Transgender women now banned from pool's female category
The move comes a week after the UK's highest court determined that sex was binary and just over a fortnight after the final of the Ultimate Pool Women's Pro Series Event 2 at Robin Park Leisure Centre in Wigan was contested by two biological males.
That match between Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith witnessed furious protests amid what had also been legal proceedings brought by female-born players over UPG's transgender policy.
The latter prompted UPG to commission a report into whether eight-ball pool was a gender-affected sport as defined by the Equality Act, the outcome of which has also played a part in it becoming the second professional UK pool organisation to ban trans women from its female category.
The English Blackball Pool Federation became the first in 2023, only for Haynes to take it to court earlier this month. A judgment on Haynes's lawsuit is pending but is also expected to be affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
UPG said in a statement: 'UPG today have amended our eligibility rules for the Women's Series (and all women's competitions held under UPG). With effect from 23rd April 2025, entry and participation in Ultimate Pool women's events are open only to biologically born women.
'We respect that some people within the pool community may find the changes challenging. As an organisation, we are committed to being empathetic to all members of our community and we expect all members of our community to reflect this.'
The rationale behind the change was explained in an update to its terms and conditions on its website. It read: 'Since its inception UPG has been caught in a vacuum of uncertainty surrounding the issue of eligibility to participate in its women's series. Two recent developments have now made the position clear.
'UPG obtained an expert's report upon the question: 'Was eight-ball pool a gender-affected sport as defined by the Equality Act 2010?'
'Crucially this report was commissioned to reach a conclusion not only on the question of whether there were biological differences between women born as women and transgender women recognised as women by way of a Gender Recognition Certificate, but also whether any biological differences meant that transgender women had an advantage in the specific sport of eight-ball pool.
'The clear conclusion of the biological and cue-sports expert who jointly authored the report was that eight-ball pool was a gender-affected sport and that in cue sports female players have unique disadvantages compared to male players and that transgender women retain male advantages.
'Separately, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers was handed down on 16 April 2025. In this judgment the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person's legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
'The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner has confirmed that the ruling has brought clarity and that trans women cannot take part in women's sport and that the EHRC would pursue organisations which do not update their policies. UPG welcomes the clarity which this judgment brings.'
The World Eightball Pool Federation has also been facing legal proceedings over its refusal to ban trans women from female competitions.
Fiona McAnena, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, said: 'Yet again it was a few brave women who were forced to step up and take legal action to protect the female category for all women in sport. This should never have had to happen.
'So many governing bodies have acted inexcusably, failing to provide sport that is truly inclusive of women and girls. The only way to give women the same fair competition as men get is to exclude all males from women's competitions, however those men identify.
'This is a tipping point. If cue sports like pool must exclude everyone male from women's tournaments – and legally that is what they have to do – then every other sport that has a female category must do this too. Football, cricket, lacrosse and all the other holdouts must now take action. Sportswomen have been shamefully cheated for too long.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
5 hours ago
- Vox
Why sports gambling is more dangerous than ever before
What makes everything different from before 2018 is the seamlessness. Photo illustration byAlmost every tech platform is designed to grab your attention and never let it go. You give it clicks, and it gives you dopamine. Games, news updates, social media hits — they all run on the same logic. We can add a new activity to the list: gambling. In just a few years, sports betting has gone from a legal gray area to a mainstream multibillion-dollar industry. And this isn't just about sports. It's about how our economy increasingly exploits our cognitive biases and our irrationality, and how institutions — governments, media companies, even the sports leagues — have partnered in this system, because they all want a cut of the action. Jonathan Cohen is the author of Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling. It's a new book about the financial infrastructures that we've built on top of psychological vulnerabilities. I invited him onto The Gray Area to talk about how this happened so fast, what online gambling shares with social media and crypto, and how destructive — on a human level — all of this has been. