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 enforce 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.