Ten governing bodies, including Parkrun and Swim England, have been warned their eligibility policies may breach the Equality Act following a Supreme Court ruling on biological sex.
The Women’s Sports Union (WSU) and ADF International have issued legal letters to 10 UK sports governing bodies, warning that current eligibility policies for female competition categories may be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
The letters, sent this week, call on organisations including Parkrun and Swim England to amend their policies to exclude biological males from female categories. The groups argue that failure to do so could expose governing bodies to legal challenge, citing a 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling which defined “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act as biological sex.
The correspondence states governing bodies “should now take prompt steps to ensure that the female category is reserved for biological females”, warning that continued reliance on self-identification policies risks breaching statutory protections designed to ensure fairness and safety in sport.
The legal intervention is co-signed by Tracy Edwards MBE and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson—known as Baroness Davies—both prominent figures in women’s sport advocacy. In public statements, both have taken a more direct tone, criticising what they describe as delays in policy reform.
Edwards said: “Enough is enough… women want our stuff back. No more ‘waiting for the guidance’… Get males out of female sport and restore fairness and safety – now.”
Davies, meanwhile, pointed specifically to Parkrun’s model, arguing that the absence of a clearly defined female-only category undermines efforts to track participation and fairness. She suggested that additional categories could be introduced to accommodate broader inclusion while preserving female sporting competition.
The legal letters draw heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (April 2025), which clarified that sex-based protections under the Equality Act refer to biological sex. The ruling reaffirmed that, in “sex-affected activities” such as sport, governing bodies are permitted to restrict participation where physical differences could create competitive or safety disadvantages.
WSU and ADF International argue that this creates not only a legal permission but, in many cases, a duty for sports organisations to maintain sex-based categories.
They also outline potential legal risks for governing bodies that do not comply, including discrimination claims from female athletes, safeguarding concerns, and possible breaches of public funding conditions tied to equality law.
A growing tension sweeping across female sport
The move reflects a broader shift across sport, with several UK governing bodies already revising their policies in recent years. The letters cite organisations such as British Cycling, UK Athletics and Swim England as examples of governing bodies that have adopted stricter eligibility criteria for female sport categories while introducing open or mixed classifications.
The issue has also gained renewed international attention following the International Olympic Committee’s recent policy update on the protection of the female category.
According to the IOC announcement, approved in March 2026, eligibility for female sport competition at Olympic events will be limited to biological females, determined through a one-time SRY gene screening test. The policy, which will apply from the LA28 Olympic Games onwards, is designed to “protect fairness, safety and integrity in the female category”.
The IOC stated that its approach is based on scientific evidence and expert consultation, concluding that male sex provides performance advantages in strength, power and endurance-based sports. However, it also emphasised that the policy applies only to elite Olympic competition and is not intended for grassroots or recreational sport.
This distinction may prove significant in the UK context, where several of the organisations contacted by WSU and ADF operate at community or participation level, rather than elite competition.
Neither Parkrun nor Swim England had publicly responded to the legal letters at the time of writing.
