A recent judgement from a landmark employment case against British Cycling and UK Sport found that Jess Varnish, a former professional British cyclist, was neither an employee nor a worker of either organisation within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010. The relationship between the cyclist and British Cycling was judged to be more akin to a relationship between a student and a University (eg, service provider), and that funding provided to the cyclist by UK Sport was analogous to a grant.1 Jess Varnish brought her claims of unfair dismissal (ie, termination of her Athlete Performance Award, which is a means-tested financial contribution towards an athlete`s living expenses), direct sex discrimination, victimisation and unlawful detriment for having made protected disclosures (ie, whistle-blowing) to the Employment Tribunal.1 She sought protections offered to employees or workers but not offered to professional athletes. The case highlights a problem: athletes are not considered to be employees nor workers and therefore are not entitled to employee nor worker protection, but no other equivalent form of protection for athletes exists.
© Copyright 2020 British Journal of Sports Medicine. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd of the BMA. Kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. / Kääntänyt https://www.DeepL.com/Translator