The Supreme Court can issue rulings in a million cases, and it won’t make transgender people disappear.

That’s what this is about. Not who gets to participate in sports or protecting women or preserving Title IX.

Erasure. Permanently removing transgender women from every social space so bigots and people who don’t care to be educated no longer have to look at or think about a group of people they don’t understand or who make them uncomfortable, while making all women adhere to a prescribed idea of femininity.

That’s abundantly clear in the rabid pushback in the two cases before the Supreme Court on Jan. 13 that challenge bans of transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia.

In fact, the West Virginia ban applies to one athlete, who was 11 when the ban took effect in 2021.  

Yet the Trump administration, the right-wing legal machine and celebrity transphobes have all weighed in, hoping to use the cases as a means of pushing transgender women and girls even farther out of public view. While each case centers on an individual athlete’s appeal of one state’s ban, their defeat could be used to uphold participation bans in 25 other states and call other protections for transgender people into question.

“Our hope is certainly that we prevail,” said Joshua Block, who as senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Projects will argue in the West Virginia case.

“But we also hope that, regardless of what happens, this case isn’t successfully used as a tool to undermine the rights of transgender folks more generally. In areas far beyond athletics,” Block added.

But that is the goal. It’s always been the goal.

Transgender people have always existed

Transgender people have existed since time began and will continue to do so regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. So, too, non-binary people. And women with differences of sex development. Women with Swyer Syndrome. Women with hormonal imbalances. And so on and so on. Gender does not and never has fit neatly into two boxes, as any biologist or geneticist worth their salt will tell you.

For much of the 21st Century, the International Olympic Committee and NCAA recognized that. They had protocols allowing athletes to participate as their identified gender, and no one raised a fuss. Cisgender women — those born with XX chromosomes — weren’t crowded off the podium or the playing field. Locker rooms remained safe spaces — except from predatory coaches, the overwhelming majority of whom are cisgender men.

The transgender girls and women who participated in sports were doing so for the very same reasons as other girls and women: To have fun, to play with their friends and to benefit from the life lessons sports provide.

“All I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers,” Becky Pepper-Jackson, a shot putter and the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, said.

Yet after Americans realized that attempts to paint gays and lesbians as predators and threats to the moral order were nonsense (and hypocritical), the right wing shifted its twisted obsession to the transgender community.

Transgender people a miniscule part of population

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, just 1% of the U.S. population is transgender. That means most Americans don’t know someone who is transgender and, thus, don’t have personal knowledge to counter the narrative that transgender women are a threat to other girls and women, be it in bathrooms or athletics. The anti-trans mob has doubled down on this by playing fast and loose with science, extrapolating the athletic results of cisgender men for those of transgender women when that is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

Worst of all, they’ve been able to make the transgender community into a bogeyman for people unsettled by a changing world and looking for someone to blame.

They are not, of course.

No one is forcing kids to transition. Transgender people aren’t lurking in bathrooms, waiting to assault people. Transgender women athletes aren’t stealing trophies and opportunities from other women en masse.

All they want to do is exist.

“This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves,’ Pepper-Johnson said. “I’ve had my rights and my life debated by politicians who’ve never even met me.”

Other women harmed by transgender athlete bans

You know who else it’s unfair to? Any girl or woman who doesn’t look or act like the stereotype pushed by the right wing and transphobes. In states with bans, there are already cases of girls with short hair or who are tomboys having their gender questioned or being asked to “prove” they were born female.

This “defense” of women’s sports also undermines them, making the implicit argument that women’s sports are less worthy because those who play them are inferior to male athletes. (This is also why no one ever makes a peep about transgender male athletes.)

And don’t get me started on those who are fixated on the small number of transgender athletes but have nothing to say about actual Title IX violations and the disproportionate investment in women’s sports.

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the bans, even if it provides cover for bigotry, transgender people will continue to exist. It might take years or even decades, but their humanity will eventually be recognized and these bans will join other legalized discrimination in the dark corner of history where they belong.

The Supreme Court can set that in motion by striking down these bans. Or the Court, like those who would see transgender people marginalized out of existence, can keep denying reality. 

Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Nancy Armour on social media @nrarmour.

