German Soccer’s Ownership Model Gets Antitrust Path Forward

The Bundeskartellamt’s guidance gives the German Football League, or DFL, a route to retain the principle commonly known as “50+1,” while placing greater emphasis on how clubs treat members and how exceptions are handled, according to reporting by Channel News Asia.

At stake is a defining feature of the German game. Unlike many major European clubs that can be controlled outright by private investors, German teams generally operate under arrangements intended to leave voting power in the hands of their member-based organizations. That distinction has increasingly become a competition-law issue as professional soccer has attracted larger pools of institutional and private capital.

The regulator’s position suggests that restricting control by outside investors isn’t automatically unlawful. The policy may have a legitimate sporting purpose when it protects the influence of club members, according to the CNA/Reuters account. But the legal case becomes harder to sustain if clubs nominally governed by the same principle are treated differently without sufficient justification.

That shifts the antitrust debate away from a simple question of whether 50+1 should exist and toward the mechanics of its implementation.

The Bundeskartellamt has been examining those mechanics for years, including arrangements involving clubs with longstanding corporate relationships and the conditions under which supporters can participate as voting members. The regulator has previously identified Bayer Leverkusen, VfL Wolfsburg and TSG Hoffenheim in its examination of exemptions from the general ownership framework.

The latest guidance also puts membership practices under closer scrutiny. A system defended on the basis that it preserves supporter and member influence needs to provide meaningful avenues for that influence, according to the reasoning described in the source reporting.

Related: Second Circuit Backs MLS, US Soccer in Antitrust Appeal

That creates a potentially important compliance challenge for the DFL. The league must reconcile clubs that developed under different historical ownership structures while showing that its restrictions operate according to coherent standards.

MLex reported that the competition authority’s guidance addresses the DFL’s investor restriction from an antitrust perspective, adding to the legal framework the league will have to consider as it determines the rule’s future form.

The issue extends beyond German soccer. European courts and regulators have increasingly been asked to determine when rules imposed by sports governing bodies constitute legitimate regulation of competition and when they become unlawful restraints. The 50+1 proceedings illustrate that tension because the same rule that protects a particular model of club governance also limits the ability of investors to acquire control.

For German soccer, those competing considerations have financial implications. Opening clubs more widely to outside ownership could increase access to capital at a time when teams compete with heavily financed rivals elsewhere in Europe. Preserving 50+1, however, maintains a governance tradition that supporters and league officials have argued is central to the domestic game, according to CNA’s Reuters report.

The competition authority isn’t choosing between those commercial and cultural models. Instead, its guidance establishes conditions under which the DFL may make that choice itself without falling afoul of competition rules.

The result is therefore not an unrestricted antitrust approval of 50+1. It is a narrower conclusion: Germany can continue limiting investor control if the restrictions are tied to their stated objectives and administered consistently.

Source: Channel News Asia