VfL Osnabrück is defending itself against the fines it is supposed to pay because of the protests in the wake of the DFL’s failed investor deal. The actions were not “unsporting”, the club even sees freedom of expression at risk.
The sports court of the German Football Association (DFB) has now made more than 50 judgments involving tennis balls and chocolate coins. The court calls the incidents, which cost the clubs a lot of money, “protest actions against a possible DFL investor.” In total, this comes to around 700,000 euros in mid-May 2024. Further proceedings are pending. However, the clubs are allowed to spend a third of the penalty on their own actions, such as violence prevention. All judgments of the sports court can be read on the DFB homepage.
The offense is always the same: “unsportsmanlike behavior by his supporters”. In the majority of cases, the clubs agreed to the judgment and it therefore became legally binding. Most clubs paid. VfL Osnabrück, on the other hand, which is supposed to pay 20,000 euros for various actions, lodged an objection and published the reasons for this on its homepage on March 26, 2024. On Friday (May 12, 2024) the objection will be heard verbally before the sports court in Frankfurt am Main negotiated.
Osnabrück is threatening to go to court
In an interview with Sportschau, Osnabrück’s managing director Michael Welling emphasized that the club would consider going to court if the sports court did not change the verdict.
On April 9th, the lawyers of the club, which has since been relegated from the 2nd Bundesliga, sent a letter to the sports court in which the reasons for the objection were explained in more detail. The letter is available to the sports show. With it, VfL Osnabrück wants to prove why the throwing of tennis balls and chocolate chips, which also led to interruptions in several other stadiums, was not “unsporting behavior” at all.
“No team is disadvantaged”
In general terms, such behavior can only relate to the sport itself and must have a negative impact on it. It then literally says: “The tennis ball campaigns in connection with the nationwide protests did not refer to the sporting competition being held, nor should this be or was it affected by the protests. Undoubtedly, the protests were directed against the DFL, against everyone involved in the investor entry and against the DFB, especially with regard to the extremely important importance of the 50+1 rule, which presumably could not be fully enforced in the DFL voting process (keyword Hannover 96).”
VfL further complains that the protests were not directed against “players, coaches or referees”.
Interruptions, according to VfL’s lawyers, are part of football, be it in the case of injuries, drinking breaks and the use of the video assistant. It cannot be proven whether a team is advantaged or disadvantaged by a break.
The DFB has a different opinion. When asked by the sports show how it justified the “unsporting behavior”, the association referred to the reasons in its decisions. It says: “Such actions (throwing objects such as tennis balls and chocolate balls, editor’s note) are likely to have a decisive impact on the course and result of the game. Such interruptions to the game imposed from outside can result in the teams involved on the pitch There are changes in tempo and rhythm in the flow of the game.”
VfL Osnabrück draws a comparison with censorship, DFB contradicts.
In its letter, VfL Osnabrück makes serious allegations against the DFB. The “significant purpose behind the sanctions” is to “move the club to prevent future expressions of opinion – even those of a non-violent nature – by their supporters in advance.” This has “an effect similar to censorship.”
The association rejects these allegations. The sanctions applied for and imposed did not refer to “the protest of the supporters as such, which is fundamentally justified and acceptable as a socially appropriate and permissible measure of freedom of expression”, but rather they served to ward off danger and ensure the smooth running of the game.
1. FC Kaiserslautern also criticizes the DFB’s ruling
1. FC Kaiserslautern cannot follow this argument either. The second division team paid the penalty imposed by the DFB, but did not agree to the penalty application. The FCK informed the Sportschau in writing: “The justification for the criminal complaint cites the danger to people inside by throwing objects. However, from our point of view, there was no danger to people in these cases when lemons and rubber balls were thrown. ” Another point of criticism from the Palatinate: According to the DFB, the sanctions always served as prevention. However, since it is “well known” that “the protest actions have now been stopped,” the punishment cannot be understood as a “preventive measure.”
Protests also because of possible violation of 50+1
In February, the German Football League gave up its plan to raise around one billion euros through an investor in the form of a private equity company, which was primarily intended to improve international marketing and promote digitalization. On December 11, 2023, she voted with the narrowest possible majority for the plan with an investor rejected by the fan curves.
Because it was not clear whether Hanover’s managing director Martin Kind had violated an instruction from the parent club and thus possibly violated the spirit of the 50+1 rule, the protests intensified. Some games were not only interrupted more frequently, but were even on the verge of being canceled.