“Participation can also mean that you want to get involved in this system yourself. Why can’t a fan end up being DFB president?” Thomas Kessen from the fan association “Our Curve” means the fans from the standing areas and the plastic bowls in the outside stands, not the fans from the VIP lounge, not the protégés of old officials.
Theoretically, it’s no problem for an average fan to become the head of the association. The formally democratic structures of the German Football Association (DFB) allow for this. The president is elected by the DFB Bundestag, where the regional associations send delegates and here, at the latest, says Kessen – not only fan spokesman, but also a supporter and member of VfL Osnabrück in Lower Saxony – things get complicated:
“The Lower Saxony Football Association sends, I think, 22 delegates. But who they are exactly is not regulated anywhere, but it is always the executive board and a few chairmen.”
German organizations did not perform well in democracy
From Kessen’s point of view, other structures in sports associations prevent ordinary club members from taking part. The Lower Saxony association conference, for example, does not allow spectators, but only one delegate per member club at meetings. That would be just as if the German Bundestag met in Berlin behind closed doors, says Kessen:
“This also applies to the other state associations, because each state association cooks in its own juice, it has always been done that way, and people like to use that argument.”
Apparently an argument that is well known in the German sports association landscape. In 2018, the suitability of democratic structures for everyday use was examined by a selection of international associations. According to the Danish Institute for Sports Studies, German organizations – including the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) – did not fare well:
“Germany scored an average of 37 percent on a scale of zero to 100,” says Sandy Adam. The expert in sport and development economics at the University of Leipzig knows the study well and contributed to the Sports Governance Observer investigation elsewhere:
“The German associations did relatively well on the topic of transparency, but when it came to democratic participation or the topic of social responsibility, they gave up.”
Dispute is better than old entanglements
Five years later, something has happened in terms of democratic participation. More and more athletes and coaches are represented on association committees. The management level of the DOSB, for example, has become more diverse and there are more and more people among those responsible in the associations who see sport as having a socio-political responsibility, emphasizes Florian Scheibe, director of the DOSB leadership academy in Frankfurt am Main:
“There are enough people who say that we as a sports club, as an association, have the opportunity to help develop society and the process of debate is what is important.”
And every argument is better than the Kafkaesque connections of the old school. Where, beyond statutes and laws, it is unclear who decides what. Democratic leadership is therefore a learning task for those who are elected to office: “In my view, that is a leadership style,” says Scheibe.
Chess association as an example of change
Despite the differences about the role of clubs and associations in society, there is broad agreement among experts: intrigue and backroom mentality are out and are considered unprofessional – undemocratic. Wherever they exist, they are criticized. Adherence to democratic processes is required. According to experts like Florian Scheibe and Sandy Adam, this is the trend.
And quite obviously: the days of the great Zampanos must be considered numbered if even the German Chess Association elects a woman – and an outsider at that – as president.
Ingrid Lauterbach gives an insight: “Then I thought about the fact that it is important that there is someone in the position who is trying to turn things around again.” The mathematician has been president of the chess association since May.
The predecessors had run the association down so badly that the German Chess Summit had to be canceled. Constant financial disputes had created deep rifts between the association and the youth chess community, and top performers turned away. The chess boom, triggered not least by the Queen’s Gambit series, bypassed the association just as the me-too debate was ignored. The dissatisfaction was immense for years, but everything remained as it was – even after elections.
Hierarchical orders are being questioned
“It is my understanding that we talk to each other instead of about each other and that we have a conversation. But you also have to say that I was a bit disappointed, for example, when I wrote to the member organizations on behalf of the Finance Committee and asked them to send me suggestions “That we can staff it appropriately and the response from most associations was zero. Maybe that’s something we need to learn together as a culture,” says Lauterbach.
Chess blogger Conrad Schormann also sees it that way. A critic who was not universally popular and who had repeatedly accused the association of hiding behind formal structures and stifling democratic impulses. That has to change:
“That it seems inviting, that you have the feeling: You can make a difference there. That you don’t need an office to take part, that there is an easy docking and that you don’t have to have been chairman in the country first in order to to do something together.”
Something is happening in many associations. Time and again in football, but also in chess and elsewhere, hierarchical orders are questioned and their functionality and suitability for democracy are questioned. From athletes, fans, critics and outsiders.