Basketball civil war: SLB accuse BBF of restraint of trade over international players as all sides address fans

In the latest development in British basketball’s civil war, each of the opposing factions have addressed concerns put to them by the British Basketball Fans Association (BBFA).

There are some conciliatory tones taken by each side to the issues that have driven a wedge between the governing body (BBF), the existing league (SLB), and the future league (GBB League).

But equally, there are plenty of incendiary comments and examples of how each side is digging its heels in.

SLB - the consortium of nine clubs including Sheffield Sharks that rescued the league last summer and operated it in the 2024/25 season - had most to say given they had previously only responded to the BBF’s awarding of the licence to run the league to the GBB League, by questioning the legality of the tender process.

Now, in a response to the fans’ group, SLB have assured supporters they can operate a league next season and beyond without a licence from the governing body, but that they do not wish to proceed independent of the BBF and would welcome discussions to find a middle ground.

But the issue of access to imports is the key sticking point. Teams in British basketball’s professional tier have for years relied on imports, primarily North American, to elevate the standard of the league.

Last year it was nine across the course of the season, amended to 12 midway through to the disagreement of three of the clubs and dismay of sections of the fanbase.

SLB promised to be more transparent next season, but stressed just how crucial governing body approval of imports was for their league to thrive.

The league said: “They (BBF) have stated they will provide Governing Body Endorsements if we accept a one-year license. A Governing Body Endorsement is what allows us to bring International Sportspeople into the country.

“This is obviously not a position we can accept, not least because this action would constitute a restraint of trade.

“It is also clearly anti-competitive that clubs in GBB League (if it ever happens) would be permitted to bring international sportspeople into the country, whereas clubs in SLB would not (even when they have been allowed to for, in some cases, decades and have built their businesses and livelihoods on this).

“This is clearly not a legal position for BBF to hold and is quite a shocking stance for a sports governing body to hold (providing preferred status to one league over another). It also appears to be a flagrant breach of the Code of Practice for Sports Governing Bodies.

“We are confident that once they understand the illegality of this action BBF will remove this restriction and provide us with multi-year recognition without any restraints of trade.

“A governing body should certainly not be attempting to use Governing Body Endorsements as a bargaining tool to force our clubs to cease trading unless they move to a different league.”

SLB also reaffirmed its position that it is not interested in communicating with GBB League, the group of American investors led by former Portland Trail Blazers president and EuroLeague acting CEO Marshall Glickman.

Glickman’s group was controversially awarded the licence to operate the league from 2026/27 by the BBF earlier this year with SLB refusing to bid, claiming the illegal nature of the tender process.

Glickman initially came in saying he wanted a league made up of teams from untapped markets like Leeds/Bradford and Liverpool.

In the investor sheet seen by The Yorkshire Post, GBB League also stated to potential financiers that they wanted to “disrupt traditional league structures” by holding 25 per cent of games in bigger arenas in mini regional tournaments. Their plan also includes limiting telecasts to one game per week and broadcasting an All-Star game over Christmas.

But they have since changed their initial position of launching with a swathe of new clubs, and after Glickman told The Yorkshire Post they want to engage with and embrace the SLB clubs, have now made further conciliatory moves by telling the fans’ association: “We expect to launch with 10 clubs, which we hope will include the existing (nine) SLB clubs and one expansion club.

“That said, we have hired a merchant bank to assist an expansion process that will focus on new teams, new markets, quality ownership and visionary management.

“It is our vision that GBBL will include a mix of current SLB and expansion clubs in markets that do not currently have a top-tier club.

“Of course, establishing new teams will take time; expansion is a normal step for leagues to grow their audience across live events, digital and television.”

But the SLB clubs, including the Sharks, are refusing to budge.

“The SLB clubs have consistently maintained and communicated that they are not interested in a deal with GBBL,” the league said in its responses to the BBFA.

“Marshall Glickman did not pass our due diligence review and there was a complete lack of transparency surrounding every aspect of BBF’s due diligence, including the source of funds. On that basis SLB could proceed no further.

“We have also made it repeatedly clear that our clubs do not wish to compete in a league in which they don’t have a material amount of ownership.

“Furthermore, the clubs certainly do not want to compete in a league that has no history or established credibility and has selected an operating company with no relevant experience.

“We have learnt the lessons from the failure of the BBL/777-owned league and are determined not to repeat those mistakes.

“We have our own strategy and business plan and simply wish to be permitted to operate our league without harm being committed to our business, or indeed our fans or the sport in general.

“SLB wants what’s best for the sport in the UK and will continue to explore what any other interested party can bring to the sport in order to build upon what we have already achieved, rather than accept being cast aside. We have a proud history and a strong fanbase and it’s building this and not destroying it that should be the objective of all interested parties, especially our governing body.”

SLB also state they want their clubs to compete in European competition again next season - Sharks are exploring that for themselves - but that hinges on any restrictions imposed on them bringing in international players being lifted.

European competition for its member clubs is a key tenet of the GBB League ambition, including competing in the muted NBA Europe, should that get off the ground.

GBB League said: “We will encourage all of our clubs to improve to a level where they can qualify to play in pan-European competitions such as NBA Europe, EuroLeague, EuroCup, Basketball Champions League, FIBA Europe Cup or the European North Basketball League. A rising tide floats all boats.

“We expect that at least two of our clubs will play in the new NBA Europe league.”

In stating that it has no desire to operate independently, the SLB did offer a solution to the crisis that has gripped the sport.

“Rather than a situation where (a) BBF governs, controls and dictates to us under a licence, or (b) complete independence from the BBF,” it said, “SLB sees the way forward as a middle path. A path where BBF recognises our right to exist but also seeks feedback and input where our experience can add value to their decision-making and processes.

“In terms of what this means for our fans, players, clubs (and officials, commentators, staff) etc., as we have often pointed out to BBF; operating a well-governed league with the highest levels of integrity of our competitions and an environment where there are pathways and development for every single person connected to our sport isn’t something that needs governing through process and exertion of control and power.

“It is in our best interests to do this, and we will continue to do so.

“We believe the path forward out of this conflict will see a reset and hopefully prompt BBF to review its processes in how it recruits and trains its volunteers.

“We have sympathy that an organisation that has had 53 directors since its formation, and has no full-time staff, is being tasked with making decisions that affect the livelihoods of over 500 individuals in the SLB clubs and league and would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with BBF in future.

“However, this is not the first time that a basketball governing body has erroneously attempted to force our professional clubs to participate in a new league based on the promise of millions of pounds by investors, but it is the first time it has been so public and has not stopped when the illegality of the situation has been made clear to them.”

In its response to questions raised by the fans group, the BBF replied: “We have been consistent in our outreach to engage with the clubs and SLB Ltd. and place huge value on what the clubs have and continue to achieve individually.

“During the Summer of 2024, the BBF worked very closely with the clubs to safeguard the continuation of the league and – in certain cases – to secure the survival of particular clubs.

“It was SLB’s right to choose not to submit a bid to operate the league, but it is the BBF’s responsibility to implement a proper process and safeguard the interests of the whole sport.”