“All that I can say is we are living in the most exciting time for sports law”. A sentence worthy of the headstone above the grave of the game we all once loved. They are the words of King’s Counsel Nick De Marco, described in his Blackstone Chambers bio as one the leading barristers in sports law.

So marked is his growing celebrity it was considered worthy of embellishment in The Times, no less, where last month he submitted to the scrutiny of one of sports writing’s leading journalists.

This is the stage we have reached, where the field of play has shifted and the heroes wear suits not kits. Though not involved on this occasion, De Marco was offering his professional opinion on the result of the case brought by Manchester City against the Premier League over Associated Party Transactions (APTs), the regulatory framework that seeks to police sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to the owners.

Since both sides claimed victory in a complex dispute it was helpful to receive some guidance on social media via his Twitter account.

Read Next

Advertisement

According to The Times interview, which he shared proudly on his LinkedIn account, De Marco is a football supporter, a fan of Queens Park Rangers who feels that matters are ideally best determined on the pitch – despite his profession. Nevertheless, he gleefully recognises that the economic scale of the modern game makes the deployment of lawyers inevitable.

In that, he is right. The divergence with the common fan comes at the point where De Marco and the lawyer class, the highest paid of whom submit invoices the start at £5,000 an hour, revel in hitting the back of the net in court. As you might, if the gains include a home in Surrey that backs on to a river with an outside kitchen. There will be a few ballers in Cobham looking on with envy at garden hardware as full-bore bling as that.

This does not make De Marco a bad actor. Indeed we share a similar past, working as doorman at neighbouring venues in the West End to support our education.

Whilst De Marco’s professional excitement is entirely understandable it represents a nadir for the game itself, highlighting its hijacking by forces whose relationship to football is entirely transactional. What do the distant owners of Manchester City, Arsenal, Newcastle United, Chelsea and Manchester United, care about winning and losing for its own sake?

Their association with the clubs they own is driven not by passion for the shirt but propaganda and business. Florida “red” Joel Glazer has flown into Manchester to attend a series of scheduled club meetings, not to watch United at Aston Villa on Sunday.

City’s most important player over the coming weeks is Baron Pannick, leading the fight against the 115 charges related to financial irregularities levelled by the Premier League, all denied, in a court battle now in its third week.

Whether or not City are found to have acted against the rules, the involvement of sovereign wealth funds and venture capitalists has bent football out of shape, perverted the competition and severed the ancient social contract between fan and club. There is no sense in which this version of City aligns with the identity of those who stood on the Kippax cheering for Shaun Goater, Kevin Horlock and Nicky Weaver a generation ago, let alone Colin Bell, Mike Summerbee and Franny Lee in the Sixties.

They will take the transformation, of course, revelling like schoolboys in a power hike unimaginable when local businessman Peter Swales was the man signing the cheques at Maine Road. But the win requires them to ignore their role as useful idiots, being played by a regime engaged in a soft power game in which lawyers like De Marco are the stars of the show, stopping for selfies with the fans every time they roll back regulation or fend off a points deduction.

On the day City claimed victory against the Premier League – and against the eight teams who gave evidence to the hearing against them – Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy returned to court over the size of the legal bill that fell to the latter after the court found in favour of the former in the libel case dubbed “Wagathie Christie”.

Read Next

Advertisement

Vardy’s lawyers were outraged at counterparts who sent the bill for their services spiralling beyond £1.8m, outstripping the estimated costs by almost £150,000. Since Vardy was responsible for 90 percent of Rooney’s costs they baulked at expenses inflated by stays at Nobu Hotel costing £2,000 plus £225 food and minibar charges. Well a lawyer has to subsist.

The legal dispute between the wives of Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy, enthusiastic beneficiaries of football’s transformed economic profile, signposts a game gorging on excess and where no dispute is too trivial, the wives of prominent footballers willing to burn through hundreds of thousands of pounds just to settle a social media spat.

As football careers into the entertainment space this kind of stuff is increasingly part of the tapestry, WAGS, billionaire owners and their legal attendants driving the narrative as much as the players.

