Presenter Launches Legal Action Against GB News After Saying He Was Dismissed For Calling Former Home Secretary 'A Racist'
An ex-GB News presenter is taking the network to court after claiming he was dismissed for calling the former Home Secretary a 'racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman.'
Albie Amankona is being supported by the UK's Good Law Project and says he is headed to an employment tribunal for alleged racial discrimination, belief discrimination, harassment, unequal pay, victimisation for speaking out and unfair dismissal. GB News calls his claim 'misconceived.'
More from Deadline
Ofcom Boss: Landmark UK Supreme Court Ruling On Definition Of A Woman "May Affect" How Regulator Judges Complaints About TV Shows
GB News Wins Landmark Legal Battle With UK Media Regulator Ofcom Over Trump Report
Ofcom Set To Receive 60,000 Complaints Over GB News Pedophile Joke
Amankona, who was previously a regular on the right-leaning channel, says he was dropped by GB News last year after he said he believed Braverman was 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman.'
He was told by co-host and now Reform UK politician, Darren Grimes, that 'you cannot sit on this show and call someone a racist', and says he was later informed by GB News that he had 'crossed a line' between robust discussion and 'unjustifiable offence.' GB News apologized to Braverman on X over the incident and she thanked the network for the apology.
'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further,' said a GB News spokesman.
Braverman was at the center of the BBC's row over Gary Lineker's tweets two years back, when Lineker tweeted criticizing the government's asylum policy.
The news represents GB News' latest legal tussle, while the network has also had plenty of presenter and pundit turnaround during its time on air. Both Laurence Fox and Calvin Robinson were sacked in 2023, while host Dan Wootton left soon after.
Earlier this year, GB News won a landmark legal battle against Ofcom over a report by presenter Jacob Rees-Mogg about Donald Trump.
Best of Deadline
'The Gilded Age' Season 3 Release Schedule: When Do New Episodes Come Out?
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Britain Does Indeed Have a Free Speech Problem
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the Irish rap group Kneecap should be barred from playing the flagship Glastonbury Festival, after a member of the group was charged with terrorism offenses for shouting 'Up Hezbollah, up Hamas' at a gig. By coincidence, a day after rapper Liam Og O hAnnaidh appeared in court last week charged with promoting banned terrorist groups, a new law protecting freedom of speech on university campuses was greenlit by the British government. Arif Ahmed, who will police the regulations as a kind of college-free-speech tsar, issued a warning to students that they should: 'expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive…'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tennis player association files new complaint against ATP, WTA Tours, removes star complaints
The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) has submitted an updated complaint in its antitrust lawsuit against tennis' governing bodies. The organization, which was co-founded by Novak Djokovic in 2020, has taken out critiques of the tour schedule from players who are not named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including French Open champions Coco Gauff and Carlos Alcaraz. Advertisement It has also removed two defendants from a group it characterized as a 'cartel' in its initial action, which was filed in London, New York City and Brussels. The International Tennis Federation is off the suit filed in New York City, as is the tennis anti-doping and anti-corruption body, the International Tennis Integrity Agency. A source briefed on the PTPA's legal proceedings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships in tennis, said that the ITF and the ITIA had been removed to focus on the alleged antitrust violations by the men's (ATP) and women's (WTA) tennis tours. The PTPA filed its initial lawsuit in March. That filing described the biggest governing bodies in tennis as a 'cartel,' which suppresses wages, player opportunity and rival tournaments 'to the harm of players and fans alike.' The PTPA alleged numerous antitrust violations, all of which have been denied by the accused governing bodies, who last month filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The men's and women's tours argue that their bylaws require players to settle disputes through arbitration, rather than in court. In May, they and the ITF and ITIA filed a joint motion to dismiss the PTPA as a plaintiff, on the grounds that it cannot orchestrate such an action because it does not have a formal membership. A judge has yet to rule on that motion. Advertisement The original lawsuit listed 12 player plaintiffs, including co-founder Vasek Pospisil, and Reilly Opelka and Sorana Cirstea, who are active players. Djokovic was not a named plaintiff. There are now 14, with the addition of Sachia Vickery and Nicolas Zanellato, though there are still no top-tier stars among the named complainants, giving the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the PTPA's lawsuit does not have the support of most of the most powerful voices in the game. A spokesperson for the PTPA said at the time that more than 250 professional players across all tiers of the sport, as well as the organization's executive committee, which includes Djokovic, supported the action. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Djokovic said in a news conference at the Miami Open: 'To be quite frank with you, there are things that I agree with in the lawsuit and there are also things that I don't agree with. 