S4 Capital sales fall as tech clients divert cash to AI build-out

Sir Martin Sorrell’s S4 Capital has been hit with sliding sales as its biggest clients spend less on advertising and more on building AI.

The digital advertising group behind Monks reported revenue of £754.8m for 2025, down 11 per cent from £848.2m a year earlier.

Net revenue fell 10.8 per cent to £673m, reflecting weaker demand across both its marketing and technology arms.

Pre-tax losses narrowed sharply to £23.8m from £330.9m the previous year, while the company cut headcount by 11.5 per cent to around 6,350 as it tightened costs.

Sorrell said: “Throughout 2025, our trading reflected the continuing impact of increasingly volatile global macroeconomic conditions… technology clients – representing almost half our revenue – continuing to prioritise capital expenditure on expanding AI capacity over operating expenditure.”

Ad budgets squeezed by AI spend

The results mirror an emerging shift of large tech firms pouring billions into AI infrastructure, subsequently leaving less room for marketing budgets.

Tech clients still make up a significant chunk of S4’s business, though their share dropped to 41 per cent in 2025, from 45 per cent the year prior.

That move weighed significantly on performance, especially in the group’s technology services division, where revenue fell sharply after client losses and slower deal-making.

Marketing services seem to have held up better, yet still declined as major clients stripped back spending.

Sorrell recently warned that the agency sector is “basically flat as a pancake”, and cannot continue in its current form as pressures build from AI, economic uncertainty and changing client priorities.

The company also the conflict in the Middle East and ongoing tariff tensions, saying those factors are making clients more cautious, delaying decisions on campaigns and spending.

“There’s just general caution”, Sorrell said in a recent interview. “Getting up every morning and having to deal with the implications of all this uncerainty is not pleasant for marketers”.

Despite the revenue decline, S4 improved its cash position. Free cash flow rose to £86.5m, up from £37.8m, while net debt fell to £86.9m from £142.9m, helped by tighter control of costs and working capital.

The board proposed a final dividend of 1.1p per share, up 10 per cent on last year.

Looking ahead

For 2026, S4 expects net revenue to come in slightly below 2025 levels, with a weak first quarter already flagged due to ongoing client caution and geopolitical pressures.

It is targeting further reductions in net debt to between £60m and £90m.

And at the same time, the firm is trying to position itself for the very trend hitting its revenues.

The group said it is winning new business tied to AI-driven marketing, like work with clients such as Samsung, Visa and Amazon, and is increasingly using AI tools to produce ad content faster and more cheaply.

Sorrell said: “While the macroeconomic environment remains uncertain, we see growing opportunities as clients become more selective… and increasingly focused on implementing technologies such as AI”.

The update comes just days after S4 revealed it is in early stage talks with MSQ over a potential tie-up, a move that briefly lifted its shares after they had slumped to an all-time low.

Wall Street private credit fears grow as Apollo blocks withdrawals

Wall Street’s private credit crisis has spread further as further asset management giants blocked withdrawals from flagship funds.

Apollo Global Management became the latest shadow bank to cap redemptions from one its biggest private credit funds after investors tried to pull $1.6bn (£1.1bn) over the last three months, as investor worries over the $3 trillion sector grow.

The asset manager said the withdrawal requests totalled 11.2 per cent of the fund’s $15bn in net assets, which was more than double the five per cent quarterly cap on redemptions that the fund allows.

Apollo confirmed it would maintain the five per cent cap.

Its move to cap withdrawals follow similar decisions from other firms, such as Blackrock which limited withdrawals from a $26bn debt fund.

Blackstone, Blue Owl, JP Morgan and Clearwater have also been rocked by the crisis.

Apollo’s shares are down 24.6 per cent this year to date, trading at $110.4.

Ares limits withdrawals

Ares Management also limited withdrawals from one of its private credit funds aimed at wealthy individuals.

The block comes after redemptions surged to 11.6 per cent in the first quarter, causing it to cap redemptions in its strategic income fund at five per cent.

Ares said it received $1.2bn of redemption requests at the $10.7bn fund, fulfilling $524m of those requests.

The fund honoured all redemption requests in the final quarter of 2025, despite the fact they had risen above the five per cent threshold.

