old enough to have enjoyed the 1982 Football World Cup, Socrates will be remembered as the marauding midfield maestro who captained the Brazil team and who might be considered by football fans as a more relevant cultural icon than the ancient Greek philosopher of the same name.

Whilst football and philosophy are not usually discussed in the same sentence unless someone is talking about Johan Cruyff, when it comes to employment law, the beautiful game has generated some genuinely thought-provoking legal questions. With the 2026 World Cup now on the horizon, the timing could not be better for employers to take note.

Modern football philosophy feels almost diluted by social media debates and performative fandom, but there is a rather niche set of employment law problems that organisations can be faced with when dealing with super-fans or ultras, and the upcoming World Cup provides a timely opportunity to explore these issues.

There are employment tribunal case authorities that examine whether and how supporting a football team may be considered a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. From the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, the concept of "religion and belief" can conjure up some challenging concepts, and it is worth employers being alert to the specific cases on philosophical belief, which can sometimes feel disconnected from reality.

When Football Goes to Tribunal

The authorities in this area have evolved over recent years, with beliefs in climate change, ethical veganism, and beliefs against fox hunting gaining protected status. The most recent high-profile case of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe established that "gender critical" views are protected "philosophical beliefs" for equality law purposes. Evidently, these cases can raise highly sensitive and complex issues and sometimes produce unexpected results that may catch out unwary employers.

The question of qualifying belief is often a preliminary point that needs to be determined by an employment tribunal before an individual advances a discrimination claim, and so it is a threshold, or the "gateway", to additional protections for workers. Those additional protections include discrimination protections and protections from detriment. The term “detriment” is widely defined and could include, for example:

• failure to be promoted;
• being denied a bonus;
• exclusion from team events; or
• any other detrimental treatment connected to the protected characteristic.

Given that these philosophical beliefs may simply be overlooked by an employer as not relevant in disciplinary and grievance scenarios, it is worth a reminder on how the legal framework and tests in this area have developed.

In Grainger v Nicholson, the London Employment Appeal Tribunal recognised the need to put some limitations on the definition of philosophical belief and proposed a five-fold analysis of how to measure the concept:

(i) The belief must be genuinely held. It cannot be manufactured or adopted simply for the purpose of obtaining legal protection.

(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. This means the belief must have a settled, conviction-like quality and not simply a view that might change as new information comes to light.

(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour. Trivial or passing interests will not qualify; the belief must relate to something of genuine significance in how the individual lives their life.

(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. Beliefs that are objectively offensive or harmful to others will not attract protection.

By way of example, in the case of Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports, concerning ethical veganism, the Claimant detailed that if his work destination was within an hour's walking distance he would normally walk there to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds when taking a bus or public transport. When paying for purchases, this would be done with credit card or coins, avoiding as far as possible bank notes, particularly the newer versions manufactured using animal products.

That level of extraordinary belief commitment may seem well beyond the ordinary football fan, but there are case authorities that have explicitly examined the question of philosophical belief in the context of football support.

The case of McClung v Doosan Babcock looked at specific facts concerning a supporter of Rangers Football Club and found that the Claimant's belief did not amount to a philosophical belief worthy of protection under Section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010. In that case, regard was had to the explanatory notes of the statute, which state that "Beliefs such as humanism and atheism would be beliefs for the purposes of this provision but adherence to a particular football team would not be." This is an employment tribunal decision and not a binding authority, and the Judge recognised that the 2010 guidance on the purpose of the philosophical belief protections would need to adapt with changing times.

Could supporting a national team, however, produce a different outcome? It is a question very much worth asking, and the Tartan Army springs immediately to mind.

In the case of McEleny v Ministry of Defence, the tribunal found that an employee's genuine and deeply held belief in Scottish independence could amount to a philosophical belief.

It may be tenuous to amalgamate the case authorities of McClung and McEleny and to stretch the idea of national football support into a philosophical belief, but it is worth examining some of the evidential factors that a devoted national team fan might point to if they wished to argue for protected status.

Practical Reality

In an era when fans are travelling thousands of miles to attend fixtures and spending life savings to watch their team through qualifying and at the World Cup itself, there may be fans who become so immersed in supporting their national team that they could credibly attempt to argue protected status for their beliefs. Most employers will know a few true fanatics in their workforce.

By way of example, the Scotland Supporters Club is far from alone in operating a published points system that allocates loyalty scores to supporters based on attendance at home and away fixtures, administered in conjunction with the Scottish FA.

As at 22 April 2026, there were 149 supporters who had achieved the maximum score of 32 points in the tiered classification system. There is therefore demonstrable statistical data that a number of people have attended every home and away fixture of the Scotland team throughout this qualifying campaign.

That level of quantifiable, documented attendance is precisely the sort of objective evidence a tribunal might regard as significant. It is not mere enthusiasm: it is sustained, consistent and measurable commitment that, combined with other factors, could begin to build a compelling evidential picture of belief rather than passing interest.

The financial and personal sacrifice involved should also not be underestimated. Scotland's qualification for the 2026 World Cup, their first since the 1998 campaign in France, required supporters to follow the team across a gruelling series of away fixtures in multiple countries.

Flights, accommodation, match tickets, and the necessity of taking time off work across an extended qualifying campaign represent a very substantial and ongoing personal commitment, sometimes at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds over the course of a supporter's following of the national team.

There is, after all, a level of devotion that may reshape an individual's priorities, finances and personal life over many years of loyal support.

For those employers not yet convinced that the threshold of a philosophical belief could be met by a devoted national team supporter, it is important to remember that the case law in this area is evolving and that national identity is an issue that shows no sign of diminishing in significance.

In practical terms, employers dealing with super-fans ahead of the World Cup should ensure that any decisions relating to leave requests, disciplinary matters, or the treatment of known devotees in the workplace are carefully considered, consistently applied, and well documented.

ACAS World Cup Guidance

ACAS have in the past published guidance for employers on managing the staffing issues that can arise during the World Cup, with a key focus on absence management, holiday requests, and conflicts at work. We can expect updated guidance to be published in due course and would encourage employers to keep an eye out for it.

If employers are showing games in the workplace, there may be additional considerations around managing alcohol consumption and health and safety risks. It may even be that under the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act, which came into force in October 2024, some employers will wish to adopt a risk assessment approach to workplace events during the tournament, although for many organisations that may feel disproportionate.

The World Cup is one of the great shared global experiences, and most employers will want to embrace the atmosphere it creates rather than resist it. However, the legal landscape around philosophical belief is more nuanced than many appreciate, and the combination of evolving case law, heightened national fervour, and a tournament featuring several first-time qualifiers and a number of countries making landmark re-appearances after long absences makes this a moment for employers to be thoughtful rather than dismissive.

If you would like advice on managing World Cup-related workplace issues, philosophical belief claims, or absence and leave policies ahead of the tournament, please do not hesitate to get in touch with Level's employment team.