Men’s Professional League Licence Clarification

We’re publishing this statement in response to misinformation that has been circulating through the media and online. 

We care deeply about the integrity of the game, and that is why we’ve taken the unusual step of sharing details drawn from the tender documentation as well as part of a letter that we sent to Super League Basketball Ltd..

When the British Basketball Federation took the difficult but necessary decision in June 2024 to terminate the previous long-term licence we said:

“The BBF will continue to do everything possible to protect the interests of fans, players, staff and clubs and interim measures will immediately be put in place to take on organisation of the 2024/25 season.”

This objective could not have been achieved without close co-operation between the Federation and the clubs and Super League Basketball Interim Chair, Vaughn Millette has stated publicly that had the BBF not acted promptly this season’s league could not have happened.

In that same statement in June we also said:

“Alongside this the BBF is working to shape longer term arrangements for the effective governance and development of professional league basketball in Britain.”

A month later, in the statement announcing the award of an interim licence to Super League Basketball Ltd. the BBF said:

“Preparations are already underway for the scoping and invitations to bid for a long-term licence.”

In an interview published on 25th September Mr Millette stated that the BBF

“deserves the right to run a process. I think (he) even has the obligation to do so .. I think we’re the only ones who could possibly win it but we just have to respect that process.”

This statement and others gave the clear impression that Super League Basketball Ltd. would submit a bid. As such it would clearly have been inappropriate to involve Super League Basketball Ltd. directly in defining the terms and criteria against which bids would be judged.

There are a number of inaccuracies in Mr Millette’s comments as reported in multiple media outlets on 1st February 2025. One of the most important to correct is his claim that “the tender document (to submit a bid to operate the league) did not allow for any changes to fees and conditions. This approach would have rendered the league uninvestable.”

On 5th December, in a letter addressed to the Super League Basketball Ltd. shareholders from the British Basketball Federation via their legal representatives, it was written:

Section 2.2 of the ITT (Invitation to Tender) expressly invites Applicants to specify in their response where they believe different terms are appropriate. Further, the Application Response Form expressly requests Applicants to submit, by way of mark-up, any requested amendments to the Key Terms as part of their response. It is difficult to understand how your client believes there is no scope for these to be negotiated. The BBF recognises that different parties may have different considerations and business models, and all applicants are welcome to put forward any variations to the Key Terms that align with their vision. These will be considered in the round, as described in the ITT, which is entirely consistent with the way most ITTs are conducted.

This letter represented part of our efforts to encourage SLB Ltd. to submit their bid to operate the league on a long-term basis before the deadline. It was their decision not to do so. We had previously made considerable efforts to engage with Mr Millette and the shareholders. For example, on 9th October BBF Chair Chris Grant and fellow BBF Board Members met with the SLB Ltd. shareholders to give advance notice of our invitation to prospective bidders to express interest in bidding for the licence. We reassured them that safeguarding the position of the existing clubs was front and centre of the tender process. Indeed, one of the key terms of the tender document stated:

“All franchises competing in Super League Basketball in the 2024/25 season should have a first right to be part of the League.”

Mr Millette’s claim that the approach we set out is “uninvestable” is disproved by the fact that the group led by Marshall Glickman, Arjun Metre and Chris Dillavou has presented what the BBF Board and its expert advisors consider to be a robust, exciting and properly-funded business plan which can elevate British basketball to the benefit of all stakeholders, including the existing clubs. On that basis, we have awarded that group the status of preferred bidder. However, further scrutiny will be required before the licence can be awarded, and there will also need to be negotiation of some of the terms. The existing clubs have been invited to participate in these negotiations, but at the time of writing they have refused even to find out what is being proposed.

Throughout these difficult months the British Basketball Federation have sought to act in the best interests of the game as it is always our role to do. We have also applied the learning of previous exercises which excluded parties with the potential to help grow the game and/or failed to exhibit good governance and proper scrutiny. We still hope that the professional clubs – which are such an important part of the British basketball community – will engage with a bid which we believe can bring them significant benefits and underpin their sustainability and success.

We have taken great care – and good advice – in order to ensure the ITT process is lawful, fair and effective. We shall continue to provide updates at key points.