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Tell me about the 2018 Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates for sports gambling seemingly overnight. In 1992, the sports leagues went to Congress because of a threat, that was real at the time, of states legalizing sports gambling. And Congress passed a law called The Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act that banned states from legalizing sports betting. And then, in 2018, the Supreme Court rendered PASPA, as it was called, unconstitutional on the grounds of basically states' rights. And so, starting in 2018 with the Supreme Court decision, states are allowed to legalize sports gambling if they so choose. How many states have chosen to do it? And how quickly? Delaware did within six weeks. Today, as we're talking in July of 2025, we have 38 states and Washington, DC, with legal sports gambling; 30 with online legal sports gambling; probably soon to be 39 and 31 later this year with Missouri. FanDuel and DraftKings are the names almost everyone knows. How much of the pie do they control? A lot. Those are the major players, almost to the point of a duopoly, defining the industry. And they have, I would say, around 80 percent, maybe 85 percent of market share. And of course it depends on some states. There are lots of other companies out there fighting for third, fourth, fifth place. What happened to online gambling during the COVID era? It takes off politically in places like New York because of the fiscal crunch faced by states. And this isn't a new thing. It goes back to the lottery, and even during the Great Depression, when slot machines were legalized in four states because they needed the revenue. Lawmakers have this belief that there's always more money in the gambling cookie jar. Oh, we need money. Let's just legalize more forms of gambling, and that will make up for our revenue shortfalls. Politically, that's exactly what happens during COVID in places like New York and in other states. But to your point about COVID, we have a lot of people sitting on their couches and a lot of professional sports are starting to come back. And lo and behold, there's a new app on their phone where they can legally, seamlessly, frictionlessly gamble. So you can imagine the way the industry grows its market share and grows its foothold in that time. The gambling companies promise the states all this easy revenue, and they go all in. How does that bet work out for them? This is what's tough about gambling in general and sports betting in particular. In most cases, it actually has met expectations if you were the fiscally responsible person who is reading the budget projections. But the question is at what cost? Let's talk about the cost, especially the human cost. You open the book with this story about a young guy named Kyle whose life was completely ripped apart. Why did you start there? What does his story capture about these gambling apps and how they're designed? I thought Kyle was emblematic of what's happened here. He's a 26-year-old white guy who ran into trouble gambling on sports, but then even more specifically because he was someone who had gambled before sports betting went live but had never run into trouble until it appeared on his phone. But he was just really excited for sports. He was a sports fan, and he started betting pretty quickly. At some point, I don't know when his personal tipping point came, but it came, and gambling went from being something he did as part of his life to being basically his entire life. He wasn't going out; he wasn't hanging out with friends. He was just gambling. It was so instantly accessible to him. That was all he was doing. And he was drinking, he was smoking more because he was so stressed out from his gambling. He falls behind on his rent. His dad has to bail him out. Things go very badly very quickly. To paint a picture: Kyle was making $65,000 a year, and at one point, he wagered close to $93,000 on bets in a single month. Eventually, he gets fired. He goes on unemployment, and then blows all the unemployment money on betting. And then he moves back in with his parents. Yeah. I picked him because he is a young man, and this is the demographic it's happening to. It completely interrupted his life. There's a black hole in his life for two or three years, where he was consumed by gambling and the stress from gambling and the financial and mental health deterioration wrought by gambling. Why are young men in particular so vulnerable to this? First of all, young men are not exactly known for being judicious and careful, especially when it comes to money. They don't have great impulse control. You could already imagine how that would set them up poorly for something like this. They're also — and I'll speak for myself as a formerly young male sports fan — overconfident about their knowledge of sports. Sports gambling companies absolutely take advantage of this. There's a FanDuel ad saying something like 'never waste a hunch,' challenging you to prove that you 'know ball' by betting on your hunches. Young men want to prove to their friends [and] to talk show radio hosts that they know ball, and gambling is presented as a way for them to do so. And then [there is] 'financial nihilism' among young people and young men in particular. Many young men have disposable income, [but it's] maybe not so much that they're ever going to realistically buy a house or pay off their student loan or start a business. So they might as well gamble. Whether it's on sports betting, whether it's on crypto, whether it's on stock markets, whether it's on video game skins — it's not worth having $10,000 in their pocket. It's worth having a chance at $100,000 or a million dollars. And they're willing, as a result, to gamble and gamble more and gamble in riskier ways than they otherwise would. What percentage of the industry's revenue comes from the Kyles of the world? Not the pros or high rollers — regular working people who are addicted to gambling? Sixty percent of betters account for 1 percent of revenue from NFL bets. If you do the flip side, 82 percent of the money is coming from 3 percent of betters. Some of those people I'll flag are going to be really rich VIP betters like Phil Mickelson, who gambles a ton. But you can imagine there's a lot of Kyles caught up in that group or in the interstitial group between them. What makes online sports betting fundamentally different — and more seductive — than traditional gambling? What makes it different from everything that we had before 2018 is the seamlessness. It's the app design that's just as good and just as seamless and just as frictionless as social media or a shopping app. And there's an endless, endless, endless menu of betting options. You can bet on, sure, the LSU Tigers to win the game. You can also bet on whether the first half kickoff is going to be a touchback. And then you can bet on whether the next pitch in a baseball game is going to be 88 miles an hour or faster. You can bet on a tennis serve. And then at 3:00 in the morning when you're on this bender, you're in this rabbit hole and you lost all [your] money all day, you can bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton. It's not a brick-and-mortar casino. They can't pump oxygen into the room. They can't pull the clocks off the wall like they can at the casino. But they can, with little behavioral nudges, design into the app some of those tricks of the trade. When these platforms detect — and they have plenty of data to do it — that someone is trying to wean themselves off betting, or when they spot problematic play, what do they do? Do they leave that person alone and let them wean themselves off? Or do they slam them with promotional credits and deals trying to hook them back in? The anecdotal evidence suggests that they do the latter. I've seen reports suggesting that they even figure out when your payday is, and they'll send you more promotional credits and offers on those days. The data that they have on gamblers would make Las Vegas of the 1950s weep. It's incredible how much data they must have on every single one of us. They claim that this allows them to protect people and to flag users who are betting problematically, who are logging in too many times. But I have seen no indications that that's how they're using the data. It seems like they're instead using it to pair someone who's betting a lot with a VIP host and offer behavioral nudges and emails, auspiciously timed to re-engage them and to keep them in the cycle. Do they kick people off when they're consistently winning? They're clearly capable of identifying problems and responding to them. Yes, absolutely. And some professional gamblers I talked to, they make a habit of every once in a while placing a really, really vanilla ice cream–looking bet. They'll bet on Aaron Judge to hit a home run or the LA Lakers to win the championship, because they want to look as stupid as possible, so that the sportsbook thinks that they're a normie and not a professional gambler. Because the second [companies] realize that they're a professional gambler or that they can win money, they'll just kick them off the platform. But as long as [the professional gamblers] can make [the companies] think they're an idiot and that they're going to lose or that they're addicted, the platforms want to keep them playing. The industry loves to use phrases like 'responsible gambling.' What is your issue with people being personally responsible, Jonathan? I don't have an issue with personal responsibility, and I do think people have agency and should have agency over their own life. Fine. That being said, it's not simply that it's Kyle against the sportsbook. It's Kyle against a multibillion-dollar corporation that is doing everything in its power to hook him and extract every last dollar of his discretionary income. They say, Oh, if you want to set a deposit limit, if you want to set a time limit, you can do that. But [those tools] are rooted in a user opting in to decide to set a time limit, deciding to set a deposit limit. Fundamentally, what it's doing is putting the onus of responsibility of 'responsible play' onto the gambler, onto the individual, rather than onto the company to responsibly provision the gambler with a non-addictive product or a product that is not maliciously designed to extract every last dollar that they have in their bank account. Are there signs that the companies are getting better at this? That policymakers are taking this more seriously in terms of identifying problem gamblers and offering resources to help them get over that problem? Not on their own. If there's a reason for hope, I would say it's coming from outside. There are advocacy groups that are filing class action lawsuits over some of these companies' most insidious behaviors, these crazy promotions that offer $25,000 in bonus cash, but you actually need to bet $100,000 to get the $25,000 bonus or whatever it may be. There's also a lawsuit ongoing in New Jersey over VIP hosts, the company's employees whose job it is to find big bettors and keep them betting.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
