Next week lawyers representing Super League Basketball clubs will lodge their response to a counter-claim from the British Basketball Federation, the latest move in a High Court legal battle that is giving the sport much-needed attention but for all the wrong reasons.
In a nutshell, the BBF has stripped SLB of its licence to run a league and sold it to US investors GBBL, leaving SLB clubs who admirably salvaged the competition last summer following its predecessor’s demise feeling betrayed and dismayed in equal measure.
SLB has sued the BBF for running what it claims was an illegal tender process and for taking further steps to prevent SLB from operating, including allegedly blocking work permit applications for overseas players. The BBF has counter-sued in response. So far, so ugly.
The looming High Court tussle holds some intrigue, however, and is shaping up to be the latest instalment of sport’s dance with competition law.
SLB’s legal team is expected to lean heavily on the European Court of Justice’s landmark decision regarding football’s aborted European Super League. Its backers argued that they should not be penalised by governing bodies Uefa and Fifa for setting up a rival competition. The ECJ agreed.
The case is relevant because SLB believes it is being sanctioned by the BBF for trying to run a league that competes with the one slated to be launched by GBBL next year.
SLB does not need a licence, it argues, merely the freedom to operate without commercial impediments. If the High Court rules in its favour, it will get what it wants and the BBF’s 15-year contract with GBBL could be voided.
SLB, BBF and GBBL legal teams compared
SLB has enlisted some heavyweight backing in Magic Circle law firm Freshfields, which acted for four Premier League clubs in the ESL case.
Freshfields has become one of the go-to authorities on sport and competition law and drew on that expertise in Manchester City’s successful challenge to Premier League rules on associated party transactions last year.
Also in the SLB’s corner is barrister Paul Harris KC, who has acted for numerous Premier League clubs — including City in their long-running regulatory saga with the Premier League — and has been described as “by a distance the best sports KC in the country”. His colleague at Monckton Chambers, junior barrister Ciar McAndrew, is also assisting.
The BBF has retained boutique law firm Onside Law, which advised it on the controversial tender process and recently helped the England and Wales Cricket Board sell stakes in The Hundred franchises. Barrister Ravi Mehta of Blackstone Chambers and junior barrister Rowan Stennett have been instructed.
The governing body has mostly gone to ground during the storm, refraining from regular public statements. It broke cover last week to declare it had counter-sued SLB, which insists the claim — that it is the clubs who are acting in an anti-competitive manner — is confected and has no merit.
In its punchy statement, the BBF accused SLB of making “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.”
That may be technically true, but is not a fair reflection of SLB’s 46-page claim. Paragraph 31 begins: “The terms of the ITT [invitation to tender] as summarised above were unlawful because, inter alia, they gave rise to an unjustifiable degree of exclusivity (thereby foreclosing competition), lacked transparency, imposed disproportionate requirements on the putative licensee and did not comply with the applicable FIBA regulations.”
Clock ticking on 2025-26 season plans
On Friday, SLB took the BBF to task in a lengthy response to what it called “egregiously inaccurate statements”. It also strongly denied the claim that it had put pressure on the BBF to abandon the tender and award it the licence.
GBBL, meanwhile, has refrained altogether from public comment on the legal action, despite being a defendant. It is being represented by Rosenblatt Law, a leading dispute resolution firm. The defence it has submitted to the High Court runs to just a handful of pages, a surprisingly thin submission in the circumstances.
None of this moves quickly, however, and time is against the clubs. Ordinarily, the season would start in September or October, but the overseas player situation has delayed recruitment.
SLB is understood to still be considering applying for an injunction that would restore their licence pending the outcome of the legal wrangle.
In the meantime, NBA chiefs have been in London this week to agree the return of regular season games to the capital and Manchester in the next 18 months. They are also laying the groundwork for an NBA Europe league, which would feature new franchises in both cities.
The clock is ticking for British basketball to turn its focus to the right kind of courts.
