The judge who ruled that an employer can lawfully reject interviewees on grounds of the team they support, citing office harmony if existing staff follow a rival, was obviously using an extreme example to illustrate his point but he definitely missed the point of work-place dynamic. Having rival fans sharing a photocopier, water-cooler or kettle does not appear a recipe for a riot, merely heightened banter, especially on a Monday morning.
Judge Daniel Wright this week dismissed the claims of a woman who brought legal action against a marketing company that turned her down for a job because they didn’t feel she would be a “good fit” with existing staff. Would she mix, go to the pub with colleagues etc?
It was the judge’s subsequent footballing analogy, mainly to illustrate his point, that led to the wild headlines. The judge offered the example of “a small company where everybody who works in the office is an ardent supporter of Arsenal Football Club, and they decide to pick an Arsenal fan at interview over a similarly qualified Tottenham Hotspur season ticket holder because they do not want to damage the harmony of the office”. The judge concluded that “the decision there would be lawful, albeit taking the example to the extreme, would not necessarily be good for business”.
This led to outlandish headlines like “Tottenham fans can be rejected from job working with Arsenal supporters, judge rules”. It also led to deeper, more concerning reflections on what if the decision were made on grounds of colour or gender rather than footballing allegiance? Awful and unlawful.
But back to the football. I’m not sure the judge’s football argument stacks up. If the office were full of Gooners, would the employer prefer a non-football fan to a Spurs fan? I’m sure the Arsenal fans at their desks, up a ladder, or on the factory floor would rather have a football fan recruited, than somebody with no interest in the national game. Surely that’s far better for office harmony than somebody who cannot join in the football chat?
With respect to m’lud, he does make a bit of an assumption that all Arsenal fans get on with each other anyway. Evidence might suggest otherwise….
Exhibit A: Wenger In versus Wenger out, years 2015-2018. A hugely divided fanbase.
Exhibit B: Noni yes, Noni no, the great Madueke debate of the summer of 2025, including the divisive petition demanding the club not sign the winger from Chelsea.
Exhibit C: AFTV (formerly ArsenalFanTV, a televised fans’ forum, your honour) post-match. It’s entertaining listening to the breadth of opinions being shouted. The club’s celebrated motto of “Victoria Concordia Crescit” - “Victory Grows Through Harmony” - doesn’t always apply to fans’ debates inside or outside the Emirates, certainly not online or, and with respect to the Honourable Judge, to conversations in the work-place.
In fairness to the Judge, he added some important perspective that the North London Derby element of office harmony would be “in the extreme”. But the essential truth remains that fans enjoy debate, and not every debate focuses around their club even in such a tribal sport.
There are plenty of league-wide issues to get vexed about and rival fans can find common ground over such as: VAR, standard of officiating, owners, VAR, availability of tickets and prices, kick-off times, VAR, the threat of games abroad, atmosphere, the cost of assorted TV subscriptions. And did I mention VAR? It’s not simply an Arsenal fan and a Spurs fan arguing over Sol Campbell as they cross paths and views in the office corridor.