The company said in a letter: “We have made this decision, as with all capital allocation decisions, aligned with what we believe are the best interests of the fund and all our stakeholders, including the overwhelming majority of shareholders who remain invested.”

It added that it believed the fund was “positioned to capitalise” on market ructions while providing investors “liquidity within its stated parameters”.

Thrown into turmoil

Sentiment surrounding private credit, which has been one of the fastest-growing financial sectors, has soured over recent months causing investors to increasingly demand their money from funds, throwing the industry into turmoil.

Trouble for the industry began in September 2025, following the back to back bankruptcies of auto lender Tricolor and car-part maker Firstbrands, as fears grew that AI could knock out traditional software as well as lending standards in some areas of the market.

Attitudes worsened as investors became increasingly fearful that the software and technology firms that make up a large portion of the industry’s loan portfolios were uniquely vulnerable to being replaced or disrupted by AI.

The ongoing Middle Eastern conflict has also raised worries, with rocketing oil prices threatening to feed into inflation, piling pressure on central banks to keep interest rates higher which in turn increases debt servicing costs, reducing their ability to repay.

Many investors are retreating back to the safety of liquid assets, such as stocks and bonds, but others are eyeing the European private credit market which is yet to see the “same scale of redemption pressure” as parts of the US, or emerging markets. 

Others are becoming even more cautious, opting to flee the investment market altogether for the safety of cash or fixed-income products.

Financial crisis parallels

The dynamic has caused debate among industry figures, with former Goldman Sachs’ boss Lloyd Blankfein warning he “smells” signs of another financial crisis, while others expressed perplexity at people’s actions.

Meanwhile, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey also warned of the parallels between the private credit boom and subprime debt boom that led to the 2008 global financial crisis.

Marc Rowan, Apollo’s chief executive, followed suit, warning that a “shakeout” was coming for private credit firms.


Speaking at a conference earlier this month, he said: “I don’t think it is going to be short term.”

Investor jitters pose a dangerous risk to the financial system, because of the scale of private credit lending, which extends across a range of sectors, including technology and energy.

Apollo, which manages $938bn in assets, took out a short position from First Brands and was one of the few firms to profit from its downfall, but it is now exposed to software, which is plaguing investors who are fearful of its future amid expanding AI capabilities.

Software companies account for around a fifth of all private credit loans, leaving companies worrying their business models could be damaged by AI.

Roughly 12.3 per cent of the loans in the Apollo Debt Solutions fund are to software companies and In February, it recorded its first monthly loss in more than three years.

Apollo said in a letter to shareholders: “As long-term stewards of capital, we have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of all Fund investors, balancing the interests of shareholders seeking liquidity with those who choose to remain invested.”

It added: “We also believe we are entering the current period of technological disruption from a position of strength. Apollo has consciously chosen to create portfolios that are underweight software exposure relative to the broader private credit markets, guided by our commitment to cash-flow-based underwriting.”

Kingfisher: B&Q owner sales dragged down by weakness in overseas brands

B&Q owner Kingfisher saw the success of its UK brands dragged down by struggles overseas, as sales in France and Poland took a dip.

The FTSE 100 firm suffered falling sales in its French Castorama (-2.2 per cent) and Brico Depot (-2.3 per cent) brands and in Poland (-1.1 per cent), while sales grew by more than three per cent at UK brands B&Q and Screwfix.

The DIY firm has been battling stagnant sales in Poland and France – where Castorama is among Kingfisher’s longest-struggling brands, according to analysts. 

Kingfisher’s share price jumped by two per cent on Tuesday’s early trading to 302p, leaving the stock up eight per cent over the last year but down more than 10 per cent since the pandemic-era DIY boom.

The company has focussed on cutting costs in recent years, as it offloaded £120m in excess weight last year. 

The company notched an adjusted pre-tax profit of £560m, up six per cent from last year and in line with analysts’ expectations.

Total sales across Kingfisher’s brands edged up by only 0.2 per cent. 

B&Q and Screwfix will be looking forward to the DIY push that comes each spring, as competitors say the UK’s ageing housing stock keeps demand for home improvement high.

But Kingfisher’s brands, like its rival Wickes, has struggled in recent years to shift its big-ticket items like kitchen renovations, with Brits cutting back discretionary spending as they feel the crunch.

