Archy World News

Amtsgericht München: Will Bayern resolved?

Many fans keep the Bundesliga boring. Bayern wins everything. Some wish he would just disappear simply deleted.

To put it bluntly, this wish may soon come true. Lars Leuschner, Professor of Civil Law, Commercial and Corporate Law at the University of Osnabrück, has stimulated the Munich District Court to delete the FC Bayern München e. V. from the register of associations. “Due to legal status offense,” it says in its letter to the court on August 2, the ZEIT ONLINE has seen.

Now that Bayern haters should make no hope Bayern will play activities do not have to adjust. But the court should correspond Leuschner request, Bayern has a problem. And with him the entire German professional football. Because Leuschner, the experts for club right is not specifically to Bayern, but fundamental questions:

  • What is the structure must have a club that plays professional football in Germany? ?
  • to what extent can a club do business as he may a lot of money to implement, he must take on its subsidiaries the impact
  • Or, you might think a bit further: Why are in Germany play only teams football?

The joke is: The chances that the court Leuschner follows arguments are good. Its starting point is the section 21 of the Civil Code. Accordingly, a club must always pursue an ideological purpose, may possibly generate revenue in a subordinate sense – the so-called secondary activity privilege. If it exceeds this, it can be deleted.

Bayern continued in fiscal 2015 to almost half a billion euros, there is no doubt that more than a secondary activity. More complicated is the matter, because he, like many other German football clubs, his professional division spun off into a corporation. At this Aktiengesellschaft Bayern Munich e.V. still holds but 75.01 percent of the shares. Thus it has great influence on the FC Bayern München AG.

Significant parallels to ADAC

In justice is controversial, what follows from it. The Federal Court ruled in 1982 that Mother club and subsidiaries are each independently. Thereupon the Bureau of FC Bayern München e relied. V. “We believe that the application is unfounded and see us in line with the Supreme Court judgment.” It has announced a detailed opinion by 20 September, the deadline that has set the club, the district court.

Also Leuschner, a Bayern fan by the way, this view agrees in principle. He believes that structures such as the Bayern Munich are actually not objectionable. What drives him is that most of his craft the look different now. “It has become a legal interpretation developed, one would take it seriously, would provide many functioning club structures almost insoluble problems.” Leuschner bothered by this legal opinion, his application he wants to create clarity.

What does he mean, Leuschner illustrated with a reference to a piquant precedent, the ADAC. Early 2014 it was announced that the automobile club had manipulated his awards, such as the Yellow Angel. After this scandal, he saw himself forced to structural reform. The club had placed too high conversions to still correspond to the ideal purpose. To avoid a cancellation, the general meeting of the ADAC decided in May 2016 that the club significantly reduced its impact on its economy services. Leuschner speaks of a “Entherrschung”.

Great danger for the 50 + 1 rule

the trigger for this reform, which is expected to cost the ADAC about 40 million euros, was the district court in Munich, where the ADAC has its headquarters. So just the court, which must decide on Bayern now. It has repeatedly objected to the opinion of the BGH of 1982nd Leuschner himself holds the position of the district court for “highly problematic”. He would have liked, it would have to revise it.

The parallel between the ADAC and the FC Bayern is immediately evident not only for Leuschner, other lawyers see it that way. In both cases, the scope of economic activities is large, the Bayern relatively even greater. Although the ADAC makes more than twice as much revenue as the FC Bayern, but has many more members, namely more than 19 million, the FC Bayern “only” 270,000.

Lars Leuschner

<- tile: 9 desktop adctrl ->

is the Amtsgericht München consistently, it would have to Bayern Munich e. ​​V. either delete. What is probably only a theoretical possibility, the association is politically important and powerful. Or it would have to push him to reduce its influence on the professional department significantly.

This would be a large incision, according to the statute of the FCB club president is also the chairman of the Supervisory Board. At present, the Karl Hopfner, soon probably again Hoeness. The Supervisory Board determined by the operational business with, appoints or dismisses as the boards. He is probably not, if the district court applies the same standards as in the ADAC.

It would also be a cultural break for Bayern, who see themselves as classic club. Anyone who has been on the General Assembly, knows to report of lively Mia-san-mia mentality and other folk elements.

Tolerated lawbreaking in Schalke and Mainz

However, the case concerns the entire industry. German football club is a pure culture, it has grown historically. And it is anchored in the statutes of the associations. The 50 + 1 rule of DFL indicates that the association must have the majority of votes. Otherwise void the license.

DFB and DFL can only play teams football in their leagues. Siemens or Apple, for example, may not in the Bundesliga, Red Bull seems to Leipzig to keep on paper at 50 + 1 at least. Critics say, however, of a circumvention of the rule. Not only because they are under pressure, and Leuschner resolution could weaken further, perhaps even bring to case. It is incompatible with the recent legal opinion of the District Court

And there is someone who should observe exactly what happened in Munich. The football clubs that their license player department have not outsourced, for example, Schalke 04, Mainz 05 or VfB Stuttgart. “The fact that the current structure of these associations is unlawful, can not be doubted,” says Leuschner. It would be absurd to claim that their professional sports departments ideal purposes, ie about the grassroots, are subordinate. “It is a tolerated lawbreaking.”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *