The case and The FA’s policy change

The FA had only recently (March 2025) published an updated policy on transgender participation in football for the 2025/26 season. It confirmed trans women could continue participating in women’s football, subject to certain eligibility requirements which included a stricter testosterone-level requirement, along with an “observation” requirement to evaluate whether the player presented any risk to the safety of others and/or fair competition. [2]

Just weeks later, following the judgment in For Women Scotland, The FA announced that trans women would no longer be able to play matches in women’s football from 1 June 2025. [3] We refer to “play matches” and “participate in the women’s game” below for ease of reference. However, it is worth noting The FA’s policy is limited to matches sanctioned by The FA and relevant other associations. Whether trans women can participate in matches not sanctioned by The FA or relevant other associations, and in non-match activities like training sessions, is a decision for the relevant organiser. The announcement does not mention any ban on trans men participating in the men’s game.

In For Women Scotland, the Supreme Court ruled that the words “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex. [4] We have provided a case digest and summary of the practical implications of the judgment for employers here. As discussed in that publication, employers are left in an unsatisfactory position in their approach to, for example, single-sex spaces (including toilets and changing facilities). Those wider implications will, of course, also be relevant for sports clubs/teams.

What is the result of the policy change?

On the sport-specific (player) implications, the judgment has resulted in various sports governing bodies updating their transgender policies in women’s sport. The FA referred to its ability to amend its policy following a “material change in the law, science or the operation of the policy in grassroots football” and stated that it was doing so following the Supreme Court’s ruling. While it should be noted that the judgment does not actually change the law (the Court was simply being asked to determine the definition of those terms in the Equality Act 2010), it is acknowledged that many businesses and service providers had been operating on the basis that the words “man”, “woman” and “sex” had a wider meaning incorporating the identified sex of transgender people (with or without a gender recognition certificate).

The judgment doesn’t require sports governing bodies to change policies as such (discussed further below) but many have done so. The FA had previously championed trans participation in the face of other sports taking a different (biological) approach. However, it reportedly felt it had no option but to change its policy following the decision. [5] This is perhaps on the basis that it sees this as the more “legally sound” option now, along with the possible risk of claims from, for example, cis women if trans women were to continue to compete in the women’s game. The same approach has not been adopted in the men’s game where trans men can participate subject to certain criteria.

In summary, The FA’s decision means:

• Women’s game:
  • From 1 June 2025, trans women (biological men) will be unable to play matches in the women’s game which are sanctioned by The FA and affiliated associations.
  • Trans men (biological women) can play matches in the women’s game but only if their testosterone levels remain in the biological female range (and therefore this would be unworkable after hormone treatment). [6]

• Men’s game: No comment has been made to suggest The FA’s policy on the men’s game will be amended. Therefore, as matters stand (based on The FA’s March 2025 Policy):
  • Trans women (biological men) can play in the men’s game but are required to complete an “assumption of possible additional risk form” if hormone treatment has commenced.
  • Trans men (biological women) can play in the men’s game but are required to complete an assumption of possible additional risk form (in all circumstances).

• Under 7s to under 18s football [7]
  • Transgender children under the age of 18 are still able to participate (as things stand) in the game of their acquired/self-determined gender (other than open-age football).

Reports state that there are no trans women playing professional football, but there are currently 20+ participating at amateur level. [8] While this therefore may not seem like a pertinent issue for professional clubs right now, it seems highly likely that it is going to continue to be an area ripe for legal challenges and evolving policies for years to come.

In terms of where that leaves trans women participating in football from 1 June 2025, there are not currently enough trans people in the country to run separate leagues and competitions. However, The FA intends to create mixed leagues from the 26/27 season. [9] The other option for trans women (as things currently stand) is to participate in the men’s game, although that means they have to complete a form which acknowledges they may be at greater risk and puts the onus on the individual to determine whether or not they possess the physiological attributes to safely participate. This obviously may not be a desirable or workable position for trans women and may result in them being unable to participate in the game (as a player in matches sanctioned by The FA and relevant others) at all.

What does the Equality Act say, and what’s next?

