Football Allegiances and Recruitment Decisions: A New Legal Frontier?

An employment tribunal has raised an eye-opening point: in certain circumstances, a candidate’s football loyalties might lawfully justify rejecting them on “team fit” grounds.

Below we explore the case, the tribunal’s reasoning, and the implications for employers and recruitment practices.

Background & Case Overview

• The dispute arose in Kalina v Digitas LBI Ltd, in which Miss M. Kalina brought claims of race and disability discrimination following her non-appointment to two roles.
• The hiring manager’s decision was influenced by a view that another candidate “vibed” better with existing staff – i.e. they “gel” better with the team socially.
• During the tribunal hearing, it emerged that considerations of interpersonal harmony and shared interests (including football allegiance) featured in the selection rationale.
• Employment Judge D Wright ultimately dismissed all claims, but used a striking analogy to illustrate the limits of lawful recruitment decisions:
  He said: “There may be times when it is perfectly lawful for an employer to decide that somebody just will not be a fit with the team and that therefore it would be difficult to work together. An example of this could be 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 decision there would be lawful (albeit taking the example to the extreme would not necessarily be good for business).”

The tribunal suggested that, in some contexts, such considerations might be within the boundary of permissible “business justifications,” particularly where cohesive team dynamics are critical.

Tribunal Reasoning & Legal Issues

1. While the full reasoning is yet to be fleshed out in a published judgment, the tribunal’s line of thinking raises several noteworthy points:
   1. “Fit” as a legitimate business aim
   The decision to favour a candidate who “meshes” better may, in some circumstances, be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate business aims – such as maintaining team cohesion, morale, or collaborative functioning.
   2. Risk of indirect discrimination
   Even if a “fit” criterion is facially neutral, it could disproportionately disadvantage protected groups (e.g. on grounds of race, disability, religion). Employers must be wary that their “culture fit” or “team chemistry” selection predicates do not mask bias.
   3. Justification burden on employer
   If a candidate asserts a discrimination claim, the employer would bear a burden to show that reliance on perceived “fit” was a proportionate means to an articulated and genuine aim.
   4. Context sensitivity
   The nature of the role, the size of the team, and the particular working culture may all influence whether a “fit” rationale is more or less defensible.

Practical Implications & Best Practices

This emerging line of reasoning demands careful navigation by employers. Below are practical suggestions:

• Document objective criteria first
  Before considering the “fit” of a candidate, ensure that they meet the essential objective requirements (skills, experience, qualifications, role competencies). These requirements should be used as the primary filter.
• Use “team dynamics” sparingly and transparently
  If interpersonal dynamics or shared interests are to play a role, make it clear in the job description or selection criteria (e.g. ability to collaborate in a team, participate in group settings). Avoid vague or catch-all “culture fit” language.
•  Assess risk of indirect discrimination
  Run an equality impact assessment on your recruitment approach. Are certain groups less likely to share in-team cultural reference points (like allegiance to a particular sport)? If so, is the “fit” requirement justifiable?
• Apply consistency and moderation
  Use “fit” considerations only at late stages, and in moderation. Avoid making “fit” a sole or overriding factor given the risk that it might be challenged as arbitrary or discriminatory.
• Training and oversight
  Ensure that hiring managers understand the legal risk of over-relying on subjective judgments of affinity or “vibe.” Oversight or panel review may help moderate bias.
• Seek legal advice in sensitive cases
  Where team dynamics are heavily relied upon, or where a candidate is rejected on marginal grounds, it may be prudent to obtain legal input – especially in roles with public visibility or regulated sectors.

Summary & Looking Ahead

The tribunal’s suggestion that football allegiances might legitimately influence recruitment is provocative. It underscores a tension between employers’ desire to build cohesive teams and the imperative to uphold fairness and non-discrimination in hiring.
While the permissibility of “fit” or affinity criteria is not settled law, the Kalina case signals that tribunals may be open to employer arguments about team harmony – but only if robustly justified and carefully documented.
Employers should tread cautiously. The safer path is to prioritise transparent, objective metrics in recruitment, use “fit” only as a secondary and modest factor, and always maintain vigilance to equality risk.

Author: Rebecca Cargill, Solicitor

This article has been produced for general information purposes and further advice should be sought from a professional advisor. Please contact our Employment team at Cleaver Fulton Rankin for further advice. 

---