Even the most well-meaning clubs can be caught up in discrimination claims.
Failing to appropriately manage equity, diversity and inclusion can create legal risks for sports clubs.
The Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket report in June 2023 identified structural and institutional racism, sexism and class-based discrimination throughout all levels of the game in England.
The latest review of the ECB’s ‘Raising the Game’ programme, aimed at improving equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) throughout English cricket, in November 2025 detailed numerous programmes intended to make lasting, structural improvements including a staff EDI education programme, introducing an independent Cricket Regulator and seeking to funnel support to women’s and girls’ cricket, disability cricket and ethnically diverse communities.
But there is still a long way to go and there are legal risks for sports clubs who fail to adhere to appropriate EDI standards. There’s a growing need for clubs to protect themselves and Imogen.mitchell-webb@h-f.co.uk provides advice and insights to help sports clubs and organisations manage the potential risks as well as dealing with any legal issues.
Background
Although EDI within cricket has dominated headlines in recent years, the issues aren’t unique to cricket. Fair access is a critical concern in all sports, from grassroots to elite level, for example tackling white and male predominance in certain sports, expanding involvement in lower income communities and encouraging ethnic minority participation.
Over time, as public consciousness and expectations in relation to EDI increase, so too do the legal risks facing sports clubs that fail to adhere to appropriate standards.
Discrimination
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits either direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of ‘protected characteristics’ including disability, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
Direct discrimination occurs where a person is treated less favourably due to a protected characteristic.
Indirect discrimination occurs where a person applies a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (“PCP”) which discriminates against a person with a protected characteristic, where this cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The Equality Act 2010 applies to clubs with over 25 members and membership rules (which don’t have to be written). This scope will capture the majority of sports clubs.
Sports clubs are therefore at risk of discrimination claims if they directly or indirectly discriminate against staff, volunteers, players or other visitors to the club.
There are misconceptions within sport about what may or may not amount to discrimination, particularly at grassroots level. The examples below show that some situations are easier to spot than others.
1) Refusing to hire volunteers / staff members of a particular religion
This would amount to direct discrimination.
2) Only allowing girls to play tennis on a Tuesday when boys are allowed to play any day of the week
This too would amount to direct discrimination as the benefits of being in the club differ for members, based on their sex.
3) Only allowing disabled people to join
This is not discrimination, as a private club is entitled to limit membership to people who hold a particular protected characteristic.
4) Requiring all players to purchase certain kit before being able to train or play
This could amount to indirect discrimination against lower income players unless it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, if the kit was required to ensure safety.
Reasonable Adjustments
There is a separate, positive duty under the Equality Act 2010 for organisations to make reasonable adjustments to a PCP or physical feature of their premises if it puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage, and to provide aids where necessary to avoid a substantial disadvantage.
It can be difficult for sports clubs to know how far this duty stretches. What is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the disadvantage experienced, practicality of the solution and the club’s financial and personal resources.
Again, the examples below highlight some of the nuances that can arise:
1) Provision of British Sign Language interpreter for children’s training sessions
It is unlikely that this would be ‘reasonable’ for a grassroots club which is unlikely to have the resources to pay for it.
2) Permitting players or staff with ADHD or autism to attend training sessions early to acclimatise with the surroundings
Where practically possible, this is likely to fall within the duty as it is a cost free but effective way to facilitate participation.
3) Installing a lift so wheelchair users can access upstairs changing rooms
For a grassroots club, this is unlikely to be ‘reasonable’ as installing lifts will be very costly and disruptive. In these situations a more reasonable solution should be reached, for example, moving changing facilities to the ground floor or allowing a player or staff member to arrive in their kit.
4) Permitting prayer breaks during training sessions
Making an adjustment to the usual rule that players are not allowed to excuse themselves from training sessions is likely to fall within the duty. A club would likely be required to allow a short break and provide an appropriate place to pray.
How clubs can avoid discrimination claims
Even the most well-meaning clubs can be caught up in discrimination claims. Careful and proactive consideration of the Equalities Act 2010 and related law and guidance is vital to avoid discriminatory situations.
Every club and its community and membership is different, so it’s essential that those responsible are empowered to shape procedures around specific discrimination risks.
Alongside a clear EDI policy which educates employees and volunteers about discrimination, litigation can be avoided where people feel empowered to raise a potential discrimination issue and the club is open and transparent in its response and actions.
Most cases will not be clear-cut, so it’s crucial to consult qualified, experienced legal advisers for clarity on legal requirements and the suitable response to any complainant.
For clear, specialist legal advice, contact Imogen.mitchell-webb@h-f.co.uk, Partner & Head of Sports.
Related Insights
The Risks & Impacts of the Winter Olympics
The Milano Cortina Winter Olympics 2026 has captivated sports fans around the world, and with the Paralympic Winter Games about...
The Need for NGBs and Clubs to Help Tackle the Growing Issue of Online Abuse in Sport
Imogen Mitchell-Webb (Partner – International Casualty and Head of Sports) and Nicola Greaney KC of 39 Essex Chambers, give their...
International Casualty – where should a case be heard?
Why the recent Limbu v Dyson judgment matters to UK companies The recent case of Limbu & Others v Dyson...
Safeguarding: Protecting the Future of Sport
The adequacy of safeguarding in sports has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Governing bodies and organisations such as...