'I found that maybe some wording was quite strong in there.' Advertisement The updated complaint, filed in New York Tuesday evening, has changed some wording. The original was written with the kind of confrontational language that is typical of U.S. lawsuits, with the four Grand Slams — Wimbledon and the Australian, French and U.S. Opens — described as 'co-conspirators' alongside the defendants' alleged 'cartel'. Some of that language is still there, including in the opening salvo: 'Professional tennis players are stuck in a rigged game. Not on the court, where fierce competition between players delights millions of fans worldwide, but off of it, where players are forced to endure grueling schedules, capped earnings, abusive and invasive investigations and discipline, and have limited control over their own careers and brands. This is because a cartel of professional tennis tour organizers and tournament operators have conspired to avoid competition amongst themselves and to shut out outside tournaments, affording them complete control over the players' pay and working conditions.' The four Grand Slams will not be named as defendants for at least another 90 days, amid settlement discussions between them and the PTPA, according to a filing lodged this week. Advertisement The updated complaint focuses more closely on alleged violations of antitrust law by the two tours, while countering the arguments that they have made to convince the court to dismiss the case. It also focuses more heavily on the governance structures of the tours, outlining how the players are not equal partners in the operations, as the tours' leaders have claimed. The original, which included reference to complaints by Alcaraz, Gauff and five-time Grand Slam champion Iga Świątek, has omitted those complaints. It had used quotes from those players in news conferences and interviews in which they criticized how tennis is scheduled. Since the initial complaint was filed, a group of top-10 ranked male and female players has held meetings with the four Grand Slams to discuss an increased proportion of their revenues being shared with players as prize money. This is one of the goals of the PTPA lawsuit, and the PTPA has also held meetings with leaders of the Grand Slams. In the past, those leaders have expressed a desire to restructure tennis, creating a streamlined event calendar that revolves around their events and the 1,000-level ATP and WTA events, which are one rung below their tournaments. The discussions between the Grand Slams and PTPA aim to develop a framework for a new structure for professional tennis. That structure would then be circulated to the ATP, WTA, and ITF for their input. The Grand Slams and other governing bodies, however, have been doing this dance since last year, when the Grand Slams presented the tours with a plan for a so-called 'premium tour,' with fewer events and a pooling of their lucrative media rights. Advertisement That plan never went beyond discussions, and earlier this year, the ATP and WTA presented the Grand Slams with their own plan to reform tennis, which the Grand Slams rejected out of hand. The PTPA believes that the spectre of lengthy and expensive antitrust litigation will create more urgency for change. Thus far, this has not been the case. While their complaints have been eliminated from the formal PTPA complaint, top players on the ATP and WTA Tours remain in discussions about the schedule and revenue sharing in their sport. To achieve a high ranking, players typically need to participate in around 20 tournaments each year worldwide. The top players, who regularly go deep in those tournaments, have said that they don't receive necessary rest and that the sport's roughly four-week off-season is far too short. They are also subject to financial penalties and other punishments if they skip mandatory tournaments. Advertisement The players — and the PTPA — also want the Grand Slams and ATP and WTA tournaments to share a higher proportion of revenue with players. They could offer to share more than the roughly 20 percent of their revenues with players by significantly increasing prize money. Major American sports leagues, such as the NBA and NFL, share approximately 50 percent of their revenues with players. Grand Slam prize money typically amounts to between 13 and 18 percent of each tournament's annual revenue, while for ATP and WTA events, that figure rises closer to 25 or 30 percent. The courts will next address the defendants' motions to dismiss the case or to move it to arbitration. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Sports Business, Tennis, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Tennis player association files new complaint against ATP, WTA Tours, removes star complaints
The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) has submitted an updated complaint in its antitrust lawsuit against tennis' governing bodies. The organization, which was co-founded by Novak Djokovic in 2020, has taken out critiques of the tour schedule from players who are not named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including French Open champions Coco Gauff and Carlos Alcaraz. Advertisement It has also removed two defendants from a group it characterized as a 'cartel' in its initial action, which was filed in London, New York City and Brussels. The International Tennis Federation is off the suit filed in New York City, as is the tennis anti-doping and anti-corruption body, the International Tennis Integrity Agency. A source briefed on the PTPA's legal proceedings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships in tennis, said that the ITF and the ITIA had been removed to focus on the alleged antitrust violations by the men's (ATP) and women's (WTA) tennis tours. The PTPA filed its initial lawsuit in March. That filing described the biggest governing bodies in tennis as a 'cartel,' which suppresses wages, player opportunity and rival tournaments 'to the harm of players and fans alike.' The PTPA alleged numerous antitrust violations, all of which have been