Since the Federal Cartel Office reopened the compromise that had already been reached on the 50+1 rule, opponents and supporters have once again taken a stand. The focus is once again: Hannover 96.
When the 50+1 rule was redesigned, everything was actually already dry. It has been almost a year since the cartel office approved a compromise proposal that, on the one hand, secured the rule and, on the other hand, approved the exceptions to it in Wolfsburg and Leverkusen under conditions. The only thing missing so far is an official decision because one of the parties involved in the proceedings submitted a request for bias.
This was the only reason why the Federal Cartel Office could now announce that it would examine the matter again. The competition watchdogs did this when the dispute over an investor’s entry into the DFL came to a head due to massive fan protests deal finally failed.
The 50+1 rule came back into focus. Relevant to the assessment is therefore, among other things, how the DFL committees have handled the 50+1 rule in the recent past, the Cartel Office explained in response to Sportschau’s request: “This handling can allow conclusions to be drawn as to whether the DFL is consistently and consistently pursuing the goals of the rule.”
50+1 rule
The 50+1 rule states that the majority of voting shares in a spun-off professional division of a club must always be in the hands of the parent club determined by members. The influence of investors is therefore limited. An exception applies to Bayer 04 Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg. These exceptions were justified with “uninterrupted and significant support over at least 20 years”.
At the center of the conflict: Hannover 96
This means the game is completely open again. And opponents and supporters of 50+1 promptly take a stand. The Bundesliga is once again threatened with a culture war – similar to the last DFL investor process. The focus of this fight is once again Hannover 96, where the dispute over the design of the rule has been raging for years. Both the club and the spun-off corporation now see an opportunity to steer the matter in their direction.
The Hannoversche Sportverein von 1896 eV demands that in future only parent clubs should receive a license to play in the federal leagues. And not, as is currently the case, the capital companies spun off from the clubs in which the professionals are housed. The parent clubs should then “If the 50+1 rule is guaranteed, a sublicense may be passed on to a corporation annually”. Then all the disputes that constantly put a strain on football would end.
Things are different at Hannover 96 GmbH & Co. KGaA, in which the professional team is outsourced and which is 100 percent owned by investor Martin Kind. “It would be wrong to view the 50+1 rule as set in its current form”, explains a spokesman when asked by Sportschau. Although 50+1 could be retained, the regulation would need to be reformed in favor of the capital side.
The core of the conflict in Hanover is the design of the so-called right to issue instructions. According to this, the association committees elected by the general meeting, such as the board or presidium, should be authorized to issue instructions to the managing directors of the outsourced professionals. In Hanover, Kind is not only an investor, but also managing director of the outsourced professional department. And as such, according to the club, he regularly violates the club’s guidelines and thus the right to issue instructions.
Compliance with 50+1 as part of licensing
This – it is suspected – was also the case in the secret DFL vote on the entry of an investor. In this case, the club had instructed Kind to vote “no”. It is unclear whether the 79-year-old adhered to this. Kind, citing the secret vote, did not make public how he voted. However, since other club representatives have made their voting behavior public, it is reasonable to assume that Kind’s vote was the deciding factor, and that exactly the 24 yes votes that were necessary for a positive decision were collected.
In response to Sportschau’s request, the Hannoversche Sportverein von 1896 eV refers to the comprehensive review of consistent compliance with the 50+1 rule in the DFL licensing process. This should be reinforced with a statement from all parent clubs on compliance with the 50+1 rule. So that the suspicion does not even arise that the parent club cannot make decisions like a majority shareholder. “At the end of the process, the statements of the parent clubs can then serve as evidence to the Federal Cartel Office of the consistent application of the 50+1 rule.”
However, this is out of the question for the 96 capital side. There they are calling for a comprehensive redesign of the right to issue instructions within the framework of the 50+1 rule. The content of this must be defined according to questions of association and company law. In plain language, this means: Investor and managing director Martin Kind wants to decide for himself about the interests of the professionals in all matters that involve his money.
With the Cartel Office re-examining the rule, this scenario for the redesign of 50+1 is also entirely possible, and the tug-of-war over it is now in full swing in the Bundesliga.