NFL to appeal after Nevada Supreme Court approves Jon Gruden's lawsuit that blocked arbitration
The Nevada Supreme Court sided with Jon Gruden in an appeal, marking the latest legal victory in his ongoing lawsuit against the NFL. The decision, which was made official Monday, blocks the NFL from sending the case into arbitration. The NFL announced in a statement to media Tuesday that it will appeal the decision. One of the issues at hand was an arbitration clause in the NFL's constitution, which the league argued kept Gruden from making the lawsuit public. But on Monday, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in favor of the former Las Vegas Raiders head coach, finding that the clause is "unconscionable" and does not apply to Gruden, as he is no longer an employee, via NBC's Mike Florio. Gruden sued the NFL shortly after resigning from the Raiders in 2021; his latest legal battles have been around the manner of the lawsuit. Gruden has wanted his trial to be public, as part of a quest to expose what he believes were deliberate leaks to media outlets; the league, meanwhile, wanted a closed-door arbitration. Gruden originally won before a trial court, but a Nevada Supreme Court panel overturned the ruling in May 2024 as part of a lengthy appeal. Per court documents, Gruden's lawyers filed for a rehearing on the appeal last summer, which was denied. A month later, they filed for an en banc reconsideration, which was granted in October. The panel officially sided with Gruden on Monday. The NFL has yet to comment on Gruden's latest legal victory, but it is likely the league will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case. Gruden sought public lawsuit in court to expose 'the truth' Gruden resigned from his job as Raiders head coach in 2021 after a New York Times report exposed his email exchanges with former Washington Football Team executive Bruce Allen, among others, that showed his use of racist, anti-gay and misogynistic language. Gruden sued the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell in 2021, accusing them of plotting to destroy his career via a "malicious and orchestrated campaign" by leaking those emails. The emails surfaced from an investigation into the Washington Commanders and then-team owner Dan Snyder. The lawsuit argues that Gruden was targeted in the alleged leaks and that "there is no explanation or justification" for why the correspondence of others in the league was not exposed. Gruden had previously vowed that "the truth will come out" regarding unnamed others around the NFL. NFL sought closed-door arbitration The NFL has since made multiple attempts to strike down the lawsuit, arguing that a clause in Gruden's contract with the Raiders requires him to seek dispute settlement via arbitration. Gruden's attorneys have argued that the clause doesn't apply since he is no longer an employee of the Raiders and that his dispute is with the NFL, not the Raiders. In 2022, Nevada 8th Judicial District Court Judge Nancy Allf denied the NFL's effort to dismiss the lawsuit and ruled the case could continue in open court. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy dismissed Gruden's lawsuit as meritless after the district court ruling and vowed to appeal. 'The allegations are entirely meritless and the NFL will vigorously defend against these claims,' McCarthy's 2022 statement reads.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
Nevada court apparently clears way for former Raiders coach Jon Gruden to sue NFL over emails
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Nevada court apparently cleared the way Monday for a 2021 lawsuit filed by former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden to proceed against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell, alleging that a 'malicious and orchestrated campaign' was used to destroy Gruden's career by leaking old emails he had sent that included racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments. In 2022, the NFL appealed to Nevada's high court after a judge in Las Vegas rejected league bids to dismiss Gruden's claim outright or to order out-of-court talks through an arbitration process that could be overseen by Goodell. The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 5-2 ruling, said that 'the arbitration clause in the NFL Constitution is unconscionable and does not apply to Gruden as a former employee.' Gruden's lawsuit alleged that Goodell and the league pressured the Raiders to fire Gruden by leaking emails containing racist, sexist and homophobic comments that Gruden sent, when he was an on-air analyst at ESPN from 2011 to 2018. Gruden resigned from the Raiders in October 2021 and sued the league a month later. The NFL declined to comment on the ruling. Gruden's attorney did not return a phone message seeking comment. Gruden was Raiders head coach when the team moved in 2020 to Las Vegas from Oakland, California. He's seeking monetary damages, alleging that selective disclosure of the emails and their publication by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times ruined his career and endorsement contracts. Gruden coached the Raiders in Oakland from 1998 to 2001, then led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for seven years, winning a Super Bowl title in 2003. He spent several years as a TV analyst for ESPN before being hired by the Raiders again in 2018. He later consulted for the New Orleans Saints in 2023. He is now a part-owner and consultant for the Nashville Kats, a team in the Arena Football One league.