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling, nor the Equality Act, compels sporting governing bodies to change their existing approaches. The Equality Act contains provisions regarding single- and separate-sex sporting activities and the participation of transgender individuals in sport which effectively enable the exclusion or differential treatment of trans individuals in certain circumstances:

1. There is an exception to sex discrimination in relation to a “gender-affected” activity. Gender-affected activities are sports, games and other activities of a competitive nature where the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors (it now being clear following the Supreme Court’s judgment that that analysis should be undertaken by reference to biological sex only). This means that biological men can be excluded from (or their participation otherwise modified in) the women’s game and vice versa.
2. A similar exception applies to gender reassignment, although the exclusion or other act taken in respect of the transgender person must additionally be necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors. This exception is available to service providers (which would include sports governing bodies in their organisation and administration of sport). What it doesn’t do is provide an employment-related exception (which is not something which clubs have had to grapple with yet because trans players have only been playing at amateur level and are therefore not engaged as employees) – such situations will invoke interesting questions around the application of indirect discrimination law (including the appropriate comparator to which transgender athletes would suffer particular disadvantage in comparison to).

Sports governing bodies were previously relying on the gender reassignment exception above when determining their policies for the participation of trans participants. For example, in setting testosterone thresholds for trans women (biological men) to secure fair competition/safety. However, the judgment now means that the sex exception can be relied on instead to:

• exclude trans women from participation in the women’s game (because of the Court’s determination that trans women are biological men and therefore can be excluded on the basis of sex); and
• vice versa in respect of trans men from participation in the men’s game (although The FA has not chosen to do so as things stand).

This means that the gender reassignment exception is therefore now only relevant for the purpose of:

• imposing the testosterone requirement for trans men (biological women) participating in the women’s game, or excluding them altogether (which The FA does if testosterone levels are no longer within the relevant range); or
• excluding trans women (biological men) from the men’s game (but The FA has not chosen to do so as things stand), or imposing risk forms on trans women to compete in the men’s game (which The FA does if hormone treatment has commenced).

The debate around trans rights and participation in sport will continue for the foreseeable future. The FA’s policy, the policy of other sports, and the policies and decisions of both employers and service providers may of course be open to further legal challenge (from all sides depending on the stance taken). We can also expect updated Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance later in the summer.

Clubs should continue to watch this space, including any updated regulation or guidance, and seek further advice on complaints or claims that arise in this context. In terms of wider implications (outside of player participation), it’s important that policies and practices are in place to prevent unlawful discrimination against all groups and promote respectful interactions between and towards colleagues, which we explore more fully here.

[1] For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16

[2] The Football Association’s policy on the Inclusion of Transgender and Non-Binary People in Football (published September 2014 and amended March 2025) (“The FA’s March 25 Policy“), paragraph 4.3, provides the following in respect of Transgender female eligibility for the women’s game: Blood serum testosterone maintained at below 5.0 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to competing in a match and thereafter for as long as they wish to maintain eligibility for the Women’s Game. A medical record of hormone therapy (and/or gonadectomy) and hormone treatment being verified at least annually, before the start of each season (and more often at The FA’s discretion. Match observation.

[3] https://www.thefa.com/news/2025/may/01/fa-transgender-policy-update-statement-supreme-court-ruling-20250105

[4] It’s important to explain the terminology which is used in this publication. We have used the same terminology as the Court adopted. When we refer to “biological” woman, man or sex, we are referring to a person’s biological sex at birth. Someone who is a biological man at birth but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, is referred to as a “trans woman”. Someone who is a biological woman at birth who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is referred to as a “trans man”. The characteristic of gender reassignment means someone who is “proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” (section 7(1) of the Equality Act 2010).

[5] FA confirms transgender women can no longer play in English women’s football from June 1

[6] The FA’s March 25 Policy, paragraph 4.3, provides the following in respect of transgender male eligibility for the women’s game: Blood serum testosterone maintained in the natal female range for as long as the player wishes to maintain eligibility for the Women’s Game (without prejudice to any requirements of The FA’s Anti-Doping Regulations, use of exogeneous testosterone is not permitted if the player wishes to maintain eligibility for the Women’s Game).

[7] Paragraph 2.1 of The FA’s March 25 Policy provides: “Players must be of the same biological sex, save that FA Rules permit boys and girls to play in matches with and against each other in the age groups Under 7 to Under 18 (inclusive) ….”

[8] See, for example: https://news.sky.com/story/fa-will-ban-transgender-women-from-womens-football-from-next-season-13359117

[9] See, for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cz01z4rdx4no