05846-24 Rebekah and Jamie Vardy v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Rebekah and Jamie Vardy complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Rebekah Vardy, another showbiz leak and the question: Will she EVER stop meddling in the affairs of other footballers' wives?”, published on 12 October 2024.

2. The article reported on the relationship between Rebekah Vardy and another woman who was also married to a professional footballer, as well as alleged financial difficulties faced by the couple It featured the line, “this must put a dent in the Vardy family finances, especially, as I can reveal, a U.S. soccer team into which Jamie [Vardy] made a significant investment went bust last year, citing an ‘unsustainable business model’”. It also stated of Mr Vardy, “seeing his investment in the Rochester Rhinos bomb after it had been announced to significant fanfare just two years ago must be a huge disappointment […] while he is still scoring for Leicester, he is 37 – his next contract may be less lucrative.” It also featured a quote from a source who stated, “they owe a lorryload of money and Jamie is the only breadwinner at the moment.”

3. The article also appeared online under the headline, “Rebekah Vardy owes 'a lorryload of money', is 'addicted to drama' and her husband has suffered a financial setback. The Wagatha fall-out goes on, reveals KATIE HIND.”

4. The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because they disputed Mr Vardy had been made a “significant investment” in the mentioned football club. They said while Mr Vardy had made a few visits to the club to “show his face”, he had made no financial investment in the club. They said his minority stakeholder status was given so the club could say he was involved, which would make it “easier for the club to attract new players” in the “notoriously difficult landscape” of the league the club played in.

5. The complainants also said it was inaccurate to report the football club had “gone bust”. They said the club still existed and still owned the franchise to play in the US leagues. They said the club also still had youth teams and an academy but had decided not to pursue the senior team for “financial reasons”. They said the owners could re-enter a senior male team back into another league if it wished.

6. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report Mr Vardy had made a significant investment in the football club. It said the complainants had interpreted "significant investment" as solely a financial sum, but the article did not specify this. It argued a "significant investment" could take various forms, and Mr Vardy's involvement with the club was substantial. It said given the complainants’ financial focus, the collapse of the club where he was a co-owner was notable.

7. The publication said - to the extent that the article could be interpreted to refer to a financial investment - there was a large volume of material in the public domain which strongly implied Mr Vardy paid a significant sum to become a “co-owner” of the club. It said this included many media reports of the announcements, which had not been corrected or updated since they were published three years earlier. To support its position, it supplied contemporaneous articles which reported (for example) “’Vardy invests in US club’” and “Mr Vardy had ‘struck a deal to invest in the Rochester Rhinos and will join its board’”. The publication also quoted from an article where Mr Vardy himself had commented that his stake in the club was a “meaningful enough share to have a seat at the table”. In the same article, the other co-owners of the club were quoted as stating it was “…peculiar that we’re going to be investing millions of dollars with [Mr Vardy]”. The article also reported that “[the other co-owners] have got used to Vardy sending them WhatsApp messages at all times of the day, which is a measure of how invested he is in the project in every sense”. It also provided a social media post from the club which stated Mr Vardy “had bought a minority stake”.

8. Notwithstanding the fact the newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code, on 6 November, nine days after it was passed the complaint by IPSO, it offered to publish the following correction in its print corrections and clarifications column:

A feature on October 12 about Rebekah Vardy’s attempts to rehabilitate her image said that her husband Jamie Vardy made a ‘significant investment’ in a US soccer club. While this was based on the team’s press release and Mr Vardy’s own comments, he now wishes to make clear that in fact, his stake was granted for free.

9. It offered to publish the following as a standalone online correction in its online corrections and clarifications column:

A feature on October 12 about Rebekah Vardy’s attempts to rehabilitate her image said that Jamie Vardy made a ‘significant investment’ in a US soccer club. While this was based on the team’s press release which said that Mr Vardy had “bought a minority stake” and Mr Vardy saying that his stake was a “meaningful enough share to have a seat at the table” he now wishes to make clear that in fact, his stake was granted for free on the expectation his involvement would attract new players to the club.

