The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a Sports Direct product ad after finding that its £45 recommended retail price (RRP) and related saving claim misled consumers. Sports Direct said it would contest the ruling.
The ruling, published today, concerned a Puma Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top advertised on sportsdirect.com on 10 February 2026.
The product page listed the top from £17 alongside a struck-through £45 RRP and an “up to 50% off” message. Consumer group Which? questioned whether the reference price represented the amount at which the product was generally sold.
Sports Direct, which is owned by Frasers Group, supplied written confirmation from Puma that the product’s RRP had always been £45. Puma also confirmed that it sold the top at that price from at least 1 February 2023 to 22 April 2024.
The retailer provided Puma price lists covering spring/summer 2024 to spring/summer 2026, a screenshot showing the top at £45 on Puma’s website, and another listing priced at £43.94.
However, the ASA said a manufacturer’s recommended price did not establish that the product was generally sold at that level. It also found the top priced at £17 by Sports Direct, £17 by another Frasers-owned retailer, and £23 through an online retailer specialising in sporting goods.
The £43.94 listing came from a small third-party seller with one unit left in stock, while the colour sold by Sports Direct was unavailable on Puma’s website.
The ASA said: “Overall, we considered the evidence suggested the stated RRP was not the price at which the product was generally sold across the market, and that the RRP and associated savings claim were not genuine.”
It stated that the ad must not appear again in the form complained of. The regulator told Sports Direct to ensure that future RRP comparisons reflected the relevant product’s usual selling price across retailers.
Sports Direct said the decision was “fundamentally wrong” and argued that consumers understood an RRP as a recommendation of retail value, rather than evidence of the price charged by most sellers. It also said no consumer had made a direct complaint about the ad and maintained that shoppers could not find a lower price elsewhere.
In a statement, the retailer said: “According to the ASA, this promotion breached the Advertising Code because the RRP did not reflect the price at which the product concerned was ‘generally sold across the market’.
“In fact, the ASA were supplied with evidence that it had been sold/advertised at the RRP, but they have chosen to ignore it.
“The ASA’s underlying approach to the use of RRPs, and their test, is fundamentally flawed and ‘out of touch’ anyway.
“We do not accept that it is the valid legal test for whether an RRP is misleading or not, or that it reflects consumers’ understanding of RRPs, which have been around for many decades.
“Its application by the ASA is to the detriment of consumers being able to find the best possible deals and the test is also unworkable in practice for traders, having to compile data from ‘across the market’ in order to establish each and every RRP they use.
“The specific evidence of consumer behaviour the ASA seeks to rely on to defend its position goes back around eight years.
“The world has moved on.”
The decision follows an open letter from Frasers Group Chief Financial Officer Chris Wootton on 28 August, which asked the ASA to reconsider its guidance.
Wootton argued that requiring retailers to establish market-wide selling prices imposed an unreasonable burden because competitors’ sales data may not be available. He also said the approach could restrict RRP comparisons for exclusive products or new launches.
Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy Rocio Concha said: “Customers shouldn’t have to second-guess whether the price claims they see are accurate.
“It is unacceptable that Sports Direct abused consumer trust with misleading reference prices that might lead them to think they are getting a good deal.
“The ASA’s ruling is a positive step, but there needs to be a much stronger deterrent against misleading price claims.
“This case highlights the need for the Government to implement its ban on deceptive pricing urgently to give consumers much-needed protection and a fair chance for businesses that price honestly.”