INTRODUCTION
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in its order dated 25 November 2025, has found prima facie evidence of the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) abusing its dominant position by entering into anti-competitive agreements with its players. CCI, acting on information filed by Elite Pro Basketball Pvt. Ltd. (EPBPL), ordered the DG (Director General) to conduct a detailed investigation under section 26 of the Act. The DG reports on the abuse of Dominance by vertical restraints, coercion, etc., where the BFI prevented its players and coaches from participating in another unorganised tournament, which also included EPBPL, but the DG is yet to file a final report.
BACKGROUND
The informant, i.e., Elite Pro Basketball Pvt. Ltd. (EPBPL), to expand the scope of basketball in India, had planned to come up with a “5×5” basketball league known as the ‘Elite Pro Basketball League’ (EPBL) and had approached BFI. Despite repeated approaches and meetings, the BFI has allegedly failed to give a valid response and has initiated its own league titled the Indian National Basketball League (INBL) and the INBL 3×3.
The issue gained significance when the new leader, under BFI, asked for a huge sum for the grant of permission for the 5×5 basketball. Additionally, on 5 September 2023, BFI issued a circular warning players not to take part in an unorganised tournament and also stated that strict disciplinary action, including a ban from BFI, would be taken against players being a part of such unorganized tournaments. The informant thus alleged the steps taken by BFI to be anti-competitive and against the principle of the Competition Act of 2002.
KEY POINTS
Dominant Position of the FBI
The Commission for Clarity on Issues (CCI) took note of the position held by the Basketball Federation of India (BFI). As the governing body of Basketball in India, the BFI has a monopoly over the governance of professional basketball leagues/events throughout the country. Consequently, the BFI enjoys a dominant position within the market for “governing professional basketball leagues/events within India”.
Dominant position itself is not illegal, but having the absue of its dominance to alter the market would be against the spirit of the Act. The CCI also noted that the BFI’s monopolistic powers would give the BFI an absolute advantage over any other private entity wishing to organize professional basketball leagues within India.
Denial of market access
The CCI also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings that the BFI had violated Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by denying the Informant access to the market. Additionally, by threatening to ban all stakeholders involved within the EPBL, the BFI had effectively restricted potential competition from entering the basketball market in India. The CCI also noted that it is unacceptable for a sports regulator to use its authority to impede the ability of competitors to succeed or to favour its own business interests.
Anti-Competitive Agreements
The circular issued by the FBI acted as a barrier for the players and the coaches within the FBI from playing in the rest of the unorganised tournament, as stated by the circular. Thus, this created a vertical restraint (as the FBI and its players would be on different value chains). This act by the FBI was deemed to have AAEC by preliminary findings of DG.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
This directive is consistent with the CCI’s past decisions regarding sports governance and reflects prior actions taken against the BCCI and the AICF. Through these actions, the CCI determined that although sporting federations possess certain rights of regulatory authority over their respective games, the federations may not exercise that regulatory authority in a manner that monopolises the opportunity for profit-making activities associated with the sport, including the organisation of professional league play. As a consequence, the Director General (DG) has been instructed to carry out an investigation regarding the BFI’s behaviour and submit a report to the CCI regarding the investigation within 60 days from the date of this decision. This investigation will seek to ascertain whether the BFI’s position regarding its defence of “integrity of sport” is actually a bona fide regulatory issue, or merely an excuse for the commercial exclusion of its competitors from profit-making activities associated with the sport.
CONCLUSION
The CCI has sent a clear message to National Sports Federations (NSFs) that the combination of being the ‘regulatory body’ and also a ‘commercial organiser’ will come under scrutiny from competition law. This is evident in the CCI’s order, which directs an investigation into NSFs in response to the arbitrary denial of access to third parties and the coercive enforcement of player restrictions. The CCI’s order thus creates the possibility of greater competition in Indian Sports.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
