Hijab in football: the Council of State maintains the ban during competitions

Hijab in football secularism and neutrality simply

The Council of State did not follow the opinion of its public rapporteur. The highest administrative court decided, this Thursday, June 29, to maintain the ban on wearing the hijab during football competitions. The institution pronounced three days after the examination of an appeal by the collective of Muslim women “Les Hijabeuses” against the French Football Federation (FFF), which prohibits them from playing veiled. This group challenged before the administrative justice article 1 of the regulations of the FFF, which prohibits since 2016 “any wearing of a sign or outfit ostensibly manifesting a political, philosophical, religious or trade union affiliation”.

An “adapted and proportionate” ban

In its decision on Thursday, the Council of State considers that the players are indeed users of a public service and therefore not subject to the duty of “neutrality”, but that the French Football Federation can enact the rules it considers necessary for the “good running” of the matches.

“Sports federations, responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of the public service whose management is entrusted to them, may impose on their players an obligation of neutrality of clothing during competitions and sporting events in order to guarantee the smooth running of matches and prevent any confrontation or confrontation”, explains the Council of State in its press release. The ban enacted by the FFF is therefore “adapted and proportionate”.

During Monday’s hearing, the public rapporteur, who says the law and whose opinion is generally followed, had proposed the cancellation of this article 1, asking that the Federation modify its rules.

There is neither “proselytism” nor “provocation” in the mere wearing of the hijab, and no “requirement of neutrality” for the players dismissed from the FFF, he had estimated, however issuing a caveat for the players of the French team, who represent “the Nation” and carry out “a public service mission”. The public rapporteur had insisted on the “fundamental distinction” between public service agents, to whom the principle of “neutrality” applies, and users, “free” to express their convictions as long as they do not disturb public order. .

The opinion of the public rapporteur had triggered an outcry in the political class, part of the left, the right and the far right calling for legislation on the wearing of religious symbols in sport.



lep-life-health-03