High-risk games: “It’s only cheap that football clubs are asked to pay”

Leipziger Volkszeitung”: It is clear that football also attracts problematic audiences. But it is also clear that contributing to police costs does not prevent fan violence. The Karlsruhe ruling has clarified who has to pay the bill for potential escalations in football – not how to prevent them.”

“Southwest Press”: “The expected outcry did not take long to arrive. Additional police costs at high-risk football games may be charged. After the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the federal states would do well to follow Bremen’s example uniformly and ask the professional clubs to pay. It is also an incentive to invest more in preventative work among your fans in order to reduce the level of violence in the environment and thus the number of high-risk games. The money in the million-dollar football business is there.”

Read the comment from stern editor Kerstin Herrnkind here: “High-risk games could be expensive for the DFL in the future. That’s a good thing!”

“Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger”: Responsibility for public safety should not be a question of money. The Karlsruhe decision makes it seem as if the monopoly on violence is something like the data volume on cell phones. If it is used up, you have to pay extra. It is clear that football also attracts problematic audiences and that it has a responsibility to deal with these sections of the audience. The decision puts the DFL under pressure. Until now, she had stuck to her position that the fee notices were unlawful. In the future, she will have to consider how to deal with the demands from Bremen and possibly other federal states. For example, there is talk of a fund into which all clubs pay. The DFL has so far been categorically against this proposal. After the verdict in Karlsruhe, she can no longer afford this stubbornness.”

“General Gazette”: Because some fans think they can show their support for their own club by getting into excessive fights with the fans of their hated rival. Conflicts between clubs from Hamburg and Bremen or Schalke and Dortmund also occur in indoor handball or field hockey. But hundreds of police are not necessary for the safety of the spectators. That’s why it’s only cheap if the football clubs are asked to pay for it.”

“Young World”: Could those who register political demonstrations also receive a bill for police operations in the future? At first probably not, because as the First Senate of the BVerfG explained, the intention to make a profit is the decisive criterion, along with the foreseeable violent orientation of an event. Additional costs may be claimed if profits are made anyway. If the regulation becomes widespread, organizers of folk festivals, for example, will have to think about it – or the organizers of events such as the Rosa Luxemburg Conference.”

“Süddeutsche Zeitung”: “It has now decided that the federal states can pass on the additional costs for matches with exceptionally high escalation potential to the clubs. This is right and was long overdue. Football is a commercial operation. That the taxpayer community unreservedly supports the security infrastructure Even highly dangerous league games have become established, but are still incomprehensible. Here, profits are privatized and costs are socialized.”

“Picture”: “A judgment that I consider to be nonsense! Football in Germany is very important for the population. Nothing brings so many people together every weekend. Especially in times like these, this is valuable glue for our society. Protecting this asset is important The task of the state and the police. Every citizen pays taxes for this – including the football clubs. Bremen’s Interior Senator Ulrich Mäurer (73), who has already billed Werder for police operations, should be grateful for the attraction of Werder Bremen in his city. Instead, he is filling his pockets. He has already demanded 3 million. One can only hope that most of the federal states do not join the Bremen team and stop sending bills.