High street chain with over 500 shops ‘breaking law with misleading prices', Which? warns
SPORTS DIRECT shoppers are being tricked into thinking they are getting a bargain by misleading pricing, according to consumer campaigners.
Which? accused the High Street giant of using 'dodgy' Recommended Retail Prices (RRPs) to make discounts seem better than they really are to boost sales.
1
The chain could be breaking the law, says Which? and has reported the business to regulators.
An item's RRP should reflect the price at which shops usually sell a product for, according to the Advertising Standards Authority.
This is so customers can easily work out how much of a saving they are making when buying at a knockdown price.
Investigators at the consumer rights group checked the pricing of 160 popular products on SportsDirect.com.
And said it was unable to find 58 of the 160 products on sale anywhere for Sports Direct's claimed RRP – or Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) - raising questions over whether those prices were genuine.
The items included a green Jack Wills Hunston graphic logo hoodie on sale with Sports Direct for £24 with an MSRP of £54.99.
Researchers could only find it on sale for £40 on Amazon and for £24 elsewhere, with no-one apparently selling it for £54.99.
And a pair of Slazenger men's drive tennis shoes were being sold by SportsDirect for £32.99, nearly half the MSRP of £64.99.
Which? found the trainers for sale on eight other websites – all run by SportsDirect's parent company - for either £32.99 or £33.
Only one retailer, Slazenger itself, sold them at the RRP but that price is supposed to represent what retailers generally sell a product for.
Ex-Sports Direct employee reveals high street stores secrets
At the same time, a Whitaker Somerford long sleeve baselayer was on sale for £8 with an RRP of £35.
Which? could only find it listed elsewhere for £18 –a long way short of the supposed RRP.
The consumer champion reckons Sports Direct's use of RRPs and MSRPs could be 'misleading actions' under a 2008 Unfair Trading law to protect shoppers.
It has presented its findings to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
Which? legal expert Lisa Webb said: 'If Sports Direct is misleading customers by inappropriate use of RRPs to dupe them into thinking they are getting a good deal, then the competition regulator needs to step in and take strong action to stop this from happening.
'In the meantime, shoppers should take any big discounts at SportsDirect.com with a pinch of salt and make sure they compare prices with other retailers before parting with any hard earned cash.'
This is not the first time the chain has been accused of using misleading RRPs.
In 2015 Channel 4's Dispatches said the firm was hiking RRPs to lead customers into believing they were getting a bargain.
Sports Direct's owner, Mike Ashley's Frasers Group, has a large portfolio of brands under its umbrella including Jack Wills, Slazenger, Everlast and Lonsdale. Frasers Group also owns various retailers such as USC, Studio, and Get the Label, which sometimes appear to be the only sellers of these particular brands, Which? added.
Sports Direct was founded by Mike Ashley, 60 – now the UK's 52 nd richest man with a £3.12bn fortune – when he opened his first sports shop in Maidenhead in 1982 aged just 18.
The firm has been contacted for comment.
A Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) spokesperson said: 'We'll carefully consider the findings from Which?'s research.
"All businesses need to ensure that they comply with consumer law, which includes not misleading their customers over pricing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
Contract agreed for ex-Cambridgeshire council HQ Shire Hall
Proposals to turn a former council headquarters into luxury visitor accommodation are a step closer after a hotel group signed a contract for its long-term Apartment Hotels Ltd, a subsidiary of the Lamington Group, exchanged contracts on a 250-year lease for Shire Hall in Cambridge with Cambridgeshire County Council and expect to complete within the next 18 proposals will require planning permission ahead of transforming the existing Nethsingha, Liberal Democrat leader of the council, said: "It has been sad for the community to see this much-loved building standing empty, so I am pleased that we are now able to announce the next steps." The council's headquarters relocated to the purpose-built New Shire Hall at Alconbury Weald in authority decided to sell Shire Hall in Cambridge while protecting the public area around the site, including Castle Mound, a scheduled ancient monument. Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Where is The Orkney Assassin Michael Ross now?