The French Castorama brand is suffering most from the drop in appetite for big buys, with sales for these products down 4.5 per cent year on year. 

Kingfisher said B&Q and Screwfix’s strong performance is due to a focus on e-commerce, strong sales boost during seasonal periods and B&Q’s acquisition of a string of Homebase stores.

B&Q and Screwfix expand aggressively

Kingfisher continued its physical expansion in the UK, with Screwfix opening 32 new locations and closing five. 

B&Q opened 10 new stores – eight of which were converted from former Homebase outlets – and closed three, as Kingfisher saw 41 net openings across its global brands. 

Kingfisher said it hopes to push growth by focusing on sales to tradespeople because they visit more frequently and spend more than the average customer.

The company has created specialist trade zones in each of its stores and saw growth in trade sales of five and four per cent at B&Q and Screwfix, and as much as 47 per cent in Castorama Poland.

The firm announced a new £300m share buyback programme, having bought back £1.2bn in shares since 2021.

Revolut profit booms after poaching record customers from high street banks

Revolut revealed a major boom in its bottom line on Tuesday morning after the fintech giant poached a record amount of customers from its high street rivals.

The $75bn digital banking titan posted a 57 per cent surge in group-wide profit to £1.7bn.

It came as retail customers expanded by a record 16m as the London-born challenger continued to park its tanks on the lawns of the traditional global banking elite. Total customers swelled to 68.3m.

The growth helped accelerate the fintech’s revenue 46 per cent, hitting £4.5bn. Subscriptions served as a major source of this with the area having the highest year-on-year revenue increase – and outperforming headline profit and revenue growth – at 67 per cent to £708m.

Card payments increased 45 per cent to £1bn.

In the bank’s business arm, customers grew 23 per cent closing in on the 800m mark. Revolut Business accounted for £277bn of total transaction value after a boom in markets such as Singapore, Australia and the US.

City AM reported on Tuesday morning that the bank was gearing up for hiring spree across its financial hubs with trading and wealth set to take a focus.

The firm is hiring for a product owner, where the job advertisement also notes “experience in margin trading or trading platforms” would be “nice to have”. 

Margin trading – also known as leveraged trading – is understood to be an area of potential expansion for Revolut, with the area serving as a high-growth and potentially high-profit for lenders, allowing banks to earn both commission and interest on cash dished out.

Revolut to ramp up fight to big banks after licence win

The fresh financial results come weeks after Revolut announced it had bagged a full-fat UK banking licence following a four-year wait for the final green light from the watchdog.

The amount of balances held at the bank jumped 66 per cent to £50.2bn in the last year.

It comes as analysts forecast a “deposit war” after Revolut clinched its UK banking permit with incumbents Lloyds and Natwest predicted to be the top targets.

The UK’s big four banks – Natwest, Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays – currently hold around 60 per cent of the industry’s £2.5 trillion deposits.

Bloomberg Intelligence calculates that every £10bn of current account outflows from the UK’s largest lenders could lead to as much as £375 million in annual net interest income erosion – a four per cent dent to the expected profits of Lloyds and Natwest this year.

Nik Storonsky, Revolut’s founder and top boss, said: “As we transition into a truly global bank, we are proving that our technology-driven operating model continues to drive rapid expansion and record profitability”.

In its financial report the fintech juggernaut said it “remains focused” on its next milestone of clocking 100m customers by mid-2027.

FTSE 100 Live: Stocks dip; Reeves give energy update as oil prices jump

Good morning and welcome back to the City AM liveblog.

Oil is back on the rise this morning following a series of mixed messages on Monday that brought forward a day of whiplash for global markets.

The trading session started with nosedives into the red as markets digested President Trump’s 48 hour ultimatum on Iran, which was scheduled to finish on Monday night.

Brent crude – the international benchmark for oil prices – was trading around $114 per barrel as trading kicked off.

It was followed hours later by a shocking Truth Social post from President Donald Trump that he was pausing strikes due to “productive” talks with the Iranian leadership.

But word coming out of the regime in Tehran appeared to contradict Trump’s comments, with media associated with the nation’s revolutionary guard pouring cold water on the idea of a peace deal.

