Bundeskartellamt Approves the 50+1 Rule with Conditions

The Bundeskartellamt has concluded that the 50+1 rule is compatible with antitrust laws, as long as it is applied consistently and without unjustified exceptions. This decision was communicated to the Deutsche Fußball Liga (DFL), clubs, and investors involved in the process.

Regulatory Assessment

The Bundeskartellamt stated that although the rule limits economic competition in investments, its objective to maintain club identity and member participation justifies an exception to antitrust prohibitions. According to Andreas Mundt, president of the Bundeskartellamt:

"We have reviewed all arguments. The 50+1 rule can be justified with the goal of preserving the club's identity and member participation, provided it is applied uniformly."

Recommendations for the DFL

The Bundeskartellamt advised the DFL:

• Ensure open access to membership in all Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga clubs.
• Consistently adhere to the values of the 50+1 rule in internal voting.
• Improve existing protective regulations for sponsoring clubs.

Analysis of European Court of Justice Decisions

Following recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding sports laws, the Bundeskartellamt evaluated their impact on the 50+1 rule. The body determined that restrictive practices can be legal if they pursue a coherent and systematic common good objective.

Key Aspects Identified:

• Member Participation: It was observed that equitable access to become a voting member is not always guaranteed.
• Voting Practices: The inconsistency in the application of the rule, especially evident in voting on investments, questions its antitrust exemption.
• Exceptions for Sponsoring Clubs: Current proposals to eliminate exceptions remain insufficient.

Context and Future Status

The 50+1 rule currently guarantees participation from the majority of Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga clubs, fulfilling a common good objective. The Bundeskartellamt does not seek to prohibit this rule, as its elimination could fully open clubs to unrestricted investors.

Although the regulator does not dictate how the DFL should modify its implementation of the rule, it does establish the legal framework for its safe application. Decisions regarding its development and any modifications in practice remain the responsibility of the DFL.

Conclusion

The Bundeskartellamt tasked the DFL with considering these aspects to apply the 50+1 rule safely and fairly. A longer transition period may be necessary due to the economic and sporting significance of the rule.