BBF v SLB: Competition Law and Governance on trial in British Basketball
Deen Taj, Solicitor
Beale & Co. (London)
Introduction
British basketball is facing its most serious governance crisis in decades. The British Basketball Federation and Super League Basketball are locked in a High Court battle over who should control the men’s professional league. At stake is more than the future of the competition itself. The case raises fundamental questions about how far competition law constrains sporting regulators, whether public funding obligations under the Code for Sports Governance have been met, and whether the sport can restore the credibility it needs to attract long-term investment.
The parties are as follows:
British Basketball Federation (BBF) is the governing body recognised by FIBA. It oversees the sport in Great Britain and receives significant public funding from UK Sport and Sport England.
Super League Basketball (SLB) was formed by nine of the leading clubs after the collapse of the British Basketball League in 2024. It operated the professional competition in 2024–25 under an interim licence from the BBF.
GBB League Ltd (GBBL) is a United States-backed consortium, led by Marshall Glickman, which was awarded a 15-year licence by the BBF in March 2025 to operate the league from 2026.
“From collapse to contest”
The roots of the dispute lie in the failure of the British Basketball League (BBL), which had been the country’s top-flight competition since the late 1980s. By 2023 the BBL was in financial distress. Despite a £7 million investment deal struck in 2021 with Miami-based 777 Partners, the league struggled with chronic losses, weak attendances and limited commercial revenue. Several clubs faced insolvency pressures, and the ownership model proved unsustainable.
In 2024 the BBL collapsed. This left professional basketball without a functioning league, threatening the immediate disappearance of the men’s game at elite level. The BBF, as the governing body, was forced to intervene. To prevent a complete vacuum, it granted an interim one-year licence to SLB, a company created by nine leading clubs including London Lions, Leicester Riders and Sheffield Sharks.
SLB ran the 2024–25 competition and invested more than £15 million to keep the league afloat. The clubs provided financial guarantees, secured venues and delivered a season, though without the backing of stable broadcast or sponsorship revenues. While this kept professional basketball alive, it was always presented as a temporary measure. SLB nonetheless saw itself as the natural successor to the BBL and pressed for permanent recognition.
The BBF took a different view. Determined to avoid a repeat of the instability that had characterised the BBL, it launched a tender for a long-term operator. The process was presented as open and competitive, aimed at securing outside investment and expertise. SLB objected to the terms, claiming they were unlawful, inconsistent with FIBA rules and overly restrictive. It withdrew from the tender.
In March 2025 the BBF announced that GBBL had been awarded a 15-year licence to run the league. At the same time, it refused SLB’s request for recognition to continue independently. That decision triggered the present litigation.
The legal challenge
SLB’s High Court claim alleges that the BBF has:
- abused its dominant position under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 by refusing recognition and insisting on licensing as the only route to operate; and
- entered into an anti-competitive agreement under section 2 of the Act by granting GBBL a 15-year licence that forecloses competition.
SLB also pleads that the BBF acted irrationally and unfairly, seeking damages of more than £10 million and declarations voiding the licence.
The BBF denies the allegations, arguing that licensing is essential to meet its regulatory duties and FIBA obligations. It counterclaims that SLB and its clubs are themselves acting anti-competitively by boycotting the new structure.
GBBL denies wrongdoing. It says it competed openly and is capable of operating a sustainable league.
Which rules apply?
The UK public procurement rules – Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 – do not apply, as the BBF is not a contracting authority. Two other frameworks govern.
Competition law: The court will decide whether the BBF’s refusal of recognition and its agreement with GBBL are objectively justified. Restrictions that are disproportionate or unnecessary may constitute abuse under section 18. If the licence restricts competition by object or effect, it may breach section 2. Comparable cases such as MOTOE[1] in Greece, the International Skating Union[2] decision and the recent European Super League[3] judgment confirm that sporting regulators who also act as market operators are subject to competition law. Each demonstrates that regulatory powers cannot be exercised in a way that excludes rivals unless restrictions are transparent, objective and proportionate.