It didn’t stop markets from flying the TACO flag however, as Trump’s five-day delay on his strikes threatened as part of the ultimatum helped pick up market sentiment.

The FTSE 100 finished the day down 0.2 per cent after an incredible amount of volatility that saw the index drop nearly two per cent deep into the red and one per cent into the green at different occasions.

“The hardest part is not predicting the war but predicting the communication from the White House and how much markets will react to it,” Mizuho’s Jordan Rochester said.

We’ll be bringing you the latest market reaction and more.

Here’s a few of our top headlines from yesterday:

    Regulation isn’t cost-free and not every problem can be fixed with a new rule

    Politicians all too often reach for the regulation lever because “something must be done” – it could be costing businesses £70bn a year, says Cory Berman

    As of this September, all new building applications over 18 metres must include a second staircase. The rule was introduced after the horrific Grenfell Tower tragedy, to improve building safety. At face value, it sounds like a sensible – presumably justified – response to  a national wake-up call. Only it was neither – the government at the time could produce no evidence that it would save lives, and the cost-benefit analysis was overwhelmingly negative.

    It’s the perfect example of politicians reaching for the regulation lever because “something must be done”, but in the process not only failing against their primary objective (to save lives) but actively damaging other key priorities (getting Britain building and reducing the cost of housing).

    This is not a one-off – it is a pattern. Britain’s regulatory system is broken, and both businesses and the public are paying the price. 

    Our current regulatory landscape is the result of successive governments saying that they want to reduce the burden, even launching “red tape challenges”, while simultaneously creating rule after new rule – often based on inadequate analysis and nodded through Parliament with practically no scrutiny.

    That second staircase review is one example in many of poor regulation. Martyn’s Law is another, devised as a response to the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack, the government’s own analysis estimated that the costs would outweigh the benefits by 70 to one. It is impossible to argue that this meets the proportionality requirement in the business department’s principles of economic regulation, yet it was enshrined in Statute regardless. 

    Give the watchdog teeth

    Since 2022, the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) – the independent regulation watchdog – has rated departmental assessments “weak” or “very weak” 25 per cent of the time. Since 2020, 60 per cent of the Treasury’s impact assessments were rated not fit-for-purpose. Regulations with poor analysis of their impact should not be able to proceed, yet right now there is no real consequence for shoddy work. 

    To this end, Re:State’s new paper calls on the government to strengthen the RPC and give it teeth. Instead, it is rumoured that they want to scrap it entirely – a stunningly short-sighted decision for a government supposedly committed to cutting the cost of regulation and rewiring Whitehall. 

    On top of this, while the system is waving through thousands of (often poor quality) regulations, it’s largely failing to review those already on the books to check they actually work. Departments are required to conduct Post-Implementation Reviews by law, yet in the last year just seven were recorded. 

    This matters. Regulation is a go-to solution for policymakers because it is easy to pass, visible and appears cost-free. But regulation is not cost-free. The government’s Regulatory Action Plan estimates the cost to business at £70bn annually, equivalent to 3-4 per cent of GDP, though many believe the true cost is far higher. 

    Whitehall should introduce a world-first system of regulatory budgeting, akin to the way the Treasury manages public spending, where a total spending envelope is set and divided among different departments

    With growth stagnating, the government must be bold. Whitehall should introduce a world-first system of regulatory budgeting, akin to the way the Treasury manages public spending, where a total spending envelope is set and divided among different departments. Setting a multi-year envelope for regulatory costs by sector would force a more conscious approach to regulation – one which clearly articulates the trade-offs of enacting new rules. And for further motivation, the OBR should factor these into their economic forecasts as they do fiscal measures.

    Ultimately, this is a question of political choice – as the second staircase rule exemplifies. Regulation has become the easiest route to visible action – a way for governments to respond quickly without confronting harder trade-offs. But politics is all about trade-offs. A government serious about growth must be willing to relinquish its favourite shortcut and accept that not every problem requires a new rule.

    Cory Berman is a researcher at Re:State

    UK must learn lessons from this crisis – starting with energy policy

    Has the US brought Iran to heel? Or has Iran discovered it has the upper hand? These are urgent questions and the world waits with bated breath for clear answers.