10. The newspaper also offered to amend the online article so it would read:

All this must put a dent in the Vardy family finances – especially, as I can reveal, a U.S. soccer team which Jamie became a co-owner of went bust last year, citing an ‘unsustainable business model’. In fact, it turns out Jamie wasn’t even paid for his involvement – his stake was given to him for free on the expectation his involvement would attract new players to the club.

11. It also offered to publish the following wording as a footnote to the online article:

A previous version of this article said that Jamie Vardy made a ‘significant investment’ in a US soccer club. While this was based on the team’s press release which said that Mr Vardy had “bought a minority stake” and Mr Vardy saying that his stake was a “meaningful enough share to have a seat at the table” he now wishes to make clear that in fact, his stake was granted for free on the expectation his involvement would attract new players to the club.”

12. The newspaper did not accept it was inaccurate to report the club had “gone bust.” It said the club ceased operations because it did not have enough money. It said the club’s only public facing website was devoid of business activities and illustrated with AI-generated images and employees. It therefore did not consider it misleading to summarise this as the club going “bust”, especially when the club had explained this was due to an “unsustainable business model.”

13. The newspaper also disputed it was possible to investigate whether the club had “gone bust” point without the involvement of the football team itself.

14. The complainants confirmed they were not making a complaint on behalf of the football club.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

8. The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider complaints: (a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code; or (b) where an alleged breach of the Editors' Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected by the alleged breach; or (c) from a third party seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee firstly considered whether the publication had taken care not to print inaccurate information in reporting Mr Vardy had made a “significant investment” in the football club. Mr Vardy had stated in a press release he had “bought a minority stake in the club” and had participated in interviews alongside investors who had stated they were “going to be investing millions of dollars” into the club with Mr Vardy. The claim Mr Vardy had invested in the club had also been widely reported without correction for three years prior to the publication of the article. Considering this, the Committee were satisfied the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this statement, notwithstanding the fact the complainants later clarified that it was incorrect. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. The Committee then considered whether reporting Mr Vardy had made a “significant investment” in the club was significantly inaccurate or misleading and therefore in need of correction. The Committee recognised the publication’s position that a “significant investment” might not be financial. However, in the context of the article discussed the complainant’s alleged financial difficulties, and where the term was preceded by “this must but a significant dent in the Vardy family finances”, it was reasonable to conclude that the publication was referring to Mr Vardy having a financial stake in the club, which he said he did not. Where the inaccuracy added to the article’s claim that the couple were facing financial difficulties, the Committee found it to be significant, and therefore in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii).

17. The publication offered to run a correction nine days after IPSO made it aware of the complaint. The Committee was satisfied that this represented prompt action by the publication, as required by the terms of Clause 1(ii). The Committee also considered that, in light of the fact that the publication had offered both a standalone correction and a footnote correction, and the inaccurate information had appeared only once in the text of the article, that the proposed position of the corrections was duly prominent. The correction also put the correct position on record, that Mr Vardy’s “stake was granted for free on the expectation his involvement would attract new players to the club.” Considering these factors, the Committee found the correction to be have been offered sufficiently promptly, to be sufficiently prominent, and to make clear the correct position. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report the football team had “gone bust”. In this case, the alleged inaccuracy related to the financial position of the football team. In circumstances where the complainant was not complaining on behalf of the organisation, the complaint was a third-party complaint, which IPSO may, but is not obliged, to consider. In this instance, having taken the position of the football team into account, the Committee considered it was not able to make a finding on this point of complaint without the direct involvement of the football team itself – given the complaint related to concerns that its behaviour as an organisation had been inaccurately reported. Absent confirmation that the complainant was acting on the US football team’s behalf, the Committee declined to consider this aspect of the complaint further.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

19. N/A

Date complaint received: 15/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/02/2025