- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech and Law Firm industries
The Competition Commission of India ("CCI"), through its order dated 25.11.2025, in the matter of Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited v. Basketball Federation of India1, held that the actions of the Basketball Federation of India ("BFI") threatening players from joining leagues not recognized by BFI and denying a prospective organizer permission to hold a basketball league prima facie constitute as violations of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Competition Act").
CCI observed that BFI is an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, as its activities are economic in nature including income from various sources like admission charges levied on member units, registration fees from players, charges for organizing national-level tournaments, and contributions from donors and sponsors.
CCI further held that BFI's conduct of issuing warnings to registered players against participating in non-BFI authorized leagues, preventing the launch of other league through affiliated state associations, and denying permission to organize a basketball league prima facie amount to abuse of dominant position under Section 4(2) of the Competition Act, including limiting the provision of services of players under Section 4(2)(b)(i) and denial of market access under Section 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act.
Further, the CCI held that BFI's mandate under its constitution requiring all players to be registered with it, coupled with its directions that players, referees, and coaches participate only in tournaments officially sanctioned by it, and its refusal to recognize third-party events without any transparent criteria or policy, constitutes exclusive distribution arrangements and refusal to deal under Section 3(4)(c) and Section 3(4)(d) of the Competition Act.
CCI accordingly directed an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act and submission of investigation report within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the order. The Directorate General has been authorised to examine the role of responsible office-bearers of BFI under Section 48 of the Competition Act and to investigate any further additional anti-competitive conduct discovered during the inquiry.
Footnote
1. Case No. 10 of 2024.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
