London, UK — Arsenal Football Club is facing a legal battle after firing Mark Bonnick, a long-serving kitman, over social media posts expressing solidarity with Palestine. Bonnick, 61, who dedicated over 20 years to the club, claims he was sacked not for misconduct, but for expressing personal political views — specifically his opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The case filed as an unfair dismissal claim, is backed by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), a group that defends the rights of those speaking out for Palestinian liberation across Europe. Known for its strategic litigation and principled advocacy, the ELSC has a strong reputation for upholding free speech and civil liberties.

In the UK, it opposes measures such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and the proposed anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill, both criticised for restricting political expression.

According to the ELSC, Bonnick’s firing followed a coordinated smear campaign by pro-Israel Twitter accounts that falsely accused him of antisemitism. Arsenal, however, made no such finding.

A club appeal decision dated February 14, 2025, stated: “The club has never said that your posts were antisemitic. [The dismissal decision-maker] made no finding on that and nor do I.”

Yet the club still upheld the decision to dismiss him.

Arsenal has not publicly explained the sacking, but internal documents seen by media outlets suggest the club accused him of bringing it “into disrepute” over his social media posts. According to his submission, a club representative told him: “The comments you made on X could be perceived as inflammatory or offensive... and brought the club into disrepute,” breaching its social media policy.

The club also claimed that, despite being posted from a personal account, the posts were identifiable with Arsenal and reflected a “lack of judgment” that had “irreparably damaged” trust between him, the club, and its community.

Bonnick’s ties to Arsenal stretch back over two decades. He worked 12 years as an official club employee and 10 more on a self-employed basis – a fact that may become significant in the legal case, which hinges on his employment status as well as the fairness of his dismissal.  

His sacking came abruptly on Christmas Eve 2024, weeks after he shared post criticising Israeli apartheid and expressing the horror of the genocide in Gaza. These were shared during Israel’s months-long assault, which has killed more than 53,000 Palestinians, including over 700 athletes, according to human rights monitors, and destroyed training facilities and stadiums across the enclave.

“This is political censorship, plain and simple,” Tasnima Uddin, Advocacy Officer at the ELSC, told TRT World. “As Palestinian athletes are killed and stadiums destroyed, Arsenal punishes staff for opposing apartheid. You can’t claim neutrality while silencing dissent.”

Bonnick himself remains defiant. “I was sacked not for misconduct, but for expressing grief and outrage over genocide,” he told TRT World. “Despite being this close to retirement, I have no regrets. Arsenal must apologise, reinstate me, and take a stand against anti-Palestinian racism.”

His lawyer, Franck Magennis of Garden Court Chambers, echoed this sentiment, warning the case could have broader consequences. “Mark’s dismissal sends a chilling message to those who speak out against apartheid and genocide,” he said. “Arsenal must be held accountable.”

The chilling effect across sport

Bonnick’s case is not isolated. His legal action joins a growing list of incidents in which footballers and sports professionals across Europe have faced censure for expressing solidarity with Palestine – a trend many view as political censorship.

In Germany, Dutch footballer Anwar El Ghazi was suspended by Mainz in October 2023 after posting a message in support of Palestinian rights. Although briefly reinstated, he was later released from his contract. The club cited a violation of its “values,” despite El Ghazi insisting his message condemned all violence and called for peace.

More recently, Salma Mashhour, a newly appointed director at UK club Dagenham and Redbridge, was reportedly dismissed for speaking about the Palestinian suffering in Gaza. Advocates say her case illustrates a wider pattern in which clubs avoid political controversy by suppressing certain forms of expression, almost exclusively those critical of Israel.

Outside football, English cricketer Moeen Ali faced public criticism in 2014 for wearing wristbands reading “Save Gaza” during a Test match, though he received no formal punishment. Meanwhile, athletes in other disciplines – from judo to track and field – have faced suspensions or bans for refusing to compete against Israelis or for making pro-Palestinian statements.

A divided club

Since news of the lawsuit broke, Arsenal fan groups, anti-racism campaigners, and human rights organisations have rallied behind Bonnick. Open letters and petitions have called for his reinstatement, a formal apology, and mandatory anti-racism training for staff.

Many have also criticised what they describe as a double standard within the club and the wider football world: statements condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine were swiftly made by football institutions, yet no such clarity has emerged over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Arsenal has yet to issue a public comment on the lawsuit. Privately, sources close to the club suggest that it is treading cautiously, caught between public image concerns and mounting pressure from both sides of the debate.

Legal experts say the case could set an important precedent in the intersection of political speech, employment rights, and institutional neutrality.

The UK does not currently have comprehensive protections for political speech in the workplace. But with the government continuing to supply arms to Israel, and crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests increasing, some argue the space for open dissent is narrowing across society, including in sport.

Uddin warned that the stakes go far beyond one individual. “If a working-class club staffer like Mark Bonnick can be fired for solidarity with Palestine—for simply condemning genocide and mass civilian deaths, who truly has the right to free speech?”

For now, Bonnick’s supporters are hoping that his case forces not only a legal reckoning, but a moral one.