Although some of the greatest players, such as Pele and Diego Maradona, famously claimed their devotion to the game put it on a par with a religion, a court has now concluded this is not the case.
A judge ruled football does not constitute a 'philosophical belief' in the same way. The tribunal was ruling in the case of subcontractor Edward McClung, who insisted he was discriminated against by two firms because he is a diehard fan of Rangers Football Club.
Mr McClung sued, claiming his avid allegiance to the Glasgow club was such it should be viewed as "a way of life" and that instead of going to church he went to watch Rangers. However, the judge ruled that being a football fan is merely "a lifestyle choice" and "does not represent a belief as to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life".
In addition, football fandom does not have "larger consequences for humanity as a whole". The devotion of fans was not deemed to have the necessary "level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance" to constitute a philosophical belief such as humanism, pacifism, atheism or veganism.
The judge added: "The only common factor linking fans would be the fact they want their team to do well or win." Mr McClung, of Bonnybridge, near Falkirk, launched his claim for £80,000 on the basis his company McClung Strategy and Projects Ltd lost out on work due to his support of Rangers.
The 51-year-old carried out work for energy construction firm Doosan Babcock via recruiters NRL from January to June in 2019. Mr McClung alleged Doosan Babcock manager Donald Ross didn't offer him later work due to the team he supports.
He also claimed he was discriminated against when an unnamed worker said to Mr McClung that Doosan Babcock worker Ian Chisholm was "unusually OK for a Rangers fan". His case centred on his claim that being a fan of Rangers was such a vital part of his existence that it constituted a philosophical belief and should be protected under employment law.
He told the tribunal, held in Glasgow: "I live my life in accordance with being a Rangers fan. I don’t go to church, I go to Rangers.
"It’s a belief to me. If people say their religion is protected, how many times do they go to church?
"I would argue it’s as important to me as someone who has a religion." The tribunal heard: "He was taken to a Celtic v Rangers game by his father when he was around 8 years old, and has been 'hooked' since then.
"He is a member of Rangers and receives a birthday card from them each year. He was recently invited to visit Ibrox to see the Scottish Cup.
"[Mr McClung] spends most of his income (after paying basic house and car bills) on games. [He] normally attends at least one or two home games every month, with the odd away game and cup game.
"He buys his ticket a couple of weeks in advance so he has something to look forward to. He believes this gets him out to work with a spring in his step, so he is working to pay bills and attend as many games as he can afford.
"[Mr McClung wakes up 'buzzing' on match days and enjoys the build-up to the game. He believes this is a way of life and creates lasting memories, for example, with him and his father, and with him and his son.
"[He] subscribes to Sky Sports and watches matches, pre- and post-match interviews and podcasts. He never misses a match and considers it a 'massive' part of his life.
"It motivates him to do and be the best he can." Lawyers representing Doosan Babcock told the hearing they acknowledged Mr McClung was "clearly a devoted fan" and wished it noted that nothing they said "was intended to belittle that or the enjoyment he got from it".
However, along with lawyers for Mr Ross and NRL they argued that it did not amount to a philosophical belief and was more akin to support for a political party. They submitted it was "nonsensical to claim the support of a football team had a similar status or cogency to religious beliefs" and that "[Mr McClung's] support of Rangers FC did not require any degree of dedication, practice or commitment akin to those who belong to a religion".
After deliberating, Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman ruled that Mr McClung's football fandom did not satisfy four of the five tests to qualify as a true philosophical belief protected under the law. Although she accepted his 'belief' was genuinely held, she decided it did not actually qualify as a true 'belief' in the same way as a philosophy such as humanism or atheism.
Rather than a true belief, she said football fans "wish their team to be successful. They enjoy reading about and informing themselves about their team, they enjoy being a member of their club and they enjoy attending matches".
Judge Wiseman said Mr McClung's support for Rangers was therefore "akin to support for a political party" and that previous cases had made clear a particular political affiliation "does not constitute a philosophical belief". She also ruled it was not a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour."
She added: "What is required to satisfy this criterion is for the matter to be one of great seriousness and importance which influences decisions and behaviour. For example, national independence, gender critical beliefs and ethical veganism."
She went on: "I acknowledged [Mr McClung's] evidence regarding buying a ticket for a game, enjoying the pre-match build-up, waking up 'buzzing' on match days, engaging in the singing of songs at matches. But those are all matters personal to [him] so they are subjectively important.
"They are things from which he, and no doubt millions of other sports fans, derive enjoyment. But they do not represent a belief as to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and have no larger consequences for humanity as a whole.
"I acknowledged that [for him] his support of Rangers was a serious and important matter. He described it as a way of life and that he strived to be the best, as Rangers did."
Although Mr McClung had also also cited his support for the Union and loyalty to the Queen, Judge Wiseman pointed out those factors "are not prerequisites of being a supporter of Rangers".
"Support for Rangers has no larger consequences for humanity as a whole, nothing underpinning it beyond a desire for the team to do well or win, and no impact on how people lived their lives."
