Why Blackburn Rovers are being sued for £500,000 as kit row heads to High Court

Blackburn Rovers are facing a High Court lawsuit for at least £500,000 in damages, stemming from an alleged breach of a kit sponsorship agreement.

The Championship club is being pursued by Macron Sportswear UK, the British arm of the Italian company that served as the club’s “official technical kit sponsor and supplier” under a five-year deal signed in May 2021, which concluded last month.

Macron Sportswear UK initiated legal action earlier this year, asserting in court documents that it is owed hundreds of thousands of pounds after negotiations to renew the partnership collapsed.

Blackburn, who finished 20th in the Championship last season and recently announced the return of Tony Mowbray as manager, are contesting the claim.

According to legal documents outlining Macron’s case, barrister Nick De Marco KC stated that the 2021 agreement granted Macron a 90-day exclusive window to negotiate a renewal from the start of 2025.

The contract stipulated that if no agreement was reached, Blackburn could engage with other suppliers, but was obliged to present any intended third-party offer to Macron. Macron then had 10 days to submit a “matching offer”.

Mr De Marco explained that this matching offer had to meet four specific criteria: the retainer fee, the quantity of free sporting goods, royalties, and bonuses. Crucially, Blackburn were contractually bound to accept any such matching offer. Failure to do so would entitle Macron to £500,000, along with “all charges and costs incurred” in claiming the sum.

The barrister detailed that after renewal talks failed, Blackburn did send a third-party offer to Macron, to which the company responded with a matching offer.

However, on June 20 2025, Blackburn informed Macron that it had decided to “decline Macron’s proposal and enter into formal discussions with the relevant third party”. The club acknowledged that Macron’s offer “appeared to mirror (the new offer) in certain areas”, but claimed other commercial terms were unacceptable. Mr De Marco concluded that Blackburn’s subsequent refusal to negotiate or pay the £500,000 constitutes a breach of contract, entitling Macron to the sum plus interest.

In defence of the claim, Robert Anderson KC, representing Blackburn, argued that the club was within its rights to accept the new supplier’s offer because Macron’s proposal did not “match all material terms of the third party offer conveyed to it”.

He contended that Macron’s offer only aligned with four terms, while introducing “numerous other obligations that were far more onerous for the club.”

Mr Anderson asserted that while Macron’s matching offer needed to include the four specified criteria, it also had to “match all material terms” of any competing offers.

He suggested that Macron’s interpretation of the deal would allow it “unilaterally to impose onerous terms” on the club.

He stated: “Macron UK’s offer was not a ‘matching offer’. It contained different material terms than the (third-party offer) and added onerous additional terms, which terms Macron UK was not entitled to impose on the club. Macron UK failed to match the material terms of the (third-party offer), meaning an obligation to reach agreement was not triggered; and the club was free to enter into a kit supply agreement with a third party.”

In a reply to Blackburn’s defence, Mr De Marco countered that despite the club’s assertion that a matching offer “had to match all material terms of the third party offer”, Blackburn “has not pleaded what those ‘material terms’ were”.

A hearing in the case is yet to be scheduled.