The Code for Sports Governance: Because the BBF receives £4.75 million annually from UK Sport and Sport England, it must comply with Tier 3 of the Code. This requires transparency, accountability, integrity and value for money. The Code does not mirror procurement law, but it embodies the same principles of fairness and proportionate decision-making. The Sports Minister has asked UK Sport to investigate whether the BBF’s processes complied with these standards.
Legal analysis
Competition law: The BBF clearly holds a dominant position as the sole FIBA-recognised governing body. The key question is whether its refusal to recognise SLB and the terms of the GBBL licence can be justified as necessary and proportionate. If not, they may amount to abuse under section 18 of the Competition Act. Similarly, if the licence is found to restrict competition in its object or effect, it risks contravening section 2.
Governance standards: The Code for Sports Governance imposes mandatory requirements on Tier 3 organisations in receipt of public funds. These include transparency, independent oversight, clear accountability and responsible financial management. Even if the BBF’s conduct survives competition law scrutiny, a finding that it failed to meet its Code obligations could have serious implications for future funding.
Credibility of the sport: Beyond the legal framework, the dispute raises existential questions about British basketball. Prolonged litigation and governance disputes deter sponsors, unsettle investors and risk alienating fans. Without stable and credible governance, the sport will struggle to achieve commercial growth or grassroots development.
Consequences for the sport
The practical effects are already visible. Without recognition, SLB clubs cannot obtain Governing Body Endorsements for foreign players or enter European competitions. Manchester has already missed registration deadlines. For players and fans, the season is clouded by uncertainty. For sponsors and investors, the litigation underlines the instability of British basketball. The reputational damage makes it harder to secure investment at the very moment the game needs stability and growth.
What happens next?
The litigation is in its early stages. Pleadings have been filed and case management hearings are expected later this year. Key issues for the court will include:
- whether the BBF’s refusal of recognition and licensing requirement can be objectively justified;
- whether the 15-year licence with GBBL is anti-competitive in object or effect; and
- whether SLB’s boycott of the new structure itself constitutes anti-competitive conduct.
In parallel, UK Sport and Sport England are reviewing the BBF’s governance against the Code for Sports Governance. The outcome of that review may influence both the availability of public funding and the credibility of the BBF’s defence.
Concluding thoughts
This case is significant because it sits at the intersection of sport, law and public policy:
Competition law applies to sport: the BBF’s regulatory monopoly cannot be exercised without justification. Courts have previously held in MOTOE and the ISU case that regulators who also control access to markets must not restrict competition unnecessarily. The same principles will be tested here.
Governance obligations matter: receipt of millions in public funding brings binding duties under the Code for Sports Governance. Even if the BBF defends the competition law claims successfully, any failure to meet Code requirements could undermine its funding and authority.
The credibility of the sport is at stake. British basketball has long struggled to secure consistent investment. Governance disputes, prolonged litigation and uncertainty over regulation only deepen the instability. Unless the sport can resolve this dispute and rebuild trust, it risks missing another opportunity to establish itself commercially and at grassroots level.
The High Court will determine whether the BBF’s licensing model withstands competition law scrutiny. The broader challenge is whether British basketball can demonstrate governance standards fit for a modern, publicly funded sport. If not, the danger is not only legal defeat but the erosion of confidence and resources in a game that urgently needs both.
Contact us
Our team at Beale & Co. advises on English competition law, regulatory governance and disputes at the intersection of sport and public funding. Other members of the Antitrust Alliance advise on these issues in their home jurisdictions. Please contact us if you would like to discuss how these issues may affect your organisation.
We will continue to monitor developments in the BBF v SLB case and provide updates as the proceedings progress.
The ATA’s brochure on Sports and State aid is available here: Publications | Antitrust Alliance
[1] Case C-49/07, Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 1 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376.
[2] Case T-93/18, International Skating Union v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court, 16 December 2020, ECLI:EU:T:2020:610; upheld on appeal in Case C-124/21 P, International Skating Union v European Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 21 December 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:1016.
[3] Joined Cases C-333/21, C-334/21, C-335/21, European Superleague Company SL v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 21 December 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:1031.