At the end of 2025, after fan protests and negotiations with associations, the federal and state interior ministers publicly gave in to the planned tightening of security measures and promised dialogue. Fan representatives now fear that some of the changes discussed will now come – especially with regard to stadium bans.
The question of how to deal with stadium bans remains one of the biggest points of contention between organized fan scenes, associations and politicians. On the weekend of February 14th and 15th, numerous fan groups displayed banners in several stadiums in Germany that read: “Fans & Clubs: Together against the new SV guidelines!” This refers to the DFB’s stadium ban guidelines.
In December 2025, the Conference of Interior Ministers (IMK) publicly struck a conciliatory tone after numerous protest actions by the fan scenes. “Not every idea that is on the table makes sense and is proportionate. We cannot put all fans under general suspicion just because a few cause trouble.”said the then IMK chairman Ulrich Mäurer (SPD/Interior Senator Bremen). Several measures that were initially requested, such as personalized tickets, should not be introduced after all. But fan representatives now fear changes to the stadium bans.
A “should regulation” could become a “must regulation”.
The “Fan Scenes in Germany” alliance published a statement in which the assumption was expressed that “that the associations are currently secretly, quietly and quietly aiming for a significant tightening of the stadium ban guidelines”. In a draft for a new version of the stadium ban guidelines, which is available to Sportschau, there is a change that has been criticized by fan alliances: Until now, stadium bans “should” be issued if an investigation is initiated against a person in the vicinity of a game. The draft, which has not yet been decided, states that this “is” to be done in the future in such a case. The fear of the fans: The leeway that the local stadium ban commissions previously had with the clubs will be abolished.
However, the wording contains a restriction: The “specific circumstances of the individual case” should be taken into account and the suspicion “explained concretely and comprehensibly” become. When asked by Sportschau, the umbrella organization of fan aids criticized these restrictions “eyewash” be. The organization asks: “Associations are not investigative authorities, how are they supposed to be able to clarify these requirements? The phrase “concrete and comprehensible suspicion” is not found in our criminal justice system. In criminal law there is only the so-called initial suspicion, which is sufficient to initiate an investigation.” Fan aid supports fans in conflicts with the police and the judiciary.
Stadium bans often create solidarity effects – here at 1860 Munich
The sports show asked the IMK, the DFB and the DFL how, in their view, the restrictions of the “must regulation” should be guaranteed. All three did not comment on the question. The DFB stated that it could during the ongoing process “Do not make any statements about the status of the content or possible regulations”. At a general meeting of the DFL at the beginning of December, the league association explained to the clubs that stadium bans would be suspected in the future “substantiated” be presented and “concrete and demonstrable facts of sufficient weight” should be available. There won’t be one “Watering can principle” apply.
Stadium bans
Stadium bans have been a point of contention between fans, associations and politicians for years. They are not a sanction in the sense of criminal law, but are based on the organizer’s house rules. They are considered a preventive measure to prevent misconduct. Fan alliances repeatedly criticize a “parallel justice system” in which guilt does not have to be proven. In their view, many stadium bans are imposed unjustified. Politicians, on the other hand, see stadium bans as an important instrument to keep disruptors away from the games. The police regularly criticize the clubs for being too cautious. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 2018 that stadium bans are generally permissible, but that they should not be set “arbitrarily” and must be “based on an objective reason.”
The DFB and DFL see the move away from blanket measures as a success
There has been repeated criticism in politics that some clubs issue little or no stadium bans against their supporters, even if these would have been appropriate. Domestic politicians put pressure on the DFB and DFL at a security summit at the end of 2024 and also pointed out this fact. The associations fell into a defensive position.
At the beginning of December, the DFL presented its clubs with statistics showing that the number of stadium bans has consistently been less than 1,000 since 2018. At this point in time, there was not a single valid stadium ban for seven clubs in the Bundesliga and the 2nd Bundesliga. One “Uniform, transparent and fair application practice” The DFL informed its clubs in a circular that was available to the Sportschau. This applies to the determination as well as the lifting, reduction or suspension of stadium bans, “explicitly also with a view to those affected”.
