Police costs in high-risk games
“As a taxpayer, I don’t see that.”
January 16, 2025 – 4:23 p.mReading time: 3 minutes
High-risk football games require a large police presence. Whether clubs or the general public should bear the costs is viewed very differently.
The German Football League failed in the Federal Constitutional Court in a dispute over a share in police costs for high-risk games. Their constitutional complaint against a corresponding regulation from Bremen was unsuccessful, as the First Senate in Karlsruhe announced.
Christoph Schwennicke does not see football as a fundamental right, which is why he welcomes the fact that police costs for high-risk games will no longer be burdened on the general public. David Digili, on the other hand, describes the Federal Constitutional Court decision as dishonest. You can read the pros and cons of the two t-online editors here. Their discussion was followed by numerous letters from t-online readers, which show how fundamentally different the topic is viewed.
Manfred Stunning writes: “Finally! It was high time for such a decision. The unscrupulousness of privatizing profits on the one hand and socializing losses and costs on the other has now been put to a stop – at least in this sector.”
“This is not a factory site, but a public space,” emphasizes Norbert Blank the need, in his eyes, for the general public to bear the costs. “Consequently, every organizer of a demonstration that requires increased police deployment would otherwise have to be charged for the effort. Whether an organizer makes huge profits should not matter.”
Christa Danube believes that the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling is overdue. “In no other sport do the spectators behave like they do in football. If the football clubs can pay such salaries for the players, then there must also be money for police operations.”
The Erfurt resident also advocates that those who perpetrate the violence be held more accountable. “For the average citizen, the sight of some football games at the train station in Erfurt is like a state of war. That’s not good for the community, it’s an imposition.”
“I am against the fact that the clubs have to pay separately for this,” says Oliver Krause. “Otherwise you would have to ask the German Federation of Trade Unions to pay, for example. They had called for a demonstration against the AfD party conference in Riesa, where hundreds of police had to be on site. Demonstrators are also covered by taxpayers’ money. Where do we start? and where do we stop?” asks the t-online reader critically.
Stephen Wolff emails: “As long as the clubs don’t share in the costs, they won’t do anything about the violence of the fans. They have a social duty. I’ll even go one step further by saying: Clubs not only have to deal with explosive things, but all of them Secure games yourself.
People would be surprised how quickly violence in football would resolve itself because no fan wants to harm their club. In any case, I have no understanding of paying for security for a billion-dollar corporation with my taxes while the money is missing everywhere.”
Jens Kruse points out that a club has nothing to do with the space outside a stadium. “It has no influence on who is on the pitch in front of the stadium and who uses what means of transport to get to the stadium. The state exercises its sovereignty in public spaces and the costs for this are covered by taxes. The club also pays these. That The Constitutional Court has opened a barrel here in which we will now be arguing about various demarcations for decades.”
“As a taxpayer, I don’t see how I can co-finance events that are deliberately made extremely emotional in terms of police operations – as long as the clubs don’t manage to prevent excessive violence,” emails Michael Kalcher. “Events that are designed to provide a kick with combat and violence should be evaluated differently than events that are truly family-friendly.”