Cartel Office examines: How is the 50+1 rule implemented?

As of: December 16, 2024 4:43 p.m

As announced, the Federal Cartel Office has started a review of the application practice of 50+1 in German football. To do this, the German Football League (DFL) had to answer an extensive list of questions.

According to Germany’s highest competition authority, this was about questions about the consistent implementation of the rule in the Bundesliga. But various documents regarding the implementation in practice by the DFL were also requested.

“If we want to know something, we send out questionnaires. And those who receive these questionnaires must answer them to the best of their knowledge and belief,” explained the President of the Federal Cartel Office, Andreas Mundt, in an interview with Sportschau. “We received these questionnaires back in September and are now looking very closely at how 50+1 is lived,” explains Mundt further.

The uniform application of the rule is central. 50+1 cannot be applied one way at one club and another way at the next club. Because if that were the case, says Mundt, then a club might have a competitive advantage. The cartel office doesn’t want that, but wants the same conditions for everyone.

50+1 rule

The 50+1 rule states that the majority of voting shares in a spun-off professional department 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”.

DFL does not want to comment on the status of the proceedings

According to the authority, the evaluation of the extensive and timely response from the DFL and the documents provided is currently taking place. The German Football League did not want to comment on the current status of the proceedings.

In a response to an earlier Sportschau query, the DFL emphasized that it wanted to clearly show the cartel office how the rule was consistently applied in practice. “(…) also on matters discussed in the media and known to the Federal Cartel Office from previous proceedings,” said the league association literally at the time.

Compromise to 50+1 never finalized

The DFL and the Cartel Office had actually already been able to agree on a compromise on the rule, which envisaged the preservation of the 50+1 rule – but without allowing new exceptional clubs such as Bayer 04 Leverkusen or VfL Wolfsburg.

The two clubs mentioned would have continued to enjoy existing protection, but in return they would have had to agree to some restrictions. Among other things, compensation payments would have been made to the DFL as soon as the financial support of the companies behind it had exceeded a certain limit.

But that didn’t happen because both a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the DFL investor process raised new questions.

Did the child ignore the right to give instructions?

The Cartel Office is particularly focusing on Hannover 96’s voting behavior in the DFL investor process. Because the registered association had publicly instructed the then managing director (and 96 investor) Martin Kind to vote against the DFL investor process. The 50+1 rule explicitly provides for this right to issue instructions. However, no one can understand whether this ultimately happened because of the secret vote.

Andreas Mundt also emphasizes once again why this plays a role in the evaluation: “The Federal Cartel Office has to ask: Was the rule consistently applied in this decision?”

ECJ ruling influences evaluation

In addition, association rules such as 50+1 must be designed to be transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory for the authority and be enforced accordingly in practice. Last but not least, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently confirmed this again.

In principle, the German Football League views the Federal Cartel Office’s reopening of the proceedings as positive. According to the Cartel Office, even according to the current case law of the European Court of Justice in December 2023, the regulation does not fundamentally constitute a violation of European competition rules. The overarching goal of the DFL is to ensure the legal certainty of the 50+1 rule through a corresponding final decision by the Federal Cartel Office could be further achieved.

In any case, after evaluating the questionnaires, the Cartel Office will decide whether there is a sufficient basis for evaluating the application practice by the DFL or whether further investigations are necessary.

ttn-9