DFL wants “uniform, transparent and fair application practice” of the guidelines
Internally, the DFB and DFL see it as a success in the negotiations, given the initial situation at the 2024 security summit, that issues such as collective punishments, personalized tickets or reduced ticket quotas are off the table for the time being. The argument goes that the move away from such blanket measures can be justified with a stronger focus on possible misconduct by individuals. But from the perspective of the fan scenes, critical formulations remain.
DFB “specialist supervision” should be able to give instructions to local commissions
Another sticking point is a new higher-level body for stadium bans at the DFB. A so-called “technical supervision” is intended to ensure that the committees for stadium bans at the locations work under the same conditions and bring about the uniform application that politicians, the DFB and DFL have announced as the goal.
According to the draft, the technical supervision should be able to “give instructions” to the local commissions, which the commissions would explicitly have to follow, according to the document. If this does not happen, the DFB sports jurisdiction can intervene and impose penalties. The fan aid organizations criticize the “disempowerment” of the local commissions. According to the draft, the DFB Commission can in future take over the procedure as a “last resort” and issue stadium bans.
Police officers at a game in Leverkusen
“The technical supervision can turn the entire process upside down”says the umbrella organization of fan aids. “The local commissions know the situation at their locations and make decisions on this basis. Especially when there are cases with a lot of media attention, the specialist supervision could now put massive pressure on the work of the local commission.”
Here, too, the DFB and DFL see a success in the fact that the abolition of local structures in favor of a central commission, which was initially aimed at by politicians, was prevented. According to information from the Sportschau, the draft should be refined to such an extent that fans can theoretically also involve the specialist supervision. This should not act as an appeal authority, but should only act in the event of serious errors. This could be the case, for example, if an investigation is closed but the corresponding stadium ban is not lifted by the club. Upon request, the DFL said: “It is clear that local responsibilities will be retained and that there will be no automatism in determining stadium bans in the future.” A decision will probably be made soon by the responsible DFB presidium; the rules should apply for the new season.
Criticism from fans: Dialogue is still missing
The previous IMK chairman Ulrich Mäurer announced before the IMK meeting at the beginning of December: “Dialogue and transparency – that’s what we’re focusing on now. Dialogue with the fans is important to me. I take your concerns seriously.” Saxony’s Interior Minister Schuster said: “We had the fan projects, but not the fan scenes.” It’s okay “relatively soon” therefore, “To come into direct communication with the fan scenes and possibly have them there too.”
The previous Interior Senator from Bremen Ulrich Mäurer
Thomas Kessen, spokesman for the fan alliance “Our Curve,” criticized: “At no time during this entire process were fan representatives involved in any way by the IMK.” The fan aids also announced that they were not involved: “Unfortunately, the process remains extremely opaque.” The Sportschau asked the IMK which dialogue formats had been carried out since then with which fan representatives and how they went, but received no answer. For example, the DFB and DFL exchanged ideas with some fan representatives in the DFB Commission “Fans and Fan Cultures”, and there should also be a dialogue between the clubs and the fans.
The situation in the stadiums remains safe
The discussion about security in the stadiums will continue. Cases such as the recent one in Magdeburg, where a man is in custody on suspicion of murder after arguments between Magdeburg fans and the police, speak in favor of a tougher approach.
Banner at Union Berlin: “IMK 25: Your own statistics show: The stadiums are safe. Stop populism!”
On the other hand, fans, but also the DFB and DFL, repeatedly point out that the security situation in German stadiums is generally very good. The risk of becoming a victim of violence in stadiums is extremely low. According to official police figures, the number of violent acts and the number of cases initiated has recently fallen significantly, while there has been an increase in cases of the use of pyrotechnics.
| 22/23 | 23/24 | 24/25 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Visitors | 22.8 million | 24.32 million | 25.26 million |
deposited Proceedings | 5,498 | 6,179 | 4,700 |
Injured | 1,176 | 1,338 | 1,107 |
Injured Pyro | 92 | 114 | 95 |