denied by the accused governing bodies, who last month filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The men's and women's tours argue that their bylaws require players to settle disputes through arbitration, rather than in court. In May, they and the ITF and ITIA filed a joint motion to dismiss the PTPA as a plaintiff, on the grounds that it cannot orchestrate such an action because it does not have a formal membership. A judge has yet to rule on that motion. The original lawsuit listed 12 player plaintiffs, including co-founder Vasek Pospisil, and Reilly Opelka and Sorana Cirstea, who are active players. Djokovic was not a named plaintiff. There are now 14, with the addition of Sachia Vickery and Nicolas Zanellato, though there are still no top-tier stars among the named complainants, giving the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the PTPA's lawsuit does not have the support of most of the most powerful voices in the game. Advertisement A spokesperson for the PTPA said at the time that more than 250 professional players across all tiers of the sport, as well as the organization's executive committee, which includes Djokovic, supported the action. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Djokovic said in a news conference at the Miami Open: 'To be quite frank with you, there are things that I agree with in the lawsuit and there are also things that I don't agree with. 'I found that maybe some wording was quite strong in there.' The updated complaint, filed in New York Tuesday evening, has changed some wording. The original was written with the kind of confrontational language that is typical of U.S. lawsuits, with the four Grand Slams — Wimbledon and the Australian, French and U.S. Opens — described as 'co-conspirators' alongside the defendants' alleged 'cartel'. Some of that language is still there, including in the opening salvo: 'Professional tennis players are stuck in a rigged game. Not on the court, where fierce competition between players delights millions of fans worldwide, but off of it, where players are forced to endure grueling schedules, capped earnings, abusive and invasive investigations and discipline, and have limited control over their own careers and brands. This is because a cartel of professional tennis tour organizers and tournament operators have conspired to avoid competition amongst themselves and to shut out outside tournaments, affording them complete control over the players' pay and working conditions.' The four Grand Slams will not be named as defendants for at least another 90 days, amid settlement discussions between them and the PTPA, according to a filing lodged this week. The updated complaint focuses more closely on alleged violations of antitrust law by the two tours, while countering the arguments that they have made to convince the court to dismiss the case. It also focuses more heavily on the governance structures of the tours, outlining how the players are not equal partners in the operations, as the tours' leaders have claimed. The original, which included reference to complaints by Alcaraz, Gauff and five-time Grand Slam champion Iga Świątek, has omitted those complaints. It had used quotes from those players in news conferences and interviews in which they criticized how tennis is scheduled. Since the initial complaint was filed, a group of top-10 ranked male and female players has held meetings with the four Grand Slams to discuss an increased proportion of their revenues being shared with players as prize money. Advertisement This is one of the goals of the PTPA lawsuit, and the PTPA has also held meetings with leaders of the Grand Slams. In the past, those leaders have expressed a desire to restructure tennis, creating a streamlined event calendar that revolves around their events and the 1,000-level ATP and WTA events, which are one rung below their tournaments. The discussions between the Grand Slams and PTPA aim to develop a framework for a new structure for professional tennis. That structure would then be circulated to the ATP, WTA, and ITF for their input. The Grand Slams and other governing bodies, however, have been doing this dance since last year, when the Grand Slams presented the tours with a plan for a so-called 'premium tour,' with fewer events and a pooling of their lucrative media rights. That plan never went beyond discussions, and earlier this year, the ATP and WTA presented the Grand Slams with their own plan to reform tennis, which the Grand Slams rejected out of hand. The PTPA believes that the spectre of lengthy and expensive antitrust litigation will create more urgency for change. Thus far, this has not been the case. While their complaints have been eliminated from the formal PTPA complaint, top players on the ATP and WTA Tours remain in discussions about the schedule and revenue sharing in their sport. To achieve a high ranking, players typically need to participate in around 20 tournaments each year worldwide. The top players, who regularly go deep in those tournaments, have said that they don't receive necessary rest and that the sport's roughly four-week off-season is far too short. They are also subject to financial penalties and other punishments if they skip mandatory tournaments. The players — and the PTPA — also want the Grand Slams and ATP and WTA tournaments to share a higher proportion of revenue with players. They could offer to share more than the roughly 20 percent of their revenues with players by significantly increasing prize money. Advertisement Major American sports leagues, such as the NBA and NFL, share approximately 50 percent of their revenues with players. Grand Slam prize money typically amounts to between 13 and 18 percent of each tournament's annual revenue, while for ATP and WTA events, that figure rises closer to 25 or 30 percent. The courts will next address the defendants' motions to dismiss the case or to move it to arbitration.