    Trump claims Iran approached the US, seeking a deal to end the war, and while the Iranians deny this it seems likely that contact has taken place – whether directly or through intermediaries.

    However, it is also entirely possible that Trump has simply grown nervous about the costs of the campaign (tens of billions of dollars), the threat to global markets and trade, rocketing inflation and painful prices at the pump. In other words, he’s looking for an off ramp.

    Even if the two sides (though don’t forget about Israel) declare some kind of truce in the coming days, the global economy will not snap back into place.

    The region’s energy infrastructure has suffered significant damage, not least in Qatar, and while economists debate whether ‘demand destruction’ is setting in (whereby economic activity is degraded to such an extent that the crisis develops a dangerously long tail) there is another area where the consequences have been made painfully clear: the vulnerability of the UK’s energy system.

    If you doubt how exposed our economy is, consider that 24 days of conflict in the Middle East has seen our economic growth forecasts cut in half. KPMG thinks we’ll clock up a growth rate of 0.7 this year. Analysts at Oxford Economics are less optimistic, penciling in a rate of 0.4 per cent.

    Inflation will rise. Monetary policy has been upended. The government will spend money it doesn’t have in trying to ease the burden on households. Welfare spending will rise.

    Time to recognise reality

    There are many lessons the UK must take from this crisis, but energy policy must be top of the list. Ed Miliband’s job title, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, has become an oxymoron.

    His messianic pursuit of the latter has undermined the former. He is increasingly isolated, as calls to exploit North Sea oil and gas come from the bosses of Centrica and Octopus Energy as well as RenewableUK, the trade body for green energy, all of whom recognise that for as long as we need oil and gas it makes economic and strategic sense to get it here rather than ship it in from what is now the most volatile region in the world.

    The government needs to recognise reality, but Ed Miliband stands in the way.

    Advertising Week Europe boss: humans still run the show in the age of AI

    As Advertising Week Europe kicks off, the conversation isn’t about replacing human talent, but about recalibration, says Ruth Mortimer

    We’ve all read the headlines, the hyperbolic predictions and the confident declarations that everything is about to change. Apparently artificial intelligence is going to change each and every one of our jobs and lives immediately. 

    But as you read this, I’ll be at Advertising Week Europe where we’re bringing together nearly 10,000 people to talk about creativity and technology. And the conversation won’t be about replacement, but recalibration.

    History tells us that transformational technology rarely does what we expect. Original predictions claimed the internet would disrupt the power of the major global media companies. Remember the decentralized web? But instead there has been a reconsolidation of power into the major platform businesses. The internet was also going to increase productivity and while it certainly has, don’t tell me you haven’t lost months of your life to doomscrolling. 

    Ideas that feel certain online tend to get tested and dismantled when you put them in front of the people actually building, using, and investing in them. This week we will be talking about the real application of AI to creativity. Who will win now as creation and distribution become even more accessible?

    We will discover new voices, new formats and new ideas that may never have been amplified before. These will be human creators, unheard stories and what they do will remain emotional, meaningful and personal in nature to resonate with other people.

    Because for all our technological advancement, the fundamentals of marketing are, and always will be, stubbornly human. The techniques and channels change but the work that endures, and the ideas that travel, still depend on judgement, taste, and cultural fluency.

    What events like this do, at their best, is accelerate that understanding. They create a space where optimism feels grounded, where curiosity outweighs fear and where the approaching world feels a little less abstract. Welcome to the (human) future.

    The creator remix 

    Everything always comes back around, from wired headphones and arcade games to Y2K fashion (low-rise jeans anyone?). Nostalgia thrives in uncertain times, but today it’s being actively engineered. Creators are taking the cultural shorthand of the past and repackaging it for highly engaged, highly specific audiences. Where traditional media audiences have fragmented, creators arrive with one built in. For brands, that’s the real shift: it’s no longer just about what you make, but who carries it into culture.

    Is your skincare trying to fix your feelings?

    I’ve been thinking about the use of therapy language in marketing recently. It hit me in a crowded shop, hot and bothered, when a sign told me to “protect my peace”. My peace? Not protected. Successful marketing speaks to what consumers actually want when they buy a product – and today, in our wellness era, it’s emotional reassurance and alignment with the self-care memo. But trends fade. When everything is “soothing” and “affirming,” I suspect humour, irreverence, or a return to aspiration will make a comeback.

