Mike Ashley, the billionaire retail tycoon and former owner of Newcastle United, has launched a legal battle against the football club he once owned. The dispute revolves around a merchandising row, with Ashley accusing Newcastle of breaching competition laws by refusing to stock Sports Direct with the team’s football kits.
The Crux of the Conflict
Embed from Getty Images
According to court filings, Ashley’s company Sports Direct has claimed that Newcastle United “abused its dominant position in the market” by denying them the right to sell the club’s new Adidas kit for the 2024-25 season. Instead, Newcastle allegedly granted exclusive rights for kit distribution to Sports Direct rival, JD Sports.
The lawsuit, filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that Newcastle’s decision to prefer JD Sports and sell exclusively through the manufacturer, club shop, and website violates competition law. Sports Direct is seeking damages from the club, as well as an injunction that would prevent Newcastle from “excluding” them from the market.
Escalating Tensions Between Former and New Owners
This legal battle is the latest clash between
Ashley and Newcastle’s current owners, a Saudi-led consortium that acquired the club for £300 million in October 2021, ending Ashley’s 14-year reign as owner.
The dispute represents the culmination of tensions that have been brewing since the takeover. Previously, conflicts had arisen over the details of a £10 million loan provided by Ashley to facilitate the acquisition and the removal of Sports Direct signage from St James’ Park, Newcastle’s home stadium.
Amanda Staveley’s Role in the Feud
Embed from Getty Images
The legal action against Newcastle is also closely tied to an ongoing feud between Ashley and
Amanda Staveley, the businesswoman who owns a 10% stake in the club alongside other investors, including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
Ashley has separately sued Staveley over the £10 million loan, alleging that she defaulted on the loan agreement when she made negative public statements about him following the sale. Staveley was quoted as expressing her desire to remove Sports Direct branding from
St James’ Park, a comment that allegedly violated the terms of the loan agreement.
Fans Caught in the Crossfire
Amidst the high-stakes legal battle, there are concerns that ordinary football fans might bear the brunt of the conflict. A source close to Sports Direct expressed fears that if Newcastle’s alleged behavior goes unchallenged, it could lead to increased revenue and improved margins for the club, ultimately resulting in higher costs for fans.
“If they want to exclude Sports Direct, then they are doing so because they want to increase revenue and improve margins, all at the expense of their own fan base,” the source stated.
Newcastle’s Response and Next Steps
Embed from Getty Images
Newcastle United has until March 28 to file their reply to Sports Direct claim. After that, Sports Direct will have the opportunity to respond at a hearing scheduled for April.
While Newcastle did not comment when approached by Sky Sports News, the legal battle promises to be a protracted and contentious affair, with both sides likely to vigorously defend their positions.
As the dispute unfolds, the football world will be watching closely to see if Ashley’s legal challenge against his former club can succeed, and how the outcome might shape the future of merchandising and commercial partnerships in the
Premier League.
For More Great Content