British basketball at war: How can BBF and SLB bloody battle be resolved?
British basketball is no stranger to turmoil but even by its warped standards the raging civil war between SLB clubs and governing body the BBF is extraordinary.
At its heart is a power struggle for the right to run the domestic league. But it also involves claims of dishonesty, mission creep, vindictiveness and outright illegality that are now on course to be aired in the High Court.
The stakes are sky-high on both sides: for clubs, the effort and investment they have put into creating Super League Basketball from scratch last summer, and the power to control their own future is on the line; for the British Basketball Federation, its authority, financial solvency and, consequently, its existence are under threat.
So how did we get here? And can anything be done to remedy the crisis before a costly and time-consuming legal battle that will damage both sides?
BBF v SLB: the background
The seeds of the current dispute were sown last summer after the collapse of SLB predecessor the British Basketball League (BBL).
The BBL and its top team, London Lions, ran out of money after the now-notorious US investment vehicle that owned them both, 777 Partners, folded.
While the Lions were rescued from administration by Tesonet, a Lithuanian tech enterprise behind global cybersecurity brand Nord, the clubs found themselves without a league.
Determined not to be dragged down with the BBL, nine teams including London Lions set up a new competition, SLB, in a matter of weeks and ran a broadly successful league last season.
That included vetting clubs, finding a new broadcast partner in Dazn and new sponsors, which included global sports manufacturer Reebok.
It also necessitated working with the BBF, which issued a temporary licence for SLB to run the top division – and this is where it gets contentious.
SLB clubs believe they were given a licence with a view to operating the league for several years at least. Instead, the BBF quickly launched a tender for a long-term operator from 2026.
Believing they had been double-crossed and that the tender process did not follow legal parameters, SLB clubs declined to enter the tender and tried to get the BBF to change approach.
After a stand-off lasting several months, the BBF announced in April that it had awarded a 15-year licence to operate the league to GBBL, a group fronted by American former NBA executive Marshall Glickman.
In anticipation, the SLB had days earlier served the BBF with notice that it would sue. After the BBF withdrew its licence and said it would refuse to sign off visa applications for overseas players at SLB teams last month, the clubs began legal proceedings at the High Court.
In a further twist, the BBF could yet face another legal claim from Manchester Basketball after it refused to endorse the club’s entry to the Basketball Champions League on the grounds that, having withdrawn the SLB’s licence, they no longer belonged to a recognised league.
Manchester owner Ben Pierson has called the BBF’s stance immoral as well as illegal, saying it is wilfully wreaking damage on the very ecosystem it exists to nurture.
Could there be a coup at the BBF?
BBF chair Chris Grant has borne the brunt of the criticism for his organisation’s handling of the licence issue, and there is a feeling among clubs that he is responsible.
Grant has been in office since 2022, when he succeeded interim chair Toni Minichiello – the former coach to Olympic gold medal-winning heptathlete Jessica Ennis-Hill who has since been banned for life by UK Athletics after he was found guilty of sexually inappropriate behaviour, emotional abuse and bullying.
The BBF board, which includes two members each from Basketball England, Scotland and Wales, has the power to issue resolutions, such as asking the chair to resign.
Clubs are the members of Basketball England and an important source of revenue for the BBF. They are understood to have applied pressure to the home nations with a view to bringing about a change of stance at the BBF.
There is believed to be some sympathy for their predicament at Basketball England, although the fact that its interim CEO Nigel Walker was only appointed last week has limited his input.
On the issue of visas for players, Basketball England has shown a willingness to try to resolve the impasse and there is hope of a solution in the coming days.
Still, the various governing bodies are heavily staffed by volunteers, so there is a recognition that those who can dedicate the most resources to this – and who have the most skin in the game – are the SLB clubs.
Funding bodies and government
The BBF receives funding from both UK Sport and Sport England and while they cannot impose change they can attach conditions to the funding they issue.
UK Sport, which allocates funding for elite competition, is understood to have done this by stipulating where every penny of its contributions is spent and embedding staff within the BBF to make sure that its plans are followed through.
Sport England has similar powers and has in the past ordered public reviews of basketball national governing bodies, such as the Mallin Review, published in 2007. It is understood that UK Sport does not see its role to be initiating reviews of this kind.
Similarly, DCMS is believed to have made clear in conversations with SLB clubs that it, too, does not believe it can effect change at the BBF. Sport Minister Stephanie Peacock, meanwhile, is said to have urged the warring parties to sort it out between them.
A feeling persists among the clubs that British basketball is suffering for its lack of political capital and media profile. Certainly, it is hard to imagine a similar situation being allowed to escalate to such a stage in football, cricket or rugby union without government intervention.
To that end, lobbying of politicians sympathetic to the cause has continued. Clive Betts, the Labour MP for Sheffield South East, has asked questions in the House of Commons, while former sport minister Richard Caborn is thought to have lobbied his Labour contacts.
British basketball’s civil war: the end game?
After several months of increasingly perilous brinkmanship, there is a sense that an end game of sorts may be appearing on the horizon – although what it looks like is far from certain.
SLB clubs and their owners have said they resorted to legal action against the BBF as a last resort, having exhausted all attempts to persuade the governing body to allow it to retain its licence to run a domestic league.
It is being represented by Magic Circle law firm Freshfields, which has worked for Manchester City in successful challenges to the Premier League’s rulebook, among other clients.
SLB says it does not need a licence from the BBF, merely recognition. It is believed that a precedent it could lean on is from a landmark case relating to football’s failed European Super League, in which it was established that a governing body (Uefa) was not entitled to punish clubs in the event that they set up their own competition.
Since awarding the 15-year licence to GBBL, the BBF has said very little at all. It has not responded to questions about its position on the legal action sent by City AM this week.
It is therefore to be assumed that it will contest the legal action brought by SLB – at least for as long as it can.
A serious hurdle might be money. The BBF approximately broke even in 2024 and its reserves stood at £32,075. It secured almost £3m of funding from UK Sport in December for the LA 2028 Olympic cycle but that can only be spent on the high-performance programme.
It is the belief of SLB clubs that DCMS has categorically ruled out bailing out the BBF if it goes bust as a result of an expensive legal battle. Meanwhile the BBF has been running up costs from the GB women’s team playing their European championship in Germany last month.
Meanwhile, SLB is planning to go ahead with its 2025-26 season – with or without a BBF licence or even recognition. Whether the stand-off has been resolved by then, through legal means or financial necessity, remains unknown.