The Federal Constitutional Court is set to decide if the German Football League (DFL) should bear additional police costs during high-risk matches, a contentious issue pushed by Bremen for over a decade. With significant taxpayer burdens due to fan violence, Bremen seeks to hold the DFL accountable for fees related to enhanced security. This legal battle questions whether public safety expenses should solely rely on taxpayer funding or if event organizers should contribute.
Can the German state hold the German Football League (DFL) accountable for police expenses incurred during high-risk football matches? For over a decade, the smallest federal state, Bremen, has been pushing for this change. On Tuesday, January 14, 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court is set to make a decision.
Football is deeply ingrained in the German culture, captivating fans every weekend as stadiums brim with spectators. However, this beloved sport also has its dark side, with fan violence often flaring up during intense rivalries, particularly during derbies, necessitating significant police presence.
To maintain safety in German football, nearly 1.6 million police hours were logged during the 2023/24 season in the first and second Bundesliga. This staggering figure is equivalent to the efforts of approximately 1,220 full-time officers, costing taxpayers millions to ensure order around stadiums.
Bremen’s Initiative to Share Costs with ‘King Football’
But is it entirely the taxpayers’ burden? Not necessarily. In 2014, Bremen set the stage to ask ‘King Football’ to contribute, specifically targeting high-risk matches. According to § 4 of the Bremen Fees and Contributions Act:
“Fees will be levied on organizers of profit-oriented events expecting more than 5,000 attendees when additional police presence is deemed necessary due to anticipated violent incidents before, during, or after the event.”
Focusing on Additional Police Costs
Bremen is not seeking reimbursement for all police costs but only for the additional expenses incurred during high-risk matches. These matches often require a significant police presence, sometimes upwards of a thousand officers, particularly for derbies. In the 2022/2023 season, 52 high-risk matches were identified across the top two leagues.
During a northern derby on April 19, 2015, Bremen took decisive action, issuing a fee notice of 425,718.11 euros to the DFL following prior notification.
After a protracted twelve-year conflict between the DFL and Bremen, the Federal Constitutional Court is poised to resolve the contentious issue regarding the allocation of additional police costs at these high-risk events.
The DFL represents the 36 clubs in the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga and holds all marketing rights for these leagues, functioning as an organizer alongside the clubs.
Legal Battle Through Various Courts
The DFL opposed covering these costs, leading to a legal battle that traversed multiple court levels, culminating in a ruling from the Federal Administrative Court in March 2019, which largely backed Bremen’s stance, albeit with some deductions, leaving 385,000 euros owed.
The DFL argues that charging for public safety costs infringes upon constitutional rights. Consequently, they have contested both the law and the 2019 ruling at the Federal Constitutional Court. Hearings took place in April, with the court’s decision expected to be announced on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The Core Question: Who Funds Public Safety?
At the heart of this extended legal dispute lies a fundamental question: Should the state solely rely on tax revenues to fund the essential duty of ‘public safety’?
The DFL maintains that ensuring public safety serves the general interest and must, therefore, be funded through public sector revenues. They argue that football should not be held responsible for the actions of unruly fans outside the stadium, such as at train stations or public areas.
Bremen acknowledges that public safety is indeed a common good but contends that the constitution does not mandate that all state core services be financed exclusively through taxes. Fees can be justified when the payer receives a corresponding service, which is clearly applicable here. The police’s presence not only facilitates smooth matches but also enhances economic advantages, as confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court in 2019. Many fans attend games precisely because police work reduces the risk of violence.
Uncertainties and Future Implications
During the Federal Constitutional Court proceedings, several additional concerns were raised: Is the law too ambiguous since the exact fee cannot be pre-calculated? Does the DFL and its clubs have any influence over whether a match is deemed high-risk? What if fewer officers are needed than anticipated?
Who Should Bear the Costs?
The dispute also revolves around whether the DFL is the appropriate entity to be charged. The DFL argues that home clubs should be responsible for costs, as they host the matches.
However, Bremen has chosen to approach the DFL, which boasts an impressive annual revenue of around five billion euros. This strategy has not favored Werder Bremen, as the DFL has sought to reclaim costs from the club, causing competitive disadvantages as no other federal state presently imposes such additional charges.
Potential for a Nationwide Solution
For quite some time, Bremen’s Interior Senator, Ulrich Mäurer, has been advocating for a unified approach among other federal states. He proposed a funding solution where the DFL contributes to a fund specifically designated for covering certain police operation costs nationwide. Despite ongoing discussions, progress has been limited, although state audit offices have been calling for a collaborative cost-sharing framework. Following the court’s ruling, some federal states may explore supporting a national solution or establishing their own regulations.