Controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile5 entries
2022
CMA fines JD Sports and Footasylum for competition rule breaches
Fine or penalty
The Competition and Markets Authority fined JD Sports and Footasylum almost £4.7m for breaching rules around their attempted merger. The regulator said the firms exchanged commercially sensitive information and failed to alert it promptly. JD accepted that it had received limited sensitive information but disputed some of the regulator's conclusions.
Company response
Denial — JD Sports
However, JD believes that a number of the further conclusions which the CMA have drawn are either incorrect or have been presented in a misleading manner through the use of inflammatory language.
Source excerpt
It said they had also "deleted" some records of their talks.
However, JD believes that a number of the further conclusions which the CMA have drawn are either incorrect or have been presented in a misleading manner through the use of inflammatory language.
Sportswear retailers JD Sports and Footasylum have been fined almost £4.7m after breaching the rules around an attempted merger last year.
2021
Footasylum information-sharing enforcement case
The Competition and Markets Authority found that JD Sports and Footasylum had breached requirements connected with the Footasylum investigation after alleged covert meetings between their chief executives. The businesses were fined a combined £4.7 million.
2020
Go Outdoors administration and repurchase
JD Sports placed Go Outdoors into administration and later bought the subsidiary back. The restructuring was controversial because creditors lost a substantial portion of amounts owed.
2019
Renewed warehouse labor criticism
Further reporting and public criticism raised concerns about warehouse labor practices and the treatment of staff.
2016
Criticism of UK warehouse working conditions
JD Sports faced allegations concerning the treatment and working conditions of UK warehouse employees. Public commentary described the environment as exceptionally harsh and compared it with prison-like or Victorian industrial conditions.