Foffa Bikes appear to admit to price fixing with Wiggle in Bike Biz article

It's perfectly fine (morally) for Foffa to contract with Wiggle et al to supply their branded product on condition that it is retailed at a certain price. That's freedom of contract for you.

I'm not sure what the qualifier "morally" is supposed to do to the sentence.

And we weren't talking about the wholesale price, we're talking about the retail price to the end customer.

"freedom of contract" is misguided as an idea too.

Contract law does not take precedence over other laws.

You can put whatever you like in a contract, but it doesn't mean it's enforceable, realistic, or that it is right in any way (morally or otherwise). Generally if you put something in a contract that isn't legal, it invalidates the contract.

The UK (not EU) law I cited was abundantly clear on this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/53/enacted#section-9

1. Minimum resale prices maintained by contract or agreement
   
   

(1) Any term or condition—

(a) of a contract for the sale of goods by a supplier to a dealer, or

(b) of any agreement between a supplier and a dealer relating to such a sale,

is void in so far as it purports to establish or provide for the establishment of minimum prices to be charged on the resale of the goods in the United Kingdom.

So any term or condition in a contract (or agreement, this law does cover verbal arrangements too) that has Foffa Bikes determining the retail price of an item, specifically the minimum price... very specifically in this case let's look at Dani's quote:

[Wiggle] and every other retailer working with us are forbidden from discounting

Dani asserts that they cannot discount, so Dani is asserting that there is a minimum retail price that Foffa Bikes forbids retailers from going below.

This is detached from the wholesale price Foffa Bikes sets, Wiggle and others are not permitted by Foffa Bikes to sell the bikes below a certain price.

Continuing with the UK law:

(2)It is unlawful for a supplier of goods (or for an association or person acting on behalf of such suppliers)—

(a)to include in a contract for sale or agreement relating to the sale of goods a term or condition which is void by virtue of this section ;

And there we have it. It's unlawful to include in any contract or agreement any condition that sets the minimum retail price.

As the contract itself would then be rendered illegal, Wiggle are under no obligation at all to honour any such clause (or frankly, anything else in a contract that contains such a clause).

Hence the bigger question unrelated to Foffa, are Wiggle complicit in fixing the minimum price of items that they sell based on such contracts and arrangements?

And finally, since you seem to think this is some EU thing (some bizarre political argument you have going on there), it's worth noting that the UK law predates the EU law and the UK membership of Europe. The UK law is from 1956, the EU law is from after that date. But... that EU law does exist and does not contradict UK law really strengthens the UK law (it can't be challenged by some argument that an EU law makes it irrelevant).