NFL teams are always looking for talent at the quarterback position. It won’t necessarily be easy to find during the 2026 NFL offseason.

The NFL’s free agent class isn’t much better. There are plenty of solid backup-caliber players on the market, but those hoping to find a starter won’t have many options from which to choose.

Perhaps the overall market will get a boost from roster cuts ahead of free agency. The Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons and Miami Dolphins all have to make decisions about the respective futures of Kyler Murray, Kirk Cousins and Tua Tagovailoa, and if any is released, they would instantly jump close to the top of the free-agent quarterback pecking order.

But for now, here’s a look at the NFL’s top free agent quarterbacks for the 2026 offseason:

NFL free agency: Top 8 quarterbacks, ranked

1. Daniel Jones (2025 team: Indianapolis Colts)

Jones enjoyed a breakout year in his first season under the tutelage of Shane Steichen. The 28-year-old completed a career-high 68% of his passes and 100.2 passer rating while looking more comfortable than ever in the pocket. The downside: Jones suffered a season-ending Achilles tear in the Colts’ Week 14 loss to the Jaguars, throwing into question his availability for Week 1 of the 2026 NFL season.

2. Aaron Rodgers (2025 team: Pittsburgh Steelers)

Rodgers may not be the player he once was, but the 42-year-old was still a passable starting quarterback in 2025. His ability to get the ball out of his hands quickly – his 2.46-second time to throw ranked third-fastest in among quarterbacks to log at least 100 plays, per Sumer Sports – was a great equalizer against pressure and helped cover up his dwindling arm strength.

Even without above-average downfield passing ability, Rodgers possesses the veteran savvy needed to remain a decent starting quarterback should he return to the NFL for a 22nd season.

3. Malik Willis (2025 team: Green Bay Packers)

Willis has done wonders for his stock during his two seasons with the Packers. The 26-year-old started just three games in place of Jordan Love but comported himself well, completing 78.7% of his passes for 972 yards and six touchdowns without an interception. The Liberty product’s combination of downfield accuracy – he completed all seven of his passes of 20-plus yards for 230 yards and two touchdowns, per Pro Football Focus – and mobility make him an intriguing gamble for teams seeking young upside at the quarterback position.

4. Russell Wilson (2025 team: New York Giants)

The highlight of Wilson’s season was the Giants quarterback throwing for 450 yards, three touchdowns and an interception in the team’s Week 2 overtime loss to the Dallas Cowboys. Everything else went poorly, as Wilson completed a career-low 58% of his passes and was demoted to third string in what figures to be his lone season with the Giants.

Wilson, 37, may still get looks as a potential backup, but it’s clear his days as an NFL starter are over.

5. Marcus Mariota (2025 team: Washington Commanders)

Mariota made his first starts since 2022 in place of the injured Jayden Daniels this season. The No. 2 pick from the 2015 NFL Draft showed why he’s widely considered one of the league’s top backups by completing 61.2% of his passes for 1,695 yards, 10 touchdowns and seven interceptions while leading a banged-up Washington team.

Mariota still showed solid mobility during his age-32 season, rushing for 297 yards on 50 carries. That will make him one of the top, dual-threat backups on the market.

6. Joe Flacco (2025 team: Cincinnati Bengals)

Flacco turns 41 on Jan. 16, but showed his gunslinging capabilities across 10 starts with the Cleveland Browns and Bengals this past season. He particularly shone with the Bengals, completing 61.7% of his passes for 1,664 yards, 13 touchdowns and four interceptions after coming to the team in a midseason trade.

Flacco remains a statuesque pocket passer but isn’t afraid to uncork deep passes. His big time throw percentage (BTT%) of 29.5% on passes of 20-plus yards ranked 13th among players to attempt at least 10 passes of 20-plus yards during the 2025 NFL season, per Pro Football Focus. Expect teams to show interest in the veteran as a backup who can keep a contender afloat in a short-term starting stint.

7. Kenny Pickett (2025 team: Las Vegas Raiders)

Pickett didn’t look great across two starts with the Raiders in 2025, completing 62.2% of his passes for 188 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions. Granted, his supporting cast was one of the NFL’s worst and he did lead the team to a Week 18 win over the Kansas City Chiefs, but it was hardly an inspiring season for the 27-year-old, who was traded out of the Browns’ quarterback room before the campaign began.