So here we are reporting on crack silks going at it over balance sheets, loan deals and hotel receipts. An exciting time for sports law, but also a depressing reflection of the Tower of Babel football has become. And we all know what happened there.

Good morning. What do Morgan McSweeney’s allies mean when they tell journalists he is “an agent of change” (to the Guardian) or “a smasher and a breaker by temperament rather than a moulder and manager” (to the FT’s Jim and Lucy)?

This portrayal of Keir Starmer’s new chief of staff is framed by the context of what was felt to have gone wrong since Labour took office. Among them: cabinet ministers being unable to appoint as many special advisers as they needed, spads receiving a pay cut that took them below their salary level in opposition (I know of several spads who were taking on roles that had been filled by two or three advisers in the last government and being offered a pay cut to do it), and a cabinet secretary, Simon Case, who did not inspire confidence and who many felt should have been ushered out the door in Starmer’s first week.

Similar dynamics played out when the Conservatives came into office in 2010 (indeed, one former Tory spad told me that reading about the rows gave them “a wholly unwelcome sense of déjà vu” about negotiating their pay with Sue Gray during the latter’s time as a civil servant). There were two complicating factors then: the first was that the Conservatives had pledged to reduce the number of spads, but also they had failed to win a majority. That meant negotiating both a reduced headcount and having to unexpectedly share that headcount with another party. (That also had implications for pay offers, as the Liberal Democrats had been on rather less money in opposition than their Conservative counterparts.)

What resolved some of those issues was David Cameron intervening in the process and adding political direction: the role that many expect McSweeney to now fulfil. But breaking down barriers between departments is also key to one of Labour’s big projects in office: the “five missions”. Some thoughts on historic attempts by previous governments to do something similar below.

Just checked in, to see what condition my five missions were in

What distinguishes the missions from the other promises Labour made at the last election is that they are explicitly cross-departmental. Achieving them requires various bits of Whitehall working together.

One reason why cross-departmental working has proved hard to pull off in the past is that the structure of the British government gives secretaries of state both broad and wide-ranging statutory powers, but also specific statutory responsibilities. It is those responsibilities that cabinet ministers are questioned on in the House of Commons, interrogated on by select committees and will be challenged on in the courts.

Equally importantly you have your own budget. As we speak, cabinet ministers are negotiating the terms of these budgets with the Treasury ahead of the Budget on October 30. Let’s take, say, Labour’s plans to increase the UK’s employment rate: if you are Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for work and pensions, then the lever you can pull yourself is to hire more work coaches or to deploy them differently. You can’t, however much you might wish to, start funding further education colleges yourself directly.

The big and most significant discussion within Labour in opposition was whether to do a further Whitehall reorganisation — with all the discombobulation that causes, the disruption to what ministers can do — or to continue with the structure Rishi Sunak had created. As Sunak’s reorganisation had fixed the biggest single problem in Labour’s mind, by bringing back a freestanding department for energy/climate change, the party opted to run with the existing set-up. That means finding ways to make “mission delivery” work with it — hence, in part, the agent of change/smasher stuff.

Greater devolution is, in part, intended to solve some of these problems: the idea being that if departments devolve money to combined authority mayors then they will use that money in new, innovative and cross-departmental ways. (Sam Freedman, a former policy adviser to Michael Gove, has written an interesting report on how to use combined authority mayors to improve public services for Labour Together, which you can read here.)

Starmer is far from the first prime minister to try and tackle this problem — in modern times, Winston Churchill’s peacetime government experimented briefly with “overlords”: cabinet ministers without portfolio who were meant to co-ordinate cross-departmental working, but he abandoned the experiment in 1953. Harold Wilson experimented with two innovations: the first in his 1964 to 1970 government was an “Inner Cabinet” not a thousand miles away from the idea of “overlords”, but he could never settle on who he wanted to have in it.

