Varnish legal action could be costly, says UK Sport CEO
Nicholl warns athletes could be taxed on grants with employee status
Earlier this month, ousted British track sprinter Jess Varnish won a bid to sue British Cycling and UK Sport over her dismissal from the high performance programme prior to the Olympic Games in Rio.
Jess Varnish speaks out after allegations against Shane Sutton upheld
Varnish steps up case against Sutton with British Cycling
Varnish lawyers accuse British Cycling of withholding information
Varnish calls on British Cycling board to resign
Varnish critical of final version of report into British Cycling
British Cycling chief opens the door to possible Jess Varnish return
Varnish cleared to take groundbreaking legal action against British Cycling and UK Sport
Now, UK Sport CEO Liz Nicholl tells Eurosport UK that should Varnish succeed in being classified as having been an employee of British Cycling, rather than being considered a contractor as supported athletes have been treated, it could set a damaging precedent for all Olympic athletes.
"There are implications and they are quite significant," Nicholl said.
"If it is decided it's an employment scenario, there are other costs that will be incurred - National Insurance, tax, pensions and so on - and managed within a fixed budget."
Varnish was highly critical of the British Cycling coaches after the country failed to qualify a spot in the women's team sprint for the Rio Olympic Games. Soon after she made the comments at the 2016 UCI Track World Championships, she was dismissed from the programme.
She reported coach Shane Sutton for using sexist and discriminatory language toward her, a claim that was supported by several other athletes. Sutton resigned amid the controversy, which resulted in a full, independent investigation into the culture of British Cycling's high performance programme.
Varnish is not after the money, a source told the Times earlier this month. "She's frustrated that neither UK Sport nor British Cycling have changed the grey situation that athletes still remain in," the source said. "Athletes still have no real rights, no pensions, no grievance and whistleblower procedures, and no course of action, outside of civil action. There are some really deep-rooted issues which she's passionate about."
As a contractor, Varnish would have less recourse to sue for wrongful dismissal. If she can convince the court that she was effectively an employee, she could be owed the full legal obligation of her contract. It would also raise the costs of supporting every athlete in the country.
Currently, Athlete Performance Awards are paid to athletes as grants rather than a salary. If they become employees, the sports federations would have to pay national insurance and pension costs, too.
"I don't think it's a debate we need to have," Nicholl said. "The principle of athletes feeling as well supported as employees is the fundamental point here, and that's what the duty of care work we are doing - and focusing on - should address."
Thank you for reading 5 articles in the past 30 days*
Join now for unlimited access
Enjoy your first month for just £1 / $1 / €1
*Read any 5 articles for free in each 30-day period, this automatically resets
After your trial you will be billed £4.99 $7.99 €5.99 per month, cancel anytime. Or sign up for one year for just £49 $79 €59
Join now for unlimited access
Try your first month for just £1 / $1 / €1
Get The Leadout Newsletter
The latest race content, interviews, features, reviews and expert buying guides, direct to your inbox!