Still, Pickett is young and has upside after being the lone, first-round quarterback selected in 2022. Expect a team to sign him as a solid backup with the goal of developing him into something more.

8. Trey Lance (2025 team: Los Angeles Chargers)

Lance had a chance for a showcase game at the end of the 2025 NFL season. The result? He completed 20 of 44 passes (45.5%) for 136 yards and an interception against the Broncos. He also added 69 rushing yards on nine carries, continuing to flash his dual-threat upside.

Those results seem more like stagnation than progression from Lance, but he was playing an elite Broncos defense behind a shoddy offensive line. He also won’t turn 26 until May, so plenty of NFL teams will still view him as a solid developmental backup given his raw athletic talent.

Best of the rest

Teddy Bridgewater
Jimmy Garoppolo
Tyrod Taylor
Mitch Trubisky
Carson Wentz
Zach Wilson

WASHINGTON − After years of national debate over transgender girls and women on female sports teams, the Supreme Court is stepping in.

The court is debating on Jan. 13 whether restrictions passed by more than half the states violate either the Constitution or a federal civil rights law barring sex discrimination in school programs.

The transgender students from Idaho and West Virginia who are challenging their states’ bans say the laws don’t take into account individual circumstances, including whether someone who takes puberty-blockers or cross-gender hormones may no longer be bigger, faster or stronger than a typical female.

The states argue that athletic advantages remain even after hormonal treatments and the bans are necessary to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

Follow along for live coverage of the debate.

Conservative Justice Barrett asks about young transgender children

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, posed a hypothetical to Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, that seemed aimed at considering if there are situations in which science does and doesn’t support banning transgender girls and women from women’s sports.

Barrett asked how Hurst’s argument would do if it was applied to a hypothetical ban on transgender six-year-old girls competing on a girl’s team. She said Hurst’s argument is based on testosterone levels and differences in athletic capability, which made her wonder how it would apply in an age group that’s prepubescent. 

Hurst responded that the court record in the Idaho case supports the idea that even at such a young age, males have about a 5% athletic advantage over girls in most situations.

‘Now, if this is not a level of competition where anybody cares about that, the simple solution is the solution you see in most places, which is you have co-ed sports,’ Hurst said. ‘Idaho’s law does nothing to interfere with that.’

– Aysha Bagchi

Idaho argues states shouldn’t be forced to tailor laws for individuals

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst told Justice Elena Kagan it would be unworkable for courts to order exceptions to laws based on a class of litigants any time judges thought they didn’t make sense.

Hurst argued litigants could keep moving the goal lines. For example, he said, if a law was based on taking testosterone, a transgender athlete could argue they are taking so little it provides no advantage.

“It’s going to be enormously burdensome and the state can never win,” Hurst said. “You’d have to make as many exceptions as courts thought you needed to make.”

– Bart Jansen

Kavanaugh probes if the constitution requires the state bans

The challenges before the court are about whether states can, under the law, ban transgender girls and women from participating in female athletics.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court’s conservatives, raised the question of whether the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection requires states to draw that line.

Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, said he’s not persuaded by a constitutional theory that would let Idaho impose its policy on other states.

Twenty-seven states bar transgender girls and women from joining female sports teams. Other states either prohibit such bans or have not taken a position.

– Maureen Groppe

Sotomayor asks why the court should rule on Idaho ban at all

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the court consider dismissing the Idaho case as ‘moot’ – a legal term that means there is no longer a live issue to rule on. 

The plaintiff in the Idaho case, Lindsay Hecox, originally sued because Idaho’s ban blocked her from trying out for the Boise State Universitytrack and cross-country teams. But she has stopped playing women’s sports, and now says that means she no longer has a personal stake in the case. As a result, she argues, her case is moot.

Sotomayor said it’s clear Hecox wasn’t trying to prevent the court from ruling on the legality of state bans on transgender women competing in women’s sports, because the justices are also reviewing a similar ban in West Virginia.

‘So we don’t have a subterfuge in attempting to stop the court from reaching an important legal question,’ Sotomayor said.

Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, responded that a lower court in the case had concluded Hecox’s plans had changed before and could change again, so she shouldn’t be able to get the case dropped that way.

– Aysha Bagchi

Do transgender people merit extra protection?

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the pivotal votes in the case, directed his first question to whether there’s been a history of discrimination against transgender people. That’s relevant to whether transgender status – similar to sex and race – triggers a higher level of scrutiny for laws affecting them.

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, said there’s no history of laws targeted transgender people the way there is for laws targeted African Americans or women.

“These things don’t compare,” he said.

Hurst also brought up comments Justice Amy Coney Barrett made in last year’s ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. Barrett argued that transgender status does not appear to merit heightened protection.

– Maureen Groppe

Idaho lawyer says case is about whether law is applied equally

Justice Elena Kagan asked how the court should review the case. She said one approach would resolve the dispute about whether a transgender athlete held an advantage. Another approach would resolve whether everyone is treated the same under the law.

“I don’t really know what you’re suggesting,” Kagan said. “Which way should we think about this case?

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst said the court should resolve whether the classification of athletes is justified generally, not necessarily in each particular case.

“We think that’s the right approach: is the classification justified, not is it justified in each individual instance,” Hurst said.

– Bart Jansen

Idaho says student shouldn’t get to drop her challenge

Lindsay Hecox, the senior at Boise State University who is challenging Idaho’s law, in September asked the court to let her dismiss her case, writing that she was no longer playing sports and is afraid she will be harassed and have trouble graduating if the high-profile case continues. The court said it would wait until after oral arguments to decide.

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, argued on Jan. 13 that it was too late for Hecox to drop out.

Hecoz initially said she intended to play throughout college, he told the court.

– Maureen Groppe

Liberal Justice Sotomayor suggests tougher test for trans athlete ban

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, came out scrutinizing an argument from Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, who is defending the state’s ban on transgender women participating in women’s sports. Hurst said the justices should apply a low level of scrutiny – known as ‘rational basis review’ – to analyzing whether the Idaho ban is constitutional.

‘That makes no sense to me,’ Sotomayor responded. She said Idaho’s ban classified athletes based on sex, and the Supreme Court has historically applied a higher level of scrutiny – known as ‘intermediate scrutiny’ – to that kind of law.

– Aysha Bagchi

Idaho makes plea for fairness

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, began his case with an appeal for fairness.

Someone’s sex correlates with “countless athletic advantages,” including muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity, he said.

“If women don’t have their own competitions, they won’t be able to compete,” he said.

Hurst said the student challenging the law – Lindsay Hecox — is seeking “special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage.” (Hecox, a senior at Boise State University, says her testosterone levels are typical of non-transgender women and her muscle mass and size have decreased because of her hormone treatments.)

Idaho’s law easily applies to 99% of males, he said, and “a perfect fit is not required.”

– Maureen Groppe

Debate begins with challenge to Idaho law

The debate, which could last several hours, has begun.

First up is the case from Idaho, which was the first state to pass a ban.

Defending the law is Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst.

His side goes first because Idaho is appealing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Idaho’s law likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, which requires the government to have valid reasons for treating people differently.

Idaho’s law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University, who says her testosterone levels are typical of non-transgender women and her muscle mass and size have decreased because of her hormone treatments.

– Maureen Groppe

Demonstrators show support for sports ban

Dozens of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court on Jan. 13 to show their support for state bans barring transgender women and girls from participating in female sports teams. Many in the crowd held up signs that said “save women’s sports,” “our sports our spaces” and “gender ideology harms kids,” as former Georgia state Rep. Alveda King led the crowd in singing “This Little Light of Mine.”

“The implications are clear, the court’s ruling will provide national guidance on Title IX that will resolve or reshape dozens of lawsuits around the country involving women and girls in athletics,” Stacey Schieffelin, the Women’s Initiative Chair at America First Policy Initiative, told the crowd. “This is a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve fairness, safety and the truth in women’s sports.”

Alexa Anderson, a 19-year-old track and field athlete, said she traveled all the way from Oregon to be in Washington, DC, for oral arguments. Anderson said the issue before the court has affected her personally: She and another athlete stepped off the podium in protest after competing against a transgender athlete in a high jump event during her senior year of high school and filed an ongoing Title IX lawsuit against state officials.

