A second teenage footballer has been given a six-match ban for asking whether the adult transgender opponents she was playing were men.
The 18 year-old, understood to have both ADHD and learning difficulties, was sanctioned by the FA in a case depressingly similar to that of a 17 year-old girl with suspected autism who was banned for six matches in October (four of them suspended). The following month, the FSU contacted the girl and appointed leading barrister John Jolliffe to fight the guilty verdict imposed at an National Serious Case Panel hearing where she had no legal representation.
The second teenager was charged by her county FA over comments made to a referee during a match in September. It was alleged she said something along the lines of: “Ref, have you checked if all of their players are eligible to play? Look at their keeper and for example their number 10 is obviously a man.”
An investigation into her remarks required her to provide a written statement, which she reportedly needed help to write. In it she said she’d sought guidance from the referee due to her trans opponents’ “extremely aggressive” style of play. She also admitted trying to ask opposition players if their team-mates were biologically male after failing to get clarity from the ref, who threatened to send her off if she continued quizzing him.
The girl added that she had not taken her ADHD medication that day because “another medical condition” had prevented her from doing so.
The disciplinary proceedings were triggered by a complaint made by the opposition club, which included the claim that she had said to their non-trans players: “This is a man.”
At the National Serious Case Panel hearing that followed she was banned for six matches, two of them suspended, after accepting the charge brought under FA rules which allow people born male to play in women’s matches. She was also forced to undergo an “online education course”, and her club was handed seven disciplinary points.
Speaking to Telegraph Sport on condition of anonymity, she said the ban “kind of made me hate football”. She also expressed fears that she’d been gagged from raising concerns about playing against those born male. “If I say anything else, I get another six-game ban,” she explained. “So I can’t even stand up for myself.”
The outcome in the earlier case – where the 17 year-old girl got herself banned for asking a bearded transgender opponent in July “Are you a man?” – was condemned not just by the FSU, but also in the House of Lords, where Labour peer and former FA chairman Lord Triesman denounced the “shabby” treatment she’d received to cries of “hear, hear”. After writing to the FA, he was invited to meet officials to discuss his concerns.
The case sparked protests outside England men’s and women’s matches at Wembley and Bramall Lane.
Speaking about the latest ban, Fiona McAnena, Director of Campaigns at Sex Matters, said: “It’s disgraceful that another teenage girl has been suspended for daring to challenge the presence of a male player in a women’s game. The FA has punished her for asking a question that matters for her own safety, and for fairness for all girls. Sending her for mandatory ‘re-education’ won’t solve this.
“How can the FA say it supports the women’s game when girls are being suspended for pointing out there is a man on the pitch?”
An FA spokesperson said: “This case was heard by an independent National Serious Case Panel in November 2024, and they issued a sanction for a breach of FA rules. The charges were immediately accepted by the player and the outcome was the minimum sanction that could be issued for a case of this nature. The player did not appeal the sanction.
“In order to protect the players involved, and to respect the confidential details included, we are not in a position to publish the written reasons of this case.”
Just over a year ago, 48 MPs and 27 peers signed a letter urging the FA to change its trans rules to “protect women and girls”. The association’s policy has long been under review, but it has been waiting for Fifa and Uefa to complete reviews of their policies before deciding whether to amend its own.
Full story here.
