A Rangers fan has lost his discrimination case after a judge ruled devotion to a football club cannot be classed as religion.
Eddie McClung, 51, has failed in an employment tribunal bid to sue two firms for £80,000 after he claimed he was sacked due to his allegiance to the Glasgow club. Both firms had tried to get the case thrown out at an employment tribunal - but Mr McClung, from Bonnybridge near Falkirk, insisted his connection to Rangers should be considered the same as religion.
He claimed his avid allegiance to the Ibrox side was such it should be viewed as 'a way of life' and that instead of going to church he went to watch Rangers. However, in a landmark case, a court concluded his fanaticism does not constitute a ‘philosophical belief’ in the same way as faith in God.
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, she said 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 wanted their team to do well/win."
Mr McClung had carried out work for energy construction firm Doosan Babcock via recruiters NRL from January to June in 2019. The 51-year-old alleged Doosan Babcock manager Donald Ross didn't offer him later work due to the team he supports.
He also claimed he was discriminated 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 it constituted a philosophical belief and should be protected under employment law.
As previously reported by the Record, Eddie described his dad taking him to an Old Firm game when he was eight and the “amazing” experience making him a “Rangers fan for life”.
He told the tribunal in Glasgow: “Going to games has left me with memories I will never forget.
“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.
“Rangers keeps me going. It gets you out of a mundane life where you’re sitting at home and depressed.
“You wake up on a match day and you’re buzzing. Then you get to the game and there’s the energy with the whole stadium bouncing and 50,000 people singing.
“It lifts you to levels you can’t get to in normal life. It’s like being part of something bigger than a football club.
“I’ll go to games until the day I die. It’s a life commitment.”
The tribunal heard: "He was taken to a Celtic v Rangers game by his father when he was around eight years old, and has been 'hooked' since then.
"He is a member of Rangers. He receives a birthday card from them each year and 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/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 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 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; 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', adding: "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]: 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 considered support for a football club to be akin to a lifestyle choice, rather than relating to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour."
"Fourthly, the belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. 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.
"I did not doubt [his] evidence regarding the build-up to match days and his habits on the day of a match, or the fact it is a way of life for him, but these are all personal matters detailing what he does and how he likes to enjoy the pre-match, match and post-match.
"There was nothing to suggest fans had to behave, or did behave, in a similar way. The only common factor linking fans would be the fact they wanted their team to do well/win."
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'.
She concluded: "However fanatical [Mr McClung's] support for Rangers, it lacked the required characteristics of cogency, cohesion and importance.
"I say that because support for Rangers has no larger consequences for humanity as a whole, nothing underpinning it beyond a desire
for the team to do well/win and no impact on how people lived their lives."
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
