The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) has implemented a new eligibility policy that restricts participation in women’s tournaments to athletes born biologically female. The move marks a significant shift for the sport’s governing body, aligning it with a growing number of international sports organizations that have moved to exclude transgender women from female-category competitions to ensure what they term “fair competition.”
Under the updated guidelines, the WPBSA now classifies snooker as a “gender-affected activity.” This designation is a critical legal distinction under Section 195 of the Equality Act 2010, which allows sports organizations to restrict participation based on sex if such a restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim—typically the preservation of fair competition or athlete safety.
While the billiards’ governing body banned trans women from participating in women’s tournaments, the organization emphasized that it remains an inclusive body. All players, regardless of their legal sex, biological sex, or gender identity, are still permitted and encouraged to compete in “Open” tournaments.
The Legal Catalyst and the ‘Gender-Affected’ Designation
The policy overhaul follows a comprehensive review of the WPBSA’s Trans and Gender Diverse Policy. According to the governing body, the decision was heavily influenced by evolving research and recent legal precedents, including a controversial Supreme Court ruling that clarified the legal definition of a woman as being limited to biological sex.
A pivotal driver for this change was the legal battle involving Harriet Haynes, a transgender pool player, and the English Blackball Federation (EBPF). Haynes had brought a discrimination case against the EBPF after being barred from women’s competitions. The court ultimately ruled against Haynes, with the judge determining that exclusion was the only “reasonable” method to maintain a level playing field.
The WPBSA noted that these specific legal cases and the evidence presented during them “changed the landscape,” necessitating a formal review of how eligibility is handled across the sport. The resulting policy creates a clear divide between gender-specific events and open-entry events.
Eligibility Breakdown by Category
To clarify the new restrictions, the WPBSA has outlined specific criteria for different athlete profiles. The policy is not a blanket ban on all transgender athletes, but rather a targeted restriction on the women’s category.
| Athlete Profile | Women’s Tournaments | Open Tournaments |
|---|---|---|
| Biological Females | Eligible | Eligible |
| Transgender Women | Ineligible | Eligible |
| Transgender Men (No Testosterone) | Eligible | Eligible |
| Transgender Men (On Testosterone) | Ineligible | Eligible |
Notably, the policy provides a specific carve-out for transgender men. A player who identifies as a man but does not utilize testosterone as part of their gender-affirming treatment remains eligible to compete in both open and women’s tournaments.
Communication Failures and Professional Backlash
Despite the clarity of the new rules, the rollout has been met with criticism from within the professional ranks. Reanne Evans, a 12-time world snooker champion and one of the most decorated players in the history of the game, expressed frustration over the WPBSA’s failure to communicate the changes directly to the athletes.
Evans highlighted a vacuum of information that left many players in limbo, noting that some athletes had already stopped entering events because they were unsure of their standing. She questioned why a formal announcement or email had not been dispatched to the playing community before the policy became active.
The Human Cost of the Debate
Beyond the legalities and administrative friction, the debate has taken a personal toll on the athletes involved. Harriet Haynes has spoken out about the “vile” and “horrible” abuse she has endured online following her high-profile legal struggle. This hostility reportedly intensified after Lynne Pinches, a professional player, refused to compete against her in the Women’s Champion of Champions tournament.
Legal representatives for Haynes, including attorney Matt Champ, have argued that the EBPF’s initial decision to ban her—which paved the way for the WPBSA’s current policy—was “incorrect” and “completely lacking in evidence.” They contend that the restrictions fall outside the intended parameters of the Equality Act, suggesting that the “fairness” argument is not supported by empirical data in a precision sport like billiards.
The WPBSA, however, maintains that its position is based on the current available research and that the policy remains subject to “immediate review” should new findings or official guidance be ratified in the future.
Disclaimer: This article discusses legal interpretations of the Equality Act 2010 and court rulings. This proves provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
The WPBSA has not yet announced a date for the next formal review of the policy, but the governing body indicated that it will continue to monitor research regarding gender-affected activities in sport. As more governing bodies move toward biological definitions of eligibility, the snooker community now awaits further guidance on how these rules will be enforced in upcoming qualifying rounds.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on the balance between inclusivity and competitive fairness in the comments below.