“I want other girls, all future generations, to have that same ability and to be able to feel that safety, that protection, and just the happiness overall that I felt growing up in the world of sports,” she said. “And not to worry about stepping on the field and thinking that there’s a biological man and that their risk of injury might be higher, and that all their hard work didn’t matter because they’re just going to be outperformed because of biology.”

− N’dea Yancey-Bragg

An ‘uphill fight’

Lawyers for the transgender students challenging Idaho’s and West Virginia’s bans aren’t boasting about their chances.

“We know we have an uphill fight,” Josh Block, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, told reporters last week.

Block pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. And since then, the court has allowed two of President Trump’s policies targeting transgender people to go into effect as they’re being challenged: Trump’s ban on transgender military troops and his requirement that passports identify someone by their biological sex at birth.

“It’s no secret that the past two years have been a really tough time to be transgender in this country,” Block said.

But he also noted that the court’s 2025 decision for Tennessee in U.S. v. Skrmetti avoided larger issues that would have extended its reach beyond health care.

“The court really went out of its way in Skrmetti to write a narrow decision instead of a broad one,” he said. “So we’re hopeful that the court will continue to be very sensitive to these issues.”

– Maureen Groppe

Protesters who’ve competed against trans athletes speak out

Several protesters , including Riley Gaines and others who have competed against transgender girls in the past, spoke out in support of the bans ahead of oral arguments, saying they believe that competing against transgender girls was unsafe, unfair and cost them opportunities in some cases.

“We want to win, we work to win, and we deserve a fair chance at victory,” Madison Kenyon, who competed on Idaho State University’s track and cross-country teams, said at a news conference on Jan. 12. ‘I’ll happily compete against challenging odds, but nobody should lose before the start of the race.’

Mary Marshall, who also competed on the track and cross-country teams at Idaho State University, shared with reporters the effort that goes into athletic training. She said losing to a transgender competitor left her wondering “whether my hard work is even worth that effort.’

Jennifer Sey, former All-Around Gymnastics National Champion and CEO of clothing brand XX-XY, said that even if the challenges to Idaho and West Virginia’s laws are defeated at the Supreme Court, their work won’t be done. She noted that 23 states and Washington, D.C. still wouldn’t have laws explicitly preventing transgender girls from participating in female sports.

“We need to change the cultural conversation,” she said.

– N’dea Yancey-Bragg

More at stake than trans participation in sports

If the Supreme Court decides that West Virginia’s ban doesn’t violate the Title IX civil rights statute barring sex discrimination in school programs, that ruling could affect more than sports.

Josh Block, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the West Virginia student challenging the ban, said sports is just a “tiny part” of Title IX. If the court says that law doesn’t protect transgender students from discrimination, he said, then transgender students could be excluded from using restrooms that match their gender identity and a principal could expel a student for being trans.

“Title IX protects against sex discrimination in all parts of education,” he told reporters last week. “And whatever someone thinks about whether it’s okay to exclude transgender people from sports, I would hope that that ruling isn’t then used to exclude them from all other parts of school life, which would completely be on the table if West Virginia’s arguments prevail in their widest form.”

West Virginia AG says he expects a landslide victory

One day before oral arguments began, West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey expressed confidence that the states fighting challenges to laws that prevent transgender girls from competing on female sports teams would prevail. Losing the case would have “monumental” consequences, he said at a news conference Jan. 12 alongside several other Republican attorneys general and current and former female athletes.

“We all fully expect that this is going to be a 9-0 decision,” McCuskey said. “We are right on the facts, we’re right on the Constitution, we are right in public opinion, but importantly, we’re right on common sense.”

McCuskey’s Idahoan counterpart, Attorney General Raúl Labrador, however, said he was not as optimistic. Labrador said he expected many of the arguments would revolve around “legal technicalities” rather than the “common sense issues” at the heart of the case.

“And I think some of the justices of the court are going to have some issues with that,” Labrador said.

– N’dea Yancey-Bragg

Will Justice Gorsuch speak?

