The British Basketball Federation (BBF) has filed its Defence to the claim brought against it by Super League Basketball (SLB) and has brought its own Counterclaim against SLB’s anticompetitive behaviour.

The BBF is robustly defending the legal claims made against it by SLB. In its Defence, submitted to the High Court, the BBF makes clear that it has not abused a dominant position, as alleged by SLB. In its accompanying Counterclaim the BBF notes that SLB is abusing its position as the incumbent league operator by seeking to prevent the development of a competitive market.

As the national governing body recognised by FIBA, the international basketball federation, it is the BBF’s responsibility to grant licences to operate the men’s and women’s professional basketball leagues in Great Britain. The licence to run the men’s league was removed from the previous operator, the British Basketball League (BBL) in June 2024 due to the League’s financial difficulties. The Federation then worked with the affected clubs to facilitate the continuation of men’s professional basketball for the 2024/25 season.

In July 2024 the BBF granted an interim licence to SLB, a newly created entity owned by the clubs that had previously co-owned the failed BBL. The term of the interim licence was three years but the BBF was clear with the SLB and the wider public that it was only intended to bridge the gap until the award of a long-term licence. For this reason the interim licence included an express right for the BBF to terminate it after one year. 

At the time of awarding the interim licence, the BBF announced publicly that it intended to advertise an open process to find the most suitable operator of the premier men’s professional league for the long term. In November 2024, for the first time in the history of British basketball, the BBF carried out an open tender process, with the stated intention of serving the best interests of the sport.

SLB initially declared its interest to submit a proposal for the long-term licence, stating that it believed it was the only viable operator of the league. It was only when it became apparent to SLB that it may face meaningful competition in the open tender that it changed its approach entirely: it withdrew from the process and instead commenced a campaign of public and private attacks on the BBF.

SLB’s motivations were and are transparent – to apply pressure on the BBF in the hope the Federation would abandon the tender and award the long-term licence to SLB. Their campaign has included repeated threats of litigation reliant on baseless allegations, for example about the supposed illegality of the tender process. Revealingly, no such cause of action is included in the claim actually issued by SLB in the High Court. SLB has also made misleading and baseless representations to important stakeholders, damaging the sport’s reputation, and went so far as to seek the withdrawal of public funding awarded to support the senior and junior GB teams.

Meanwhile the BBF has negotiated and entered into a licence agreement with the entity that was successful in the tender process, GBB League Ltd (“GBBL”). GBBL has an impressive vision for the sport in Great Britain, supported by serious and credible investment and expertise. In conducting those negotiations, the BBF has worked in good faith to negotiate opportunities on behalf of the current professional clubs, should they wish to participate in the GBBL league.

This licence creates a strong platform for the growth of professional basketball in Great Britain and would bring significant commercial and sporting opportunities for the SLB clubs. Far from engaging with GBBL to understand these opportunities, the SLB Clubs have refused even to hear what is on offer to them. Instead, they have focused on their campaign to remove any competition so that they can continue to exert full control over men’s professional basketball in Great Britain.

Despite choosing not to participate in the tender process, SLB has been seeking in recent months all of the rights and privileges that it has historically received from the BBF through its licensing arrangements – and which were on offer through the open tender process – without the corresponding obligations, governance controls or oversight.

Further, in its one year of operation SLB has committed several breaches of FIBA Regulations and also breached the terms of the Interim Licence Agreement. This has understandably caused the BBF concern as to SLB’s suitability to run a professional basketball league in Great Britain. However, in the interests of British basketball, the BBF has engaged in good faith attempts to seek a resolution that would enable SLB to continue to operate its competitions whilst ensuring good governance and compliance with FIBA regulations.

SLB has consistently refused to accept anything other than its stated demands. In June 2025, SLB issued High Court proceedings against the BBF, which the BBF is now robustly defending. The BBF’s defence makes clear that the BBF has acted in line with its regulatory responsibilities and that, in fact, it is SLB that has been and continues to act in an anti-competitive manner that refuses to respect regulatory oversight and threatens the development of the sport of basketball in Great Britain.