Exceptions to 50+1 for Leverkusen and Wolfsburg "no longer possible"

The Federal Cartel Office has informed the DFL that the 50+1 rule can remain in place, but that the DFL must improve its application. This gives rise to tasks for the DFL that primarily affect Leverkusen and Wolfsburg.

The authority published its conclusions from its review of the 50+1 rule on Monday (June 16, 2025). It continued to have "no fundamental concerns about the 50+1 rule ." However, Federal Cartel Office President Andreas Mundt called for three measures:

The most sensitive point: There must be no more exceptions; according to the Federal Cartel Office , the protection of existing rights for Bayer Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg , which are exempt from the rule, must no longer exist in the long term. "According to the new case law of the European Court of Justice, it no longer appears possible to provide permanent protection for clubs that have already received an exemption from funding ," said Mundt, referring to Leverkusen and Wolfsburg. "Rather, all clubs must fundamentally enjoy homogeneous competitive conditions. This means that, at least in the long term, it must be ensured that the parent club, which is open to new members, controls the professional division." In Leverkusen and Wolfsburg, there are no parent clubs that have a dominant influence on the professional football divisions. But this is fundamentally stipulated by the 50+1 rule. It is also crucial "that the DFL ensures open access to membership and thus fan participation at all Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs ." In its discussions with the DFL, the office specifically referred to the situation at RB Leipzig and questioned whether the association is "sufficiently open" to new voting members. The DFL should also "ensure that the values of the 50+1 rule are also observed in its own voting ." This refers to the dispute surrounding the voting behavior of Martin Kind, then managing director of Hannover 96 , on the DFL investor deal. Kind may have voted "yes" in the vote contrary to the parent club's instructions. However, the DFL "did not take any measures to verify whether Mr. Kind actually voted in accordance with the instructions and, if necessary, to draw any consequences from this . "

What happens next?

German football is faced with the question: enforce 50+1 or abolish it? It is conceivable that the DFL and the clubs concerned could reach an agreement on structural changes in order to comply with the requirements. However, lobbying among DFL clubs to abolish the rule or even legal action by certain clubs or individuals against 50+1 are also possible. These measures don't have to be implemented immediately. "A longer transition period could be justified in view of their economic and sporting significance ," the authority stated.

DFL: "We will have to find solutions"The DFL announced that it would review the recommendations. It is now possible to "discuss necessary further developments of the 50+1 rule within the league association and implement appropriate, future-proof, and legally secure solutions ," the DFL stated."The 50+1 rule is a fundamental component of German football. The DFL Executive Committee will continue to advocate for the protection and continued existence of the rule ," said Hans-Joachim Watzke, spokesperson for the DFL Executive Committee, according to the statement. "We will discuss the Federal Cartel Office's assessment in detail within the DFL Executive Committee. One thing is clear: the entire league association, the DFL eV, will have to find solutions to jointly safeguard and strengthen the regulation."

football"The alliance "Fanszenen Deutschlands," which had significantly influenced the protests against the investor entry into the DFL, stated: "Our expectations are clear: consistently apply and maintain the 50+1 rule!" The Federal Cartel Office has certified the DFL as "failing, as expected . " "The result now demands the consistent implementation of 50+1; everything else is non-negotiable for us ," said the "Fanszenen Deutschlands." 50+1 must be protected at all costs and by all means. "The DFL, the clubs, and their officials must now show their colors. The affected clubs must adapt their corporate form and organization in accordance with the 50+1 rule in the short term or withdraw from organized football."

The fan alliance "Unsere Kurve" welcomed the Federal Cartel Office's assessment, which "underpins the co-determination rights of members and fans." "Football belongs to the fans" is not an empty slogan, but a fundamental principle of German football, the alliance told Sportschau in response to an inquiry. "We also expressly welcome the clarification regarding Martin Kind's unfair conduct in the 2024 investor vote and the lack of club identity in Leipzig." It is now up to the DFL to implement the Federal Cartel Office's recommendations. "This may be a major challenge, but ultimately it strengthens German football and its unique selling point – the fans," said "Unsere Kurve."

A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) raised new questions in the proceedings before the Federal Cartel Office at the end of 2023. The ECJ had accepted an association rule in Belgian football, provided that it was designed in a transparent, objective, precise, and non-discriminatory manner and enforced accordingly in practice.The same applies to other association rules, such as the 50+1 rule in German football. Therefore, Germany's highest competition authority has restarted its review process, which had already been concluded.

The Federal Cartel Office also wanted to take a closer look at the contractual situation between investor Martin Kind and the registered association Hannover 96. The question arose as to whether the parent club's right to issue instructions existed in reality or only on paper. In the hotly contested vote in January 2024 on the inclusion of an investor in the DFL's business, the impression remained that Martin Kind, as Managing Director of Hannover 96, voted "yes" against the instructions of the parent club, Hannover 96 e. V. (registered association). Kind never made public how he voted. The parent club repeatedly criticized Kind for defying instructions. Later, after a lengthy legal dispute, the registered association successfully dismissed Kind . The DFL had previously described the right to issue instructions as "crucial for compliance with the 50+1" rule .

In addition, Rasenballsport Leipzig came into the spotlight of the competition authority for the first time in the reopened review proceedings. At RB Leipzig, it is possible that the 50+1 target will not be met – "due to the structure of the parent club, RasenBallsport Leipzig eV, which is not sufficiently open to new voting members," according to a letter from the competition authorities to the parties involved in the proceedings in 2024. At RB, there are only just over 20 selected voting members who are close to the investor " Red Bull ."

The DFL and the DFL had actually already reached an agreement regarding the two clubs officially exempt from the 50+1 rule, Bayer Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg. The origins of the Federal Cartel Office's investigation date back to 2018. At that time, the DFL, under former President Reinhard Rauball and then Managing Director Christian Seifert, asked the Federal Cartel Office to examine whether the rule was compatible with competition law. The Federal Cartel Office presented its findings in 2021: The 50+1 rule is therefore compatible with competition law, but the exceptions to the rule for Bayer 04 Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg are not. However, both sides reached a compromise: If their parent companies compensate for losses that are too high, the clubs from Wolfsburg and Leverkusen would have to pay a kind of luxury tax.

The compromise proposal also stipulated the creation of a committee position for club representatives. There would be no further exceptions in the future. This solution would have protected the two clubs' existing rights, and the other clubs would have at least received legal certainty from the Federal Cartel Office. This compromise was also endorsed by the Federal Cartel Office, but was never adopted – because new questions arose with the ECJ ruling and the situations in Leipzig and Hanover.