During last year’s oral arguments in a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, all eyes were on Justice Neil Gorsuch. That’s because the conservative justice, a Trump appointee, surprised many people in 2020 by authoring a 6-3 ruling that gay and transgender people are protected by a law barring sex discrimination in the workplace.

Last year, however, Gorsuch voted with the 6-3 majority to uphold Tennessee’s ban after not asking any questions during the oral arguments.

A big question going into today’s arguments is whether Gorsuch will stay mum or if he’ll offer any clues about whether the reasoning of the 2020 decision about workplace discrimination helps the transgender students’ challenge.

– Maureen Groppe

Is the Trump administration involved in the case?

Although the challenges are based on state laws, the Justice Department has also gotten involved. At the department’s request, Justice Department attorney Hashim M. Mooppan will get time during oral arguments to support the state bans.

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue, has moved to cut off federal funding to schools that allow transgender females to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

“The whole thing is ridiculous … and it’s so demeaning to women,” Trump said when he mocked transgender athletes during a recent speech to House Republicans.

– Maureen Groppe

There is a good chance the Atlanta Falcons are going to look a lot better in 2026.

Does that have anything to do with their season-ending four-game winning streak, or the fact they wound up tied for the best record (8-9) in the NFC South? Nah. Could it be because they’re about to hire a new coach − John Harbaugh interviewed Monday − who’s going to guide them to the playoffs for the first time since 2017? Who’s to say?

Is it because they’re apparently − finally − scrapping their uninspiring uniforms this year? Yeeeesssss − at least that’s what they’ve led us to believe.

The team posted a short clip to its X account on Monday which showed someone yanking Atlanta’s current black jersey out of a locker, followed by an image of the current Falcons logo over the words ‘April 2026’ − April typically being a month when clubs tend to unveil new unis.

The Falcons switched to their current look − it features ‘ATL’ above the jersey numbers − in 2020, which included a widely panned alternate gradient red and black jersey that hasn’t been used since 2022. That was also the same year the NFL permitted secondary helmets, and the Falcons began heavily using throwbacks from the 1960s (which included a red helmet and the team’s original logo) in their uniform rotation.

The franchise switched to its current falcon logo in 2003, Michael Vick’s third season, and introduced the uniforms it primarily wore though the 2019 campaign − the ones worn during the team’s infamous meltdown against the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 51.

Since the 1960s era throwbacks returned − those include black jerseys along with the red helmet, which has gold striping down the centerlines so the team could honor the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech − large swaths of the team’s fans have implored the Falcons to switch to them on a permanent basis or revert to the red jerseys and silver pants Atlanta wore in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Adelaide United has denied claims of homophobia made by the club’s former player Josh Cavallo.

At the time, Cavallo was a regular starter for Adelaide United, but his opportunities with the Australian A-League side diminished after he suffered a torn Achilles in 2023.

Cavallo returned in 2024 to make four league appearances, but saw his season end early after a hamstring injury. The left back didn’t appear in a single league match for Adelaide last season, leaving the club at the end of the campaign.

The 26-year-old now plays in England for non-league side Stamford AFC. In an explosive post on Instagram Monday, Jan. 12, Cavallo said that his opportunities in Australia were limited because of who he is – not his ability.

‘Leaving the club had nothing to do with football,’ he said. ‘Decisions were made by people in power that blocked my opportunities, not because of my talent, but because of who I choose to love.

‘Under the new management, it became clear that I wasn’t allowed on the pitch because of politics. It’s hard to swallow when I realized my own club was homophobic.’

Cavallo added that he saw a group chat of teammates mocking a picture of him and his partner.

Adelaide United quickly released a statement in response to Cavallo’s claims, strongly denying any suggestion that the club is prejudiced.

‘The club is extremely disappointed by the claims made and categorically rejects the allegations, including any suggestion that Adelaide United is homophobic. All on-field decisions relating to team selection are made solely on footballing grounds,’ it said.

‘Adelaide United has always been committed to fostering an inclusive environment for players, staff and supporters and we remain proud of our ongoing work to promote inclusion across football.

‘Strengthening inclusivity must remain an ongoing focus for the game, and the club looks forward to hosting the fourth annual Pride Cup this weekend against Melbourne Victory.’