Competition Commission Finds Basketball Federation Of India Prima Facie Liable For Abuse Of Dominance And Anti-Competitive Arrangements, Directs Investigation

Background Facts

Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited (Informant) planned to launch a national 5x5 professional basketball league and signed around 160 players. They approached Basketball Federation of India (Respondent) in early 2022 seeking approval but received no response. When EPBL conducted try outs then one senior BFI official publicly claimed that no permission had been sought despite prior intimation.

In October 2022, the Vice-President of BFI allegedly threatened the venue hosting the next round of try-outs, forcing the event to be stopped. Players later informed EPBL that BFI had made it mandatory for participants in national tournaments to declare they were not associated with any unapproved league including EPBL.

After EPBL released its player roster, BFI through officials of the Indian National Basketball League (INBL) asked players to clarify whether they had signed with any unauthorized league. BFI also issued a circular warning players, schools and universities not to participate in EPBL promotional event and threatened strict action.

EPBL contended that meetings with the newly elected BFI President resulted in unreasonable monetary demands for granting any licence. Repeated letters seeking approval for the league or related events went unanswered. EPBL alleged that these actions restricted players, blocked market access and compelled them to approach the Commission.

Observation and Direction by Commission

Commission held that BFI is an enterprise under Section 2(h) because it carries out activities with clear economic value. It earns revenue from admission fees, player registrations, tournaments and sponsorships. These income generating functions place BFI squarely within the scope of an enterprise.

Commission noted that assessing abuse of dominance by BFI required identifying relevant product and geographic market. It found relevant product market to be the “market for organizing basketball leagues, events and tournaments” and the geographic market to be the whole of India. On that basis, Commission defined the relevant market as the market for organizing basketball leagues, events and tournaments in India.

Commission noted that Article 9 of the FIBA Statutes requires every national federation to retain full control over basketball in its country. As the sole national sports federation BFI oversees all major tournaments and decides whether any proposed league or event can go ahead.

Commission observed that such level of control over the game of basketball makes BFI the regulator of basketball in India. With its power to approve, supervise and shape all major competitions, BFI holds a dominant position in the market for organizing basketball leagues, events and tournaments in India.

Commission further took note of a BFI circular dated 26 September 2023 which directed players, referees and coaches to participate only in BFI approved events and warned that joining any unauthorized league could lead to strict action.

Commission found that restricting the services of players, referees and coaches in this manner prevented them from joining non-BFI events like the EPBL. This resulted in denial of market access to independent organizers including the Informant.

Commission further observed that compelling participants to engage exclusively with BFI approved tournaments resembled an exclusive distribution arrangement which raises clear competition concerns under the Competition Act.

On this basis, the Commission concluded that a prima facie case exists against BFI and directed the Director General to investigate whether BFI's conduct amounts to abuse of dominance and the formation of anti-competitive agreements.

Case – Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited vs. Basketball Federation of India

Citation - Case No. 10 of 2024