Wimbledon serves up Pimm's-inspired mocktail for alcohol-free tennis fans
And now Wimbledon has experimented with creating a mocktail in the style of the beloved fruity punch owing to the growing demand for alcohol-free options at the championships.
The club has introduced Stella Artois' booze-free beer on draught and mocktails made from non-alcoholic sparkling wines and spirits amid the move towards sobriety among gen Z.
Charlie Cook, the business director of food and drink at Wimbledon, said: 'We look at market trends. Within our business we employ a food and drink futurist to look at where those trends are going. The younger generations are looking for lower or non-alcoholic offerings.'
Staff at SW19 said there had been demand for Stella's 0.0 offering and an uptick in customers asking for an alcohol-free version of Pimm's.
Cook said the club had yet to perfect a mocktail to fill the gap. 'We've tried a version using balsamic, which has a quite similar flavour profile, but we haven't really cracked that one yet. It would be a good one though,' he said.
Wimbledon later stressed it was not attempting to create a booze-free Pimm's but a drink inspired by the popular beverage.
Destiny Olusegun, 22, a bar manager at the grounds, said spectators were keen to try an alcohol-free version of the summer cocktail that has long been synonymous with the championships.
'Quite a few people come up and ask for non-alcoholic Pimm's,' he said. 'A lot of people aren't from here [the UK], so Pimm's is like a massive Wimbledon phenomenon. If everyone else is having a Pimm's or a beer, you don't want to have a soft drink. You want a nice drink.'
A staff member at the Pimm's stall on the Hill had had a similar experience. 'People do ask quite a lot, especially if they are pregnant, what sort of non-alcoholic versions we have. I worked here last year and people were asking the same thing,' she said.
'I'd say around one in 50 people ask if there's a non-alcoholic version of Pimm's. Some people will also ask if we can do half pints as well, older people in particular. But young people ask as well – especially pregnant women.'
Wimbledon has been offering a mocktail spritz which includes non-alcoholic gin, sugar syrup and pink grapefruit soda for £12.60 and a 0% paloma made from a booze-free bergamot aperitif for £10.40.
Olusegun said demand for non-alcoholic drinks had grown in his three years at Wimbledon and suggested they were most popular among those aged 25 to 50.
'People are shifting away from alcohol,' he said. 'People are more conscious of what they're drinking, how they're drinking, – especially if you're going to be here all day. You don't want to be drinking 20 pints, but you may still like a drink and be able to engage in the same social culture, be able to cheers your beer, have something cold.
'Having a non-alcoholic Pimm's option, even if it was just in a can, would still give people that feeling of being included.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
6 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
Times
6 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
The Sun
8 minutes ago
- The Sun
Tragic tech tycoon Mike Lynch's business partner left huge sum in will before dying in car accident
THE business partner of tragic tech tycoon Mike Lynch left more than £350,000 in his will. Stephen Chamberlain was killed in a freak car accident just days before Mr Lynch died when his £38million superyacht the Bayesian sank in a storm off Sicily last August. 3 3 Both men had been acquitted of fraud in June 2024 over the £8.6billion sale of Mr Lynch's software firm Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011. Mr Chamberlain died aged 52 from head injuries three days after being hit by a car while out running near his home in Longstanton, Cambs. An inquest found that the driver could not have avoided the father of two. Figures from the Probate Registry show Mr Chamberlain left £358,933 — reduced to £346,508 after debts were paid — to widow Karen and children Ella and Teddy. Lynch, 59, died alongside his daughter and five other people when his yacht Bayesian sank off the coast of Sicily. He had been celebrating his acquittal from US fraud charges when his yacht was knocked sideways by a sudden 80mph gust and started taking in water. As the boat sank rapidly, Lynch's wife Angela Bacares was pulled to safety by a crew member. But their 18-year-old daughter Hannah and five others on board never made it out. The vessel sunk in just 16 minutes after being hit by a violent downburst. Chamberlain was a former vice-president of software company Autonomy. Moment tragic Bayesian yacht wreck is raised from depths after billionaire Mike Lynch and others died on board 3