    Ruth Mortimer is global president of Advertising Week Europe

    The oil crisis isn’t just financial, it’s physical

    Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz isn’t just an economic shock, it’s harming the physical infrastructure that underpins global markets, says Helen Thomas

    Five years ago this week, the Ever Given ran aground in the Suez Canal, blocking one of the world’s key waterways for six days. Oil prices jumped six per cent as roughly 3m barrels a day were delayed. In a pandemic-ravaged world, households fretted over supply shortages and delayed Amazon packages. By the time the ship was freed, 420 vessels were queued behind it. The backlog cleared within days. The disruption lingered for weeks.

    And that was one ship, for one week, in one waterway.

    Today, the disruption centred on the Strait of Hormuz is of a completely different order. Around 150 vessels typically pass through the strait each day. What we are now facing is the equivalent of thousands of Ever Givens meaning this is not a temporary blockage but a systemic breakdown.

    Crucially, this is not just a financial shock. It is a physical one.

    When energy cargoes cannot leave ports, the consequences cascade through the real economy. Oil that does not ship does not arrive at refineries. Refined fuel does not reach petrol stations. Workers cannot commute. Trains do not run. Aircraft cannot refuel for return journeys. Logistics networks slow, then stall. Goods fail to move through production chains. At the extreme, if fertiliser doesn’t make it to crops during the sowing season, harvests fail. Thai temples are already reporting that they can no longer afford to cremate the dearly departed. 

    At each stage, the impact compounds. Shortages trigger hoarding. Prices spike not gradually, but violently, as buyers scramble for whatever supply remains. What begins as a disruption becomes a feedback loop.

    Even an immediate ceasefire would not halt what is already in motion. The shockwave has begun to propagate.

    We have seen elements of this dynamic before. The collapse of Lehman Brothers froze trade finance as banks withdrew letters of credit and trust between counterparties evaporated, slowing global trade to a crawl. The eurozone crisis prompted bank runs as depositors chose cash under mattresses over money in financial institutions. During Covid, households stockpiled goods as people physically took themselves out of circulation. Each shock began in confidence and spread into the real economy. None could be easily reversed once underway.

    The same logic now applies. Energy production cannot simply be switched back on overnight. Even in an optimistic scenario, it takes weeks to restart oil and LNG output. Tankers, already diverted, are in the wrong places. Refineries require additional time to return to full capacity. According to estimates from The Economist, even if hostilities ended immediately, it could take four months for energy markets to approach normality. And that assumes shipping confidence returns quickly which is far from guaranteed.

    Throw out the playbook

    The familiar policy playbook looks increasingly inadequate. Central banks can adjust interest rates, but they cannot conjure fertiliser shipments or reroute tankers. Strategic reserves offer only limited relief. The International Energy Agency can release around two million barrels per day from emergency stockpiles against a current shortfall closer to eight million. 

    More importantly, timing matters. April marks a critical window for South Asian economies to import fertiliser ahead of June planting and September harvests. Miss that window, and the consequences are not marginal, they are exponential. Lower yields today mean higher food prices tomorrow.

    We have seen how fragile this balance can be. In Sri Lanka, a sudden shift to organic farming in 2021 which banned synthetic fertilisers devastated crop yields, drove up food prices and contributed directly to political collapse. What might appear a niche agricultural policy rapidly became a national crisis.

    If that feels distant, the constraints closer to home are just as binding. Western governments are far less able to cushion shocks than they were during the pandemic. Debt levels are higher, inflation remains sticky, and borrowing costs are no longer near zero. The era of unlimited fiscal intervention has passed.

    European governments have already moved to contain the pressure. Italy, Austria and Slovenia have cut fuel duties. Spain has reduced VAT on fuel. Portugal is preparing to cap electricity prices. Greece has imposed limits on fuel margins. Slovakia has introduced differential pricing, while Croatia has capped retail fuel prices outright.

    The UK, by contrast, looks constrained. It faces structurally higher energy costs due to the legacy of weak policy choices alongside deteriorating fiscal dynamics. Political authority is lacking. Keir Starmer may hold office, but the sense of control is less clear.

