Germany's highest court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, has ruled against the Deutsche Fußball Liga (DFL) concerning the payment of police fees for Hochrisikospiele, or high-risk football matches. This decision, made on January 14, 2025, confirms the legality of Bremen's longstanding regulations requiring the organizers of these events to bear the costs of enhanced police presence expected during such matches.
The court's ruling puts to rest a legal dispute sparked by Bremen's 2014 law which mandates event organizers to cover the incremental costs for police deployments due to anticipated violence at large sporting events. The situation arose amid growing tensions and incidents of violence at football games, particularly between rival fans, prompting increased law enforcement measures.
During the court's announcement, Gerichtspräsident Stephan Harbarth explained, “The law’s aim is to place costs on those who can be deemed responsible for the events and who also benefit financially.” This ruling is particularly significant as it deems not just the police's duties as part of the state's responsibilities, but also opens the door for similar legislative actions across Germany.
Since the initiation of the police fee arrangement, Bremen has issued several bills to the DFL, stating the need for their cooperation due to the economic benefits derived from such events. The first bill issued to the DFL amounted to approximately €425,000 for the April 2015 match between Werder Bremen and Hamburger SV, wherein notable police expenditures stemmed from increased deployment caused by fan conflicts.
Over the years, the total bill attributed to the DFL has surpassed €3 million, sparking extensive legal challenges from the league organization. Once again, the DFL argued these charges were unconstitutional, asserting public safety concerns and responsibilities should fall solely on the state and be funded by taxpayers rather than private organizations profiting from the events.
Yet, the court sided with the state’s perspective, reinforcing the legality of the charges based on the premise of fair accountability among profit-generators. “We are simply asking those who benefit from these large gatherings to assist in financing the public safety measures necessary to conduct them,” noted Ulrich Mäurer, Bremen’s Interior Senator, who has championed the state’s position throughout the protracted legal saga.
Looking forward, the ruling may encourage other federal states to implement similar measures. Authorities from Hamburg, Niedersachsen, and other regions have expressed intentions to explore the option of charging football clubs for police deployment costs, generating apprehension about spread and uniformity across the nation.
Reactions to the ruling were mixed. While some within the state government celebrated what they view as accountability to public funds and taxpayer money, teams and fan associations expressed disappointment. A coalition of fan groups, including “Unsere Kurve,” urged caution, asserting the ruling poses significant risks to the fundamental obligations of the state concerning public security.
“It is disheartening to perceive police services as mere commodities to be bought,” said Jost Peters, representing fan interests. He continued by stating, “The responsibility for public safety should remain with the state rather than being transferred to organizations based on attendance figures and expected behaviors.”
The DFL has vowed to reevaluate its approach following the decision, though they acknowledge the outcome limits their options considerably. According to attorney Bernd Hoefer, the DFL will need to adapt to this new reality, remarking, “While we are naturally disappointed, we must find pathways forward.”
The ramifications of this decision extend beyond just football. The ruling casts light on broader public policy questions about funding for security at commercial events and could alter how large public gatherings are managed financially.
Some legal experts have warned of potential downsides, indicating it could prompt teams to exclude visitors from rival clubs during high-risk games or limit attendance more broadly to evade security fees. Dr. Gerrit Müller-Eiselt, pointing out this possibility, highlighted how such moves could undermine the essence of sporting events. “The stadium should be about competition and spirit, not dictated by financial burdens,” he asserted.
What remains now is for the DFL and other clubs to navigate the post-ruling financial environment and examine cooperative models to mitigate potential disparities felt by clubs of all sizes. With the DFL holding significant market power, it will be fascinating to see how collaboration occurs among Bundesliga teams to address this pressing issue.
Looking to the future, it remains uncertain how this will impact fan experiences and matchday environments at football stadiums, but for the moment, the ruling sends ripples through the sports community.
The Bundesverfassungsgericht's decision marks only the beginning of discussions about funding mechanisms for public safety at large events and sets the stage for nationwide dialogue on fiscal responsibilities among profit-seeking organizations and the public sector.