The teenage girl banned from football after asking a “bearded” transgender opponent “Are you a man?” is to appeal her punishment with the help of a free-speech group that is also assisting Allison Pearson.

The Free Speech Union (FSU) has appointed leading barrister John Jolliffe to fight a guilty verdict imposed by a national serious case panel that has provoked growing outrage and a protest outside Wembley ahead of England’s Nations League victory against Republic of Ireland on Sunday.

The demonstration coincided with the first match of what was a six-game ban handed to the 17-year-old girl with suspected autism, who wept upon being grilled about her comments during a hearing last month.

Four matches of that punishment have been suspended for a year and the girl’s mother told Telegraph Sport she was appealing in order to clear her name and remove the threat of further action from her record.

The family was approached with an offer of legal support by Toby Young, the social commentator and associate editor of The Spectator, who co-founded the FSU in February 2020.

The group has provided similar support in an ongoing case regarding a Newcastle United fan banned by her club last year for making gender-critical comments on social media.

It is also helping Telegraph columnist Pearson after police visited her home a week ago on Sunday over a complaint about a year-old deleted post on social media in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel.

Young said the ban imposed on the teenage footballer and the Football Association rules allowing those born male to play in women’s football were “badly wrong”.

‘Six-game ban is grotesque injustice’

He added: “Female players in single-sex football leagues should not be forced to compete against men, given how much stronger, faster and physically aggressive male players are, on average.

“For a 17-year-old girl to be given a six-game ban just for asking whether a member of an opposing ‘ladies’ team is a man is a grotesque injustice and I hope it will be overturned on appeal.”

The girl had no legal representation when she was found guilty last month and did not receive the written reasons for her punishment until three days before her ban began.

Jolliffe, of Park Square Barristers, is a member of the Attorney General’s A panel of counsel, and works part-time as a deputy judge of the Upper Tribunal and of the Court of Protection. He appeared in the Infected Blood Inquiry for Government clients including Sir Malcolm Rifkind KC and Lord Forsyth. He is also instructed in the Covid-19 Inquiry.

An FA spokesperson said: “This case was heard by an independent National Serious Case Panel, and they issued a two-match suspension with an additional four matches suspended for a breach of FA rules. However, we have received notice of an intention to appeal the decision, so we are unable to comment further at this stage.”

A second protest over the girl’s ban is planned before England Women’s friendly against Switzerland at Bramall Lane next month.

Punishment condemned in House of Lords

Her identity has been concealed by Telegraph Sport as she is a child and on the assessment pathway for autism.

She was found guilty at a hearing last month on the basis of her own evidence to the panel, which had included that she had sought guidance from the referee over the eligibility of a trans opponent and had expressed concerns for her own safety.

That is despite her denying that doing so constituted transphobia and the referee also having not noticed anything he deemed to be discriminatory.

Her ban was condemned on Wednesday in the House of Lords by Lord Triesman, the former FA chairman, who also said of the matter: “I don’t intend to let it rest.”

An FA spokesperson said: “Millions of people play grass-roots football every week and we are proud of the many opportunities that are available to those who wish to play and enjoy the game. We understand that this is a complex matter, and we are very aware and respectful of strong views on all sides.

“However, considering the ongoing public discussion – which has included some inaccurate information – it is important to note that the sanction was for two matches only, with an additional four matches suspended. If the details of the case had been limited to those currently in the public domain, it is highly likely that no sanction would have been issued at all. We have said previously that this is a complex case, all the facts are not in the public domain, and we are unable to publish more detail due to the age of one of the people involved.”