The second, more enduring innovation came in Wilson’s second stint as prime minister from 1974 to 1976: the Downing Street Policy Unit, which provides policy advice to the prime minister, separate from the civil service. We can expect that as a result of Starmer’s Downing Street reboot, this unit will get larger over the coming months.

Yesterday, our poll asked you: will Sue Gray’s exit draw a line under Labour’s difficult start? About 44 per cent of you said no, 31 per cent said yes it would, and a quarter of respondents were on the fence. Thanks for voting.

Now try this

This week, I mostly listened to Jonathan Armandary’s wonderful soundtrack to The Whip, a very enjoyable social conscience/heist movie that is in select cinemas at the moment, while writing my column.

Top stories today

ASOS has made a major change to its return fees, sparking fury amongst shoppers.

The online retailer will start charging customers when they return items unless they spend a certain amount.

2

2

Advertisement

UK shoppers who frequently return orders will be charged £3.95 unless they keep up to £40 of their order.

The new rule, which has been introduced to crack down on serial returners, comes into effect today, October 8.

Talk of the rule change has upset ASOS shoppers, with some even threatening to boycott the online store.

Commenting on X, formally Twitter, one user wrote: “The problem for large returns is the fact half of your stock is ill-fitting and poor quality.

“You’re another brand now alienating your loyal customers.”

“Well ASOS if you actually made clothes that fit so I wouldn’t need to buy multiple sizes we wouldn’t have that problem, consider me no longer a customer,” posted another.

While another wrote; “Did you [ASOS] consider that returner fee isolates customers who don’t fit ideal body standards?

“As a curvy girl, I have to order several sizes and often make returns as your sizing is not consistent, now I’m going to be charged for it? Way to make me feel bad about my body.”

ASOS previously said that a “small number of shoppers” will be charged but has not elaborated on the exact number of shoppers affected.

Those hit by the change will need to keep £40 worth of goods to avoid the new charge.

Shoppers who already pay £9.95 a year for Asos Premier to get perks like free next-day delivery will not be exempt from the extra fee – but will have to keep a lower value of items.

For Premier customers affected, that will be £15.

Craig Smith, UK country manager at Scayle, an e-commerce platform, said the move could risk damaging customer loyalty.

He said: “Retailers like ASOS have tried to tackle the problem of returns by asking customers to foot the bill – but this is far from a silver bullet.

“Firstly, brands risk damaging customer loyalty by alienating customers who are reluctant to fork out a fee. “

It’s just the latest of many retailers to start charging for returns.

Here’s a full list of all the other retailers now charging customers to make returns.

Pretty Little Thing

PrettyLittleThing (PLT) started charging all customers for returns in June.

The fashion brand, owned by Boohoo, introduced a £1.99 fee on June 3.

The charge is deducted from a shopper’s full refund amount.

PrettyLittleThing fans who are members of its PLT Royalty programme can’t avoid the charge either.

PLT Royalty costs £9.99 a year and gives members free unlimited delivery on all items.

River Island

In February, River Island angered customers by introducing a £2 charge to return items ordered online.

The charge will be deducted from the total amount refunded after the customer has posted back the items.

River Island says items must be returned within 28 days of delivery and should be clean, unworn and with tags still attached. 

Angry customers have railed against the change and even vowed to stop shopping there.

H&M

H&M brought in a £1.99 fee in September last year.

The huge Swedish-owned retailer updated its policy on its website.

Shoppers returning parcels bought online via courier are now charged, with the cost coming out of their refund.

Those who are H&M members, which is free to sign up for, still get to return their hauls for free, though.

On the H&M website, it says: “There is a £1.99 return fee per return parcel to store or online for non-members, which will be deducted from your refund.”

However, it says that shoppers won’t be charged the fee if the item they’re bringing back is faulty or incorrect.

Boohoo

Boohoo also introduced a £1.99 charge for returns after previously offering them for free.

The large online retailer updated its policy on its website.

It states: “Please note a returns charge of £1.99 per parcel will be deducted from your refund amount.

“Returns are FREE for premier customers.”

