SLB responds to BBF counterclaim with ‘disbelief’

The dispute between Super League Basketball (SLB) and the British Basketball Federation (BBF) continues to escalate, with SLB issuing a scathing public response to the BBF’s recently released defence and counterclaim in the ongoing High Court case.

In a strongly worded statement released on Friday, SLB said it read the BBF’s latest comments “with disbelief and surprise”, accusing the national governing body of making “egregiously inaccurate” claims and fundamentally misunderstanding the regulatory framework under FIBA.

Among the key issues addressed, SLB rejected the BBF’s assertion that it withdrew from the tender process out of fear of competition.

“That is completely incorrect on many levels,” the league stated. “SLB did not even enter the tender because it was an unlawful process… and we explained that at the time.”

SLB outlined four main legal objections to the BBF’s tender, citing unjustified exclusivity, lack of transparency, disproportionate requirements, and non-compliance with FIBA regulations – all of which it says are included in its High Court claim.

Contrary to the BBF’s claim that SLB has continued to seek a long-term licence, the league clarified that it is simply seeking “recognition” to operate without interference, not a formal licence under the BBF’s terms.

“If the BBF wants GBBL to operate a league itself, that’s up to the BBF – as long as it does so lawfully,” SLB said.

It added that it had never been approached about the allegations now forming the basis of the BBF’s counterclaim, calling the filing “an opportunistic try-on” and saying it was “brought solely as a reaction to SLB standing up for its right to exist.”

Much of the disagreement appears to stem from differing interpretations of the FIBA regulatory framework. SLB argues that the BBF has conflated recognition and licensing, incorrectly believing that only a BBF-licensed league can enjoy “rights and privileges” such as access to Governing Body Endorsements (GBEs) for foreign players.

“This is not a requirement under the FIBA regulations,” the statement said. “Most importantly, it is Basketball England which sets the criteria for GBEs in consultation with the Home Office. It is not FIBA, and certainly not the BBF.”

SLB maintains that under historic precedent, BBL operated with simple recognition from Basketball England rather than a formal BBF licence – and that the same principle should apply today.

“It is remarkable that after literally decades of allowing BBL and subsequently SLB to become the de facto top tier, while simultaneously taking no steps of its own to even attempt to develop a commercial professional offering, we are where we are,” the league wrote.

While acknowledging the BBF’s desire to launch a new professional league with GBBL, SLB insisted that it holds no objection to alternative leagues being created – only that the processes must be lawful and inclusive.

“All SLB is asking for from BBF is recognition that is in alignment with FIBA regulations,” the statement read.

The league concluded by lamenting the missed opportunity for dialogue, adding:

“When you refuse to let people who have facts and history have a seat at the table, you end up where we are – deciding what to do with the foul when you should have called the travel.”

With no officially sanctioned men’s top-tier league for the 2025–26 season and GBBL not scheduled to launch until 2026–27, British basketball remains in a state of limbo.

As the legal battle prepares to play out in the High Court, the sport faces an uncertain future — with the two sides offering starkly different visions of how governance and professionalism should coexist.

The full SLB statement reads as follows:

Here at Super League Basketball we (executives, staff and clubs alike) read the most recent statement by the British Basketball Federation with disbelief and surprise.

The BBF’s recent statement is littered with inaccuracies. One of the comments that we would like to address is the suggestion that SLB withdrew from the tender because it was worried about competition from other leagues, and then put “pressure on the BBF in the hope the Federation would abandon the tender and award the long-term licence to SLB.” This is completely incorrect on many levels:

• First, SLB did not even enter the tender because it was an unlawful process. This is for several reasons, including that (i) it gave rise to an unjustifiable degree of exclusivity (excluding competition); (ii) lacked transparency; (iii) imposed disproportionate requirements on the licensee and (iv) did not comply with the applicable FIBA regulations.
• This is all set out in our legal claim. SLB also explained at the time of the tender that it would not be participating in an unlawful process.
• SLB also knew that the BBF’s key financial terms risked inflicting significant harm on the sport.
• Second, SLB has not subsequently sought a “long-term licence” from BBF; it has merely sought simple recognition (the ability to continue operating, unharmed). If the BBF wants GBBL to operate a league itself, that’s up to the BBF – as long as it does so lawfully.

Another part of the BBF’s statement that SLB would like to address is the counterclaim it has filed against SLB. The counterclaim has no merit whatsoever and we are extremely confident that it will be defeated easily. It is very telling that the BBF has never mentioned any of these new allegations to SLB before. Not once – despite the fact that there has been months and months of legal correspondence between the parties. The counterclaim is an opportunistic try-on, brought solely as a reaction to SLB standing up for its own right to exist. It should be beneath a responsible sports governing body to engage in claims like this, but instead the BBF has decided to create more problems, more disputes and ultimately more costs for everyone.

We are deeply concerned and puzzled by how such an inaccurate statement could have been approved for publication, especially during such a contentious time.

