Copyright Yardbarker
Tottenham Hotspur and INEOS finally settle sponsorship dispute Tottenham Hotspur reached an agreement with INEOS that ends the long-running dispute. The club took legal action after the petrochemicals group withdrew from a sponsorship arrangement that had originally been in place for five years but was terminated after three. The partnership first covered hand sanitiser and 4×4 vehicles in 2020 and later expanded to include broader branding elements in 2022, but the sudden withdrawal created tension over payments that Tottenham believed INEOS still owed. The Telegraph reported on 5th November that both sides have now settled out of court. Spurs sought more than £11m, which included missed payments from last year, expected funds for the 2026-27 season, and interest. However, the final figure looks much lower. Now, former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson told Football Insider that the settlement may sit closer to £1m or slightly above, based on the documents he reviewed. INEOS filed a counter-claim of over £1m, accusing Spurs of exploring potential sponsorship ties with Audi during the period in question, a move they argued influenced the collapse of the original deal. Borson said Tottenham did have some valid arguments, but they were unlikely to secure the full amount they initially claimed. The agreement ends the dispute, and both sides can now move on with their business plans. “I saw one report that was something like £11m. I don’t think it’s anywhere near that.” “I said before I expected it to settle when you read the case. I did pay to download the pleadings to have a look at what the case was about and who had the better of the case. If I had to estimate, I would think it was only settled for about £1m in Spurs’ direction. Maybe £1.5-2m, but it’s that sort of order, not £10-11m.” “I don’t think they had a particularly strong chance of winning their upper limits of damages, but I do think they had a case, particularly in relation to the season where INEOS effectively attempted to just cancel in mid-season. I do think they had a case there. I can see why there would be some payment to them and it seems sensible.” Meanwhile, the club is active in the transfer market, as they are reportedly tracking the development of Alex Scott for a possible move. Meanwhile, Chelsea have officially inquired about Tottenham Hotspur target Nico Paz. TTLB opinion The settlement shows that the football business rarely offers clean victories. Tottenham pushed for more than £11m, but they appear to have accepted a fraction of that figure. The club seemed confident in their claim, and the argument about mid-season cancellation had some weight, so the outcome raises questions about how strong their overall position actually was. Meanwhile, INEOS will treat this as a clean ending that helps their public image at a time when everything linked to Sir Jim Ratcliffe attracts scrutiny due to his involvement at Manchester United. Spurs will say they protected the club’s interests and closed the dispute, which is fair. However, supporters might wonder whether the commercial structure behind the scenes is strong enough, especially after a major sponsor walked away early. The club often speaks about ambition, long-term stability, and growth, and this episode doesn’t match that message well.