    That matters, because fuel crises have a habit of becoming political crises. The 2000 fuel protests tested Tony Blair early in his premiership. The petrol shortages of 2021, driven by HGV driver shortages, triggered widespread panic buying.

    Today, the stakes are higher. The cost of living has remained a persistent concern for voters, and energy sits at the heart of it. When supply is physically constrained, the usual tools of monetary easing, fiscal transfers and political messaging lose much of their force. Central bankers are busy fighting the last war, fearful of de-anchoring inflation expectations.

    This is what makes the current moment so dangerous. We are not dealing with a market correction or a temporary spike. We are confronting a disruption to the physical systems that underpin modern economies.

    The dominoes are already falling. And once they are in motion, they are extraordinarily difficult to stop.

    Helen Thomas is founder and CEO of Blonde Money

    Rugby resists modern marketing but Les Bleus have created a blueprint

    The sport of rugby union can be confusing. I don’t mean the rules – although they are part of the problem – but more how a sport can both thrive and struggle to survive almost simultaneously.

    Nowhere has this been more evident than in the 2026 men’s Six Nations. It was a tournament many claim to be the greatest ever, with record scorelines and viewing figures.

    Yet in between matches we saw documentaries about player welfare and stories about the commercial struggles of the domestic game. 

    In this cloud of uncertainty, rugby’s bright future can be found under the light shows of the Stade de France. 

    French rugby has known its own crises, but right now it looks in a completely different league, on the pitch and off it. In France, rugby does not feel like a sport in retreat. It feels like a sport discovering itself.

    Marketing sport in the modern world is not complicated. I’m not saying it’s easy; but it is simple. 

    Make stars. Not just excellent players, but figures who command attention beyond the pitch. Build spectacle – give people a reason to watch that extends beyond the scoreboard.

    Prioritise skill, creativity and flair on the field. Let athletes express themselves. Tell stories that invite supporters closer. And cross borders into music, entertainment and fashion.

    Yet rugby has been slow to become the showman it needs to be. There is something in the sport’s DNA that resists these marketing codes.

    Rugby has always preferred the collective to the individual, the system to the flourish. It distrusts the raised arm, the knowing grin, the hint of theatre. 

    Personality, in this ecosystem, can feel like a transgression. Just look at the polarisation caused by rising England star Henry Pollock to see how the sport is torn on what it wants to be. 

    Even its attempts at modernisation have carried a certain reluctance. The Netflix series Six Nations: Full Contact was meant to be rugby’s Drive To Survive moment.

    Instead, it often felt like knocking on a door that was only ever half-open. Access was limited, candour rationed. The stories never quite felt real. 

    Dupont and Bielle-Biarrey give France X factor

    Which is what makes France so compelling – because French rugby feels free to take the best of modern sport and apply it to the game with the same improvisation and creative disorder you see on the pitch.

    Yes, they are naturally blessed with superstars like Antoine Dupont and Louis Bielle-Biarrey who genuinely have the gravitational pull to bring in wider sports fans, but they set them up and set them free to be the individual icons the sport needs.

    Matchday in Paris has become an almost comical act of theatrical staging, with literal galloping horses in the build-up rivalling the great American football stadium shows of the US. 

    But their latest foray, into the world of fashion, is the most encouraging of all. Their 120th anniversary ‘Le Crunch’ limited edition kit sold out in hours, not just among French rugby supporters but sports fans around the world. It’s a tactic taken straight from the playbook of Paris Saint-Germain and other major European football clubs. 

    And the response has been emphatic. Television audiences for the national side increasingly rival those of football in France, a notion that would have felt implausible not long ago.

    Beneath that, the domestic structure easily supports two professional leagues whereas many nations can produce just two professional clubs. 

    Former Scotland player Jim Hamilton this week once again iterated his frustration that rugby has fallen so far behind other sports in how it promotes itself.

    Well, Les Bleus have created the blueprint, tested in Paris and visible to anyone willing to look: celebrate your stars, invest in the spectacle, tell better stories and meet audiences where they already are.

    Matt Readman is chief strategy officer at sports creative agency Dark Horses.