A formerArsenalkit manager is suing the club for unfair dismissal, alleging he was discriminated against because of his opposition to Israel. Mark Bonnick, who worked at the club from the early 2000s, alleges his dismissal was “discriminatory” owing to it being based on his “philosophical anti-Zionist belief”.
Bonnick was suspended and then sacked in December 2024 after Arsenal were alerted to a series of posts he had made on social media referring to Israel’s war in Gaza. Bonnick says that his posts were not antisemitic but motivated by legitimate anti-Zionist beliefs.
In his legal submission, Bonnick refers to five replies on X in November and December last year, including: “Yes it is all about Jewish supremacy & not wanting to share the land Ethnic cleansing”; “Why should they be protected anymore than any other community? Some see this as the problem Jewish communities thinking they should be put before others”; “What about the Jews that attack Christians?”
Bonnick’s posts also said “Hamas offered to release all hostages in October. Zionist Israel refused. Persecution complex”; and on that offer he also posted: “You abandoned them … Refused to bring them home … Your silence was deafening … Now you want others to scream … Morals integrity honesty none … Mark of Cain.”
Bonnick says his reference to “Mark of Cain” was aquote from a statementmade by Israel’s then defence minister, Yoav Gallant, the previous month.
Bonnick told the Guardian he was taking the legal action in an attempt to restore his reputation, which he argues has been sullied by allegations of antisemitism. According to Bonnick’s submission Arsenal’s investigation into the posts did not accuse him of antisemitism but said they could be “perceived as inflammatory or offensive” and had “brought the club into disrepute”. Bonnick is seeking damages and reinstatement.
Bonnick said: “I want them to acknowledge what they’ve done to me is wrong and that they should not have sacked me. I believe in standing up for what’s right, especially when you see injustice, and I feel strongly against what Israel is doing in Gaza.
“I’ve tweeted on various issues, including football, Brexit, racism, knife crime and politics. It only became a problem when I tweeted about Israel, which led to a pile-on online and people contacting the club.”
Bonnick, 61, who worked his way up from casual Arsenal coaching roles in the early 2000s to a full-time kitman position supporting the youth teams, says he was devastated by the way he was “discarded” after years of service.
His claim – which is expected to be heard next year – alleges that Arsenal acted unfairly and without due process. It accuses the club of bowing to online pressure in what he describes as a “kneejerk response to manufactured outrage”.
Bonnick was sacked on 24 December and lost his appeal against the sacking on 14 February.
His lawyers citethe case of the academic David Millerwhere an employment tribunal found his “anti-Zionist” beliefs qualified as a “philosophical belief and a protected characteristic” under the Equality Act 2010.
His lawyer, Franck Magennis, who is being instructed by the European Legal Support Centre, said: “Mark Bonnick was right to speak out, in accordance with his deeply held anti-Zionist beliefs, against Israel’s nakedly racist violence and the colonial ideology that justifies it. Arsenal FC dismissed him in an unfair and discriminatory manner; they should admit their mistake and give him his job back.”
Arsenal were approached for comment.
According to Bonnick’s submission, he was told by Arsenal’s representative after an investigation: “The comments you made on ‘X’ could be perceived as inflammatory or offensive. And as a result, your posts on ‘X’ brought the club into disrepute. This breached the terms of your employment contract and the club’s social media policy, which explicitly states that social media must not be used in a way that brings the club into disrepute.
“While we recognise the comments were made from your personal ‘X’ account, the account was set to ‘public’, and in your own name and it was clearly possible to identify you as an employee of the club. Engaging in online debate on such controversial topic and making comments that were found to be highly offensive and inflammatory, displayed a complete lack of judgment and disregard for the club’s policies and values. I also feel that your conduct and poor judgement has irreparably damaged the relationship of trust between you, the club, its supporter communities and employees. That’s why we’ve come to this decision.”