Mike Ashley hits back as Sports Direct’s Adidas kit dispute with Newcastle takes another twist

Mike Ashley is taking Sports Direct’s dispute with Newcastle United to the Court of Appeal.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) previously ruled that Sports Direct had no ‘legitimate reason’ to expect Newcastle to continue retailing the Magpies’ new shirts in the shops of the club’s former owner. Sports Direct had requested an injunction to prevent Newcastle from selling next season’s Adidas kits through rivals JD Sports, but this was unanimously rejected by a CAT panel.

The tribunal found that there was ‘no reasonable or legitimate expectation on the part of Sports Direct of continuity of supply’ and said that to suggest there was an ‘obligation’ for Newcastle and Adidas to ensure that supply to Sports Direct was maintained represented a ‘significant fetter on competition not an enhancement of it’. The three-person panel also refused Sports Direct’s application for permission to appeal within the CAT after damningly declaring that it did not have ‘any real prospect of success’.

READ MORE: Newcastle stadium decision would be a ‘surprise’ after Spurs’ bold revenue move

READ MORE: Casemiro told Manchester United’s Newcastle showdown should be his Old Trafford farewell

However, Ashley, undeterred, is not giving up and a fresh hearing on the matter is due to take place at the Court of Appeal on Thursday. The Court of Appeal, which is based at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, is the highest court within the senior courts of England and Wales and deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals.

A notice was filed on April 26 and the brief court listing states: “The claimant applies for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission is granted, the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal dated April 12, 2024, refusing to grant an injunction regarding the supply of Newcastle United Football Club replica kit for the 2024/2025 football season.”

Sports Direct’s decision to take the matter to court is hardly a surprise. There were a number of references to the prospect of future proceedings at the CAT hearing last month and the panel’s written judgement noted that the refusal to grant ‘interim injunctive relief’ made a ‘speedy trial more, and not less, urgent’.