THE Orkney Assassin, Michael Ross, was just 15 years old when he murdered waiter Shamsuddin Mahmood. On June 2 1994, Ross shot the waiter while he served customers in an Indian restaurant in Orkney, an island located off the northern coast of Scotland. Where is Michael Ross now? Michael Ross, born on 28 August 1978, was found guilty of the murder in 2008 and is serving a life sentence in HMP Shotts in Lanarkshire, with a minimum of 25 years. Ross was originally questioned by police six months after the murder of the 26-year-old waiter, but prosecutors ruled there was not enough evidence to charge the teenager. In the following summer, Ross left the island of Orkney, where he was born, and 17 joined the Scottish regiment. From there, he progressed through the ranks and became a decorated Black Watch sniper after serving a tour of duty in Iraq. But on June 20 2008, he was brought to justice in the High Court in Glasgow. During his guilty verdict, Ross, dramatically tried to flee by jumping out of the dock and knocking over the security guard. Now 47 years old, Ross has tried to escape HMP Shotts, one of Scotland's highest security prisons, three times, including an attempt to scale the fence in 2018. As a result, he was sentenced to two years in prison to run alongside his life term of which he has served 17 years so far. What happened to Shamsuddin Mahmood? The murder of Shamsuddin Mahmood took place on June 2, 1994 when he was fatally shot after a man wearing a balaclava entered Mumataz Restaurant in Kirkwall at around 7.10pm and exited the premises shortly after. Shamsuddin had arrived in Orkney only six weeks before and had plans to return to Bangladesh to marry his fiancée. Shamsuddin's murder was the first to take place on the island in 25 years and during the original investigation, 2,736 statements were taken. Ross' mother Moira, recounted the time Michael came home from the police station when he was 16 years old. She went upstairs and asked whether he had shot Shamsuddin six months before, which he denied. During the investigation, Edmund Ross' career as a police officer ended after he lied about the fact that he owned identical bullets to those used in the murder weapon. Edmund Ross was subsequently jailed for four years in 1997 for perverting the course of justice. It is reported that Michael Ross' earliest possible release is in 2035. How to watch The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles Amazon Prime Video has released a special titled The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles, providing insight from law enforcement officers, eyewitnesses, journalists, and also interviews with Ross' parents, who maintain his innocence. The first episode aired on Sunday, June 8 2025.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Parents ‘abandoned' teenager in Ghana over fears he would become a gangster in Britain
Parents 'abandoned' a teenage boy in Ghana over fears he would become a gangster if he remained in Britain, a court has heard. The boy, who cannot be identified, started a family court case after his parents enrolled him at a boarding school in the west African country before leaving him abroad in March 2024. The parents were said to be concerned that the teenager was at risk of engaging in criminal activity or being killed due to knife crime. At a previous hearing, he said he had been 'tricked' and his lawyers asked a judge to order that he be brought back to the UK, having lived in the country since birth. In a decision in February, High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden did not make the order, finding the teenager 'is at real risk of suffering greater harm in returning to the UK than if he were to remain in Ghana'. The teenager is now bringing a challenge over the decision at the Court of Appeal in London, which his parents oppose. 'Feels that he is a British boy' At a hearing on Thursday, Deirdre Fottrell KC, the boy's barrister, said that it was his 'steadfast and firm wish' for the appeal judges to order his return to the UK. She said: 'It is alienating for him and he feels that he is a British boy... he never envisaged the situation that he would be living away from his family in another country and away from all that is familiar to him.' Ms Fottrell said the boy is 'highly distressed' about the situation and feels 'abandoned' by his family. She continued: 'He really is quite desperate to return... to return to his family, to return to his social life and the structure in which he was living, but also to return to the UK.' In written submissions, the barrister said the previous judge failed to give 'due weight' to the boy's feelings and autonomy and also 'erroneously limited' his role in reviewing whether the decision to move the boy to Ghana was within the scope of parental responsibility. Ms Fottrell added: 'In the instant case Mr Justice Hayden discounted [the boy's] wishes and feelings, assuming that there was a clear and tangible threat to his welfare. 'He discounted evidence that any threat was not capable of being ameliorated by other safeguards or protective measures.' Rebecca Foulkes, for the parents, said they 'found themselves in a wholly invidious position in March when they made the decision which they made'. The barrister said in written submissions that the previous judge's decision was 'well reasoned' and 'fell well within the parameters of reasonable decisions open to him'. Worrying conversations on Snapchat The High Court previously heard that the parents' concerns about their son had been growing before the decision to take him out of the UK. These concerns included poor school attendance, being aggressive, susceptibility to being groomed, an allegation of stealing phones and worrying conversations on Snapchat, a social media channel. In his ruling, Mr Justice Hayden said he accepted that the teenager was involved in criminal activity and was at least 'on the periphery' of gang culture. Ms Foulkes said in her written submissions on Thursday: 'The conclusion reached, on the facts of this case, cannot be said to be anything other than a sound welfare decision.' The barrister later said that while the boy's wishes and feelings are a 'central aspect' of the decision over what is in his best interest, 'ultimately, the court determined that his best interests required that his views should not prevail'. During the previous proceedings, the boy said he would rather be in foster care in the UK than remain in his current situation. Ms Foulkes said the previous judge was entitled to conclude that the teenager 'had little understanding of what entering the care system truly involves' and that he was 'likely to continue to reject the authority of his parents, school and other adults, and his acting out and risk-taking behaviours were highly likely to increase' if he were placed in care. The hearing before Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Arnold is due to conclude on Thursday.
