Trans Players Banned from College Football League: Cambridge Women’s Teams Rally Against Decision
On October 9, facing representatives from the University Sports Service and the Cambridge University Association Football League (CUAFL), multiple women’s team captains challenged the decision to ban trans players from college football.
The revised CUWAFL constitution (the women’s league) now includes the Football Association’s (FA) new policy on trans participation. It states: “Only biological females (i.e., those born with ovaries) may play in open age Matches and Competitions reserved for women.” “A biological female who has begun or has used testosterone as part of gender-related treatment may not compete [...] until four years have passed since their last such use.” If implimented in full, this will ban all taking masculinising HRT within the past four years, and all trans women.
In this constitution, FA restrictions are also noted for men’s teams:
“Only biological males (i.e., those born with testes) may play in open age Matches and Competitions reserved for men.” “A biological female whose gender identity is male or non-binary may compete [...] if they provide a Confirmation Statement… [and] their GP or another qualified medical practitioner” confirm their testosterone levels are “up to the normal adult male range.”
The college league secretary, Kata Csiba, explains: ‘previously, the constitution for our league… wrote that it “strives to create an inclusive atmosphere for all players. Therefore, for transgender and Non-Binary players; players are able to choose which league they would feel more comfortable playing in and subsequently play for that team within their college”’.
Describing how the teams have taken this decision, Kata states: ‘this has been met with outrage, disappointment and confusion over how and why the rule change came about for college football.’
Students Report Limited Consultation on Policy Change
Speaking to Louisa, the Women and Non-Binary captain for Clare, she explains that the change was not clearly communicated: ‘around late September, this update was sent inside the captain’s meet agenda - an email quite easy for information to get lost in.’ She explains that ‘some people knew, others didn't, including my team members’ and that just a few days before the meeting with the Sports Service, ‘people were still piecing everything together, all through independent conversation, word of mouth.’
Describing the tone of the meeting, she notes that ‘a lot of people felt left in the dark. There was no sense of discussion or debate. The Sports Service representatives essentially said - “this is what is happening, this is what is going on”.’ She fears that if the student secretary for the league was not present, no conversation would have happened at all: ‘she was the one who said we need time to discuss this.’
In a public statement from the Sports Service on ‘Student Eligibility Criteria’, under the section titled ‘Transgender Athletes’, they write:
‘University Sports clubs and societies are responsible for their own operations, including decisions on eligibility and access of trans athletes to training, events and participation in competitive leagues…’
For Louisa, it did not feel like the clubs were allowed to shape this decision. She explains how in the meeting:
‘They started by building this legal wall, telling us “you know, this is the new definition of what a woman is, just to make you all aware”. From there it was essentially the Sports Service representative reading out different clauses from the Code of Practice. There was a real sense of fearmongering: they were telling us that we could personally end up in court for not complying, without explaining in any depth what that process would look like, or what someone would need to do to take a student to court as a representative of their college team.’
“There was a real sense of fearmongering: they were telling us that we could personally end up in court for not complying, without explaining in any depth what that process would look like.”
Legal Ambiguity Prompts Student Requests for Clarity
Bans on trans sport participation across the UK have been substantiated by a patchwork of rulings, interpretations, and guidance. The Football Association (FA), which governs both amateur and professional football in England, announced it would ban trans women from the women’s game following the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, on the day of this ruling, the BBC clarified that “governing bodies are not now compelled to amend or reconsider their rules,” confirming that such decisions remain at the discretion of individual organisations rather than being mandated by the court: The Football Association of Wales (FAW), for example, currently allows trans men and trans women to play in their preferred teams, subject to hormone thresholds and an individual review.
This ambiguity at the national level has filtered down into university sport. The league secretary, Kata, explains that the decision to rewrite the CUWAFL constitution was made over the summer after “the FA released a policy change… in June 2025.” College league FA affiliation, however, remains uncertain. On the university website, where league fixtures are listed, data for men’s college football is sourced directly from the FA. Women’s college football, on the other hand, is not FA indexed; its fixtures are hosted using Playwaze, a free platform used to organise sports.
This lack of clarity has prompted frustration among players. Blanca, a Women and Non-Binary captain for DEW (Darwin, St Edmund’s, and Wolfson), questions the university’s interpretation of the ruling:
‘While the decision follows the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the law in defining a ‘woman,’ it is unclear how this translates to making college football an exclusionary space. The university has provided an ‘interpretation from the legal office,’ but it’s not logical enough to explain why this redefinition means gender minorities can no longer play football. Who is this legal office?’
