​Blackburn Rovers are being sued for at least £500,000 in damages over an alleged breach of a kit-supply deal, according to High Court documents. The Lancashire club faces the claim after negotiations to renew the contract with its former kit suppliers broke down. In 2021, Blackburn signed a five-year arrangement with the Italian company Macron. With the deal expiring last month, Macron Sportswear UK is pursuing damages over alleged breaches tied to the renegotiation process.
Macron has been described by its barrister Nick De Marco KC as holding the right under the 2021 contract to 90 days of exclusive negotiation at the start of 2025. He said Blackburn could talk to other suppliers if no renewal agreement was reached, but any third-party offer the club intended to accept had to be sent to Macron, which would then have a 10-day period to submit a “matching offer.” The agreement required that the matching offer include four specific elements: the retainer fee, the amount of free sporting goods, royalties, and bonuses. Blackburn would then be obliged to accept any such offer. If it failed to do so, Macron was entitled to £500,000 and all costs incurred in pursuing the sum.
De Marco noted that after renewal talks collapsed, Blackburn forwarded a third-party offer to Macron that it planned to accept, and Macron returned a matching offer. He added that on 20 June 2025, Blackburn informed Macron that it had decided to “decline Macron’s proposal and enter into formal discussions with the relevant third party.” According to the barrister, the club acknowledged that Macron’s offer “appeared to mirror the new offer in certain areas” but argued that other commercial terms proposed by Macron UK were unacceptable. He said the club had since refused to renegotiate with Macron or pay the £500,000 fee, arguing that Macron was entitled to the sum plus interest for breach of contract.
In Blackburn’s defence, Robert Anderson KC contended that the club was free to accept the new supplier’s offer because Macron’s deal did not “match all material terms of the third-party offer conveyed to it.” He explained that Macron’s matching offer only aligned with four terms of the third-party offer and that the proposal included many other obligations that would be far more onerous for the club. Anderson argued that while the matching offer must include the four criteria, it also had to “match all material terms” of any other offers received, and that Macron’s interpretation allowed the company to impose onerous conditions unilaterally.
The case is ongoing, and a hearing regarding the claim has not yet occurred.