Clubs Stick To Their Fans

“Clubs stick to their fans”

Empty wall instead of yellow wall: The DFB ruling against Borussia Dortmund is the dominant theme in the comments of the German sports pages. The press reviews at a glance.

Stuttgart – Football Vikemeister has agreed to the criminal application of the DFB control committee and thus have to abstain from the support of some 25,000 hardcore fans on Saturday night in the match against VfL Wolfsburg . We have the on the case:

The club is liable for its fans. And the fans, who have nothing to blame, suffer the third-party liability. They must accept the fact that the sanction also affects them – unless the sanction, the tribunal lock, is absolutely disproportionate. But these are rubber formulas. When is the lock relatively: when two hundred ultras have cheated? If a hundred have riots? Or twenty? Whether such sanctions are proportionate also depends on what the association does to prevent marginalization: Does it grant stadium ban? Does he throw the rioters, they are members, out of the club? Does he make the rioters liable? He may, for example, sue her for the loss of revenue due to the lock-up of the grandstand. Jurisprudence has accepted such a recourse. This also follows a simple legal principle: who does not want to hear must feel. Thus the liability questions are not so complicated. First, clubs are responsible for their fans. Second, whoever does not want to hear must feel. The grandstand is not the ordered heartstroke. It is a necessary operation. ”

“FAZ”: “Blocking the entire grandstand seems appropriate because the poster campaign against Leipzig made the appearance that the hackers were able to use not only individual (ultra-) fan blocks for their hatred slogans but the largest part of the Four thousand square meters. That is at least part of the rightful fans. Some of them even admitted that they had understanding for the blockade. The BVB managers see this differently. The farther one reads their explanations, the more clearly it becomes clear that their consent is pragmatically motivated, guided by opportunity considerations. And “the conviction that, in the emotionally still charged atmosphere, it is currently neither possible nor meaningful to conduct a substantive debate on a legal, appropriate, proportionate or far-sighted punishment in the legal sense”. Moreover, it is “disproportionate to impose a collective penalty on 25,000 spectators” whose “overwhelming majority” is innocent. In this context, the acceptance of punishment acts as a purely formal act. Behind this lies the message: We reserve the right to evaluate the content in a different way. This makes it clear that the way to deal with verbal violence in  still very far. ”

 SpiegelOnline “: “The fact that the club took four days to accept the barrier, although it is the only sensible decision in this situation, suggests that in the management the seriousness of the situation is only slowly recognized. Through the events against Leipzig the club has suffered a loss of image, which should be sustainable. The sympathy tone, which BVB has been able to call on football fans outside Gelsenkirchen for years, is evaporating. ”

“World”: “Would it not have been more sensible to give BVB the opportunity to drastically increase its spending on preventive measures in fanfare? To demand that additional social workers and street workers be hired, who work with the persistence and know-how of the problematic fan scene? To insist on the fact that BVB is expanding its administrative staff, is better educated and, above all, better paid? In the future, it might be possible to prevent banners with insulting content from entering the stadium area at all. The suspicion is pressing: With the blocking of the South stand, German football calms down its conscience. Free according to the motto: We have worked hard. But whether this measure will help to solve the problems may be questioned. ”

“Whether or not the collective punishment of the majority of the peaceful southern tribesmen is now proportionate is a comprehensible but nevertheless a secondary discussion among the affected fans. Rather, it was about setting a long-range mark. ”

“The West”: “Borussia Dortmund could hardly be different: If the club had refused to let the South stand for a game, he would have stood in the heated mood now as a club, which would be good if his fans are going on women and children. In the case of a differentiated view, one has little to do with the other, but one can not rely on a differentiated view of the topic. And so the Dortmunder agreed with the request of the control committee of the German Football Association: € 100,000 fines and a game ban of the South stand. You want to have the topic finally from the table, but it is not yet finished. Because for those about 24,500 of the 25,000 spectators on the South stand, who have nothing to be guilty of, the lockout is difficult to bear. And for the club, it is hard to bear the fact that he is now forced to accept it. ”

 

Leave a Reply

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