A Boohoo spokesperson at the time said the change was due to the increase in the cost of shipping.

They added the decision was made so the company can “continue to offer great prices and products and do this in a more sustainable way”.

Boohoo’s policy also applies to shoppers who use gift cards, store credit, or vouchers.

Boohoo’s website states: “If you paid for your order with a gift card, store credit or a voucher, a replacement to the value of the refund will be issued minus the cost of £1.99 for returning the item to us.”

Zara

In May 2022, high-street retailer Zara started charging customers £1.95 for returns.

Shoppers are being charged £1.95 to send back items, with the fee deducted from their refund.

However, customers can still return items purchased online to a Zara store free of charge, as long as they have the matching e-receipt and it’s within 30 days from the date of shipment.

A spokesperson for Zara said previously: “Customers can return online purchases at any Zara store in the UK free of charge, which is what most customers choose to do.

“The £1.95 fee only applies to the return of products at third-party drop-off points.”

New Look

Back in 2023, New Look announced it was trialling a £1.99 return fee for online orders to offset any possible price rises.

The fee applies to postal returns only, with in-store returns for online orders continuing to be free.

In a statement at the time, a New Look spokesperson said: “New Look has taken the decision to trial a £1.99 fee for postal returns.

“This is in line with the wider industry and reflects increased costs related to delivery and collection. Customers are still able to return their online orders to our stores free of charge.”

Debenhams

In December 2023, Debenhams left shoppers feeling “cheated” after introducing a charge for returning online goods.

The new £1.99 fee came amid fears shoppers have been abusing free returns by ordering items, wearing them briefly and then sending them back.

The Debenhams website now says shoppers must pay £1.99 for every parcel returned.

Angry shoppers moaned on social media, with one saying: “Since when did Debenhams charge for returns?

“Should’ve been clear before placing an order #debenhams.”

Customers with Unlimited membership – which costs £9.50 a year -can make unlimited returns and deliveries with no additional charges.

Next

Next introduced the change at the start of 2023 and customers now have to fork out £2.50 per item returned.

Customers can save money on deliveries and returns by opting for an annual subscription, which costs £22.50 a year.

You can return any items to one of the retailer’s more than 450 stores without charge.

Previously, you could also get courier returns included for free as well, but the retailer has now ditched them.

It comes after a poll revealed that cash-strapped consumers are taking their money elsewhere in response to retailers slashing their free returns policies.

And this iconic high street retailer has angered customers by introducing a £2 charge to return items ordered online.

The HS2 railway line is likely to be extended to London Euston, the Transport Secretary has signalled.

Louise Haigh said “it would make absolutely no sense” to have the high-speed route terminate at Old Oak Common in west London.

Her comments come after work to expand Euston station to accommodate HS2 was halted by the previous Conservative government last year because of the mounting costs.

Haigh told BBC Radio 5Live a decision on where HS2 will end would be “clear soon”, with an announcement set to be made around the time of the Budget on 30 October.

Currently, the plan to terminate at Old Oak Common would mean passengers travelling to central London would have to change trains.

But Haigh told the BBC on Tuesday: “It would make absolutely no sense to build a £66bn high speed line between Old Oak Common and Birmingham.”

Former prime minister Rishi Sunak said in October last year, that extending HS2 from Old Oak Common to Euston, which is much closer to London’s centre, would be reliant on private investment and save £6.5bn of taxpayer’s cash.

It is currently unclear how the current Labour government is planning to fund extending HS2 to Euston. The Department for Transport has not responded to further questions from the BBC following Haigh’s comments.

However, in February, the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee released a report stating it was “highly sceptical” that the government would be able to attract private investment on “the scale and speed required” to make the extension to Euston as success.

Haigh said: “Even under the previous government’s chopped and changed and discredited plans for HS2 Euston was always going to be part of the solution.”

HS2 was originally a Labour party commitment, announced back in 2009, but since then, the project has been thwarted by ballooning costs and problems around its impact on communities.