We have taken time to reflect on how the publication of the BBF’s statement might have come about and there appears to be only one logical conclusion: neither BBF nor its advisors can possibly be in possession of the full facts.

And, while we think it would be more appropriate to address this with BBF only in private, we don’t really have that luxury. We simply cannot allow such egregiously inaccurate statements to be allowed to be published without challenge.

Anyone who follows our sport will be familiar with the concept “if you don’t call the travel, you’ll call the foul”. Simply meaning: if a referee doesn’t pick up the first error and address it at the right point, then they will undoubtedly have to address the resulting fallout.

So what is the fundamental error here?

The BBF seems to be under the very mistaken impression that there can only be one league and it has to be licensed by the BBF in order to enjoy ‘rights and privileges’ such as access to foreign players.

This is not a requirement under the FIBA regulations. It is also inconsistent with the way in which professional basketball has operated in this country for decades. Here’s why:

The FIBA regulations don’t specify anything in relation to exclusivity and indeed couldn’t do so because that would be unlawful.

Likewise, the FIBA General Statutes refer to recognition (not licensing) and there are principles governing recognition in the FIBA regulations.

The BBF has sought to specify in its licensing regulations that only BBF licensed leagues are entitled to Governing Body Endorsements (GBEs). Again, the FIBA regulations don’t state that a Federation can unilaterally restrict which clubs can access foreign players. Most importantly it is Basketball England which sets the criteria for GBEs in consultation with the Home Office. It is not FIBA, and certainly not the BBF, so anything the BBF states in its licensing regulations in relation to GBEs is irrelevant.

So the FIBA regulations themselves debunk the core claim of the BBF that only one league licensed as BBF’s national championship can have certain ‘rights and privileges’ including access to foreign players.

It is a shame that the BBF didn’t have that conversation with SLB early on (and if they were complying with the FIBA regulation that a league must be represented in the governance of the sport then this could have been surfaced well before any legal action was necessary).

But the reason it hasn’t been as far as we can work out, is that because they think this is true, they have made the fatal logical leap of assuming that this is how BBL and SLB have been operating; as that one league with the associated ‘rights and privileges’.

Let’s look at why that is also wrong.

The BBL was founded in 1986 from what was then the top division of English Basketball. The clubs had decided to forge their own path, primarily from a commercial perspective. One of our clubs was a founding member of the BBL, and has a significant amount of knowledge in relation to the establishment of the BBL.

The BBL always operated under an agreement from Basketball England (BE), which largely aligned with the FIBA regulations as they are set out now.

The BBL was never formed with the intention of being the ‘only’ or ‘top tier’ of the sport. It was just a group of clubs believing they could do a better job than the National Governing Body at developing their individual interests.

In fact, the National Governing Body could have been developing its own competitions in that time. It didn’t.

It is therefore remarkable that after literally decades of allowing BBL and subsequently SLB to become the de facto top tier, while simultaneously taking no steps of its own to even attempt to develop a commercial professional offering, we are where we are.

The National Governing Body is now taking the stance that it wants its own commercial, professional league and effectively it wants to force clubs to compete in it! And at the same time denigrating the very clubs who have built what they have, while the National Governing Bodies simply haven’t played their part. SLB’s stance is clear; by all means have an alternative league, but let each club have the freedom to decide which league it wants to compete in.

SLB’s position is that it has never needed a licence from BBF. Under FIBA Regulations, recognition is sufficient – just as it was for the BBL when operating under an agreement with BE. And SLB has repeatedly made it clear to BBF that it has no issue with GBBL or any other league being issued with a licence or any other form of agreement to operate. It’s just that any licence or agreement has to be lawful and the one that BBF has granted GBBL is illegal.

All SLB is asking for from BBF is recognition that is in alignment with FIBA regulations.

So to sum up, our National Governing Body has (or appears to have):

• misread the FIBA regulations
• assumed there can only be one top tier league with certain ‘rights and privileges’
• required BBL and SLB to have a licence, where previously BBL had a simple recognition agreement
• decided that it can issue exclusive rights to operate this one top tier league with its associated exclusive ‘rights and privileges’
• created a whole process to issue a tender on these flawed assumptions
• attempted to ring fence Governing Body Endorsements for their own leagues in their licensing regulations (in breach of a Home Office Code of Practice)
• jeopardized an entire league and its clubs through not understanding the correct position
• issued a wholly misleading and inaccurate statement that has no basis in fact.

And the worst thing of all? Unlike our referees who have to make a fast-paced decision in a split second, the BBF have determined their position over months whilst at the same time SLB has been challenging the legality of their actions for a sustained period of time

This could have been discussed and resolved through dialogue and discussion. But when you refuse to let people who have facts and history have a seat at the table, you end up where we are; deciding what to do with the foul when you should have called the travel.

Hoopsfix will continue to monitor developments as they unfold.

The post SLB responds to BBF counterclaim with ‘disbelief’ appeared first on Hoopsfix.com.