Dispute over police costs
Distortion of competition? BTSV president sounds the alarm
01/17/2025 – 10:01 a.mReading time: 2 minutes
The Federal Constitutional Report has made a decision in the dispute over police costs at football games. The President of Eintracht Braunschweig is sounding the alarm.
Nicole Kumpis, President of Eintracht Braunschweig, has expressed concern about the consequences of the Federal Constitutional Court’s recent ruling in the dispute over police costs at football games. According to Kumpis, the ruling could not only endanger the clubs in the first and second leagues, but also lead to unequal treatment and distortion of competition in German professional football.
“There are already signs of unequal treatment and the resulting distortion of competition within German professional football,” explained the only woman at the top of a German professional club. She pointed out that some federal states announced that they would follow the Bremen model, while others rejected this. There are also different fee models. “Not only at the state level, but also between the clubs, there are sometimes big differences in the number of games with an increased safety risk that take place in a season,” continued Kumpis.
The consequences could be serious: “For many clubs, these payments could simply threaten their existence.”
The background: The German Football League (DFL) failed in its complaint against additional police fees for high-risk games before the Federal Constitutional Court on Tuesday. The umbrella organization of the 36 German professional clubs had opposed a regulation by the state of Bremen. According to this regulation, Bremen can charge fees for additional police costs at certain events with a high risk of violence and invoice them to the DFL.
Kumpis also warned of further possible effects of the ruling: “If the ruling that has now been made is consistently applied, all major commercial events with more than 5,000 visitors, where an increased police presence appears to be necessary, would have to be subject to this regulation in the spirit of the principle of equal treatment.”