The Sports Service’s public statement on trans players also cites guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC):
‘Clubs are reminded of their obligation to comply with applicable law, in particular the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, and applicable statutory guidance, such as that from the EHRC. Failure to operate within the law and in line with binding guidance could lead to ineligibility to compete, legal action against the Club and/or deregistration as a Recognised University Sports Club.’
It remains unclear which statutory guidance is currently in use. The EHRC, the UK’s equalities body, issued its interim guidance in April, nine days after the Supreme Court ruling. Following pressure from MPs, rights groups, and a letter delivered to two parliamentary committees from the Council of Europe warning “against measures that could exclude trans people from many areas of life” - the EHRC suspended this guidance in October.
The Guardian reported that the EHRC then “took the unusual step of publicly urging ministers to ‘act at speed’ in approving the statutory guidance,” lending weight to claims by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention that the EHRC does not operate as a non-partisan body. The Institute highlights that its outgoing chair, Baroness Falkner, “has never attended a minuted meeting with a transgender person in attendance.”
Now this guidance has been suspended, it remains undetermined how clubs should interpret their obligations under the EHRC. Moreover, as the Supreme Court ruling does not require governing bodies to amend their rules, it is uncertain whether the ban reflects a legal obligation, pressure from the FA, or an internal policy decision. Louisa says that during the meeting, these questions were not answered. She recalls that there were ‘captains who study law, who had the code of practice, who were zooming in on specific phrasing and saying “if it says strongly recommends, then who has chosen to pick this up?”’
She expresses frustration at the Sports Service’s response:
‘There were no good answers, they essentially said “the legal stuff is out of our hands” and didn't say who made the decision. The representative wasn’t even part of the legal team and couldn’t answer any legal questions we were asking. Students have sat and gone over the code of practice, picked apart all these loopholes, and gone in with really important questions that still haven't been answered because we’re not allowed to meet the legal team.’
Reactions to the Ban and Next Steps
Captains and team members alike have described the decision to ban trans players from college football as upsetting. Louisa says, ‘I would never feel comfortable telling people during freshers week, “come join our team” when this decision means we will have to police your gender every single game you play. If we don't come up with a viable solution to ensure that everyone can play in our league, then me and my co-captain have both said we would pull out of college football.’
Merle, a new DEW team member says, ‘I joined the team as a new member this year and as a person new to the university. I was appalled to hear of the university’s attempt to regulate the college league and its players on the basis of an oppressive, harmful, and baseless Supreme Court ruling.’
For Sophie, another DEW player: ‘Our team has, and will always be, a welcoming, open, and inclusive space for those who share a passion for football. I am outraged and heart-broken at the decision to exclude trans women from college football. The college league is not affiliated with the FA, so it doesn’t have to abide by those rules. The aim of college football is to spread the joy of the game to those who want to play and provide a community - why on earth would you exclude anyone from this? I and my fellow teammates vehemently refuse the exclusion of our trans siblings, and I will not be part of a system that asks for that.’
Summing up the mood of the recent meeting, Louisa says: ‘overwhelmingly, the atmosphere felt quite communal and unanimous - we are all so appalled by what is happening. In a way, this was something positive: it illustrated the power of communal voices within women’s football. There was a shared mutual disgust, and passionate opposition.’
Following the meeting, Louisa says ‘there have been a lot of conversations with different college captains, where we have begun to discuss how to implement viable alternatives, and investigate more into the legal arguments being made.’
One proposal discussed was to redefine the league as ‘mixed’ to circumvent the university’s decision. Kata, the college league secretary explains:
‘At a captains’ meeting, it was decided that the step forward would be to vote on whether, for the 2025/2026 season, the college league is a women's league in which only biological females are eligible to play or change it to a mixed league, which would be gender inclusive with all genders being able to play. The mixed league option, while proposed with the best intentions to ensure no one is excluded from playing college football, did raise concerns about not being a suitable long-term solution.’
The ballot has since been postponed ‘to ensure that captains and players have adequate time to seek advice, including from senior members of their colleges and university.’ and to review ‘how the constitution was changed over the summer and whether it had been through the correct processes.’
Until the ballot is held, the league will not be playing official matches. In the meantime, the league is organising informal friendlies, which do not come under the remit of the university’s eligibility criteria.