No investor, new threat: backroom politics breaks DFL plan’s bones

No investor, new threat
Backroom politics break the bones of the DFL plan

By Tobias Nordman

The professional clubs have spoken out against the controversial entry of an investor in the German Football League (DFL). The deal should bring two billion euros. The bosses are angry, but they really need to look at themselves.

The bosses of the German Football League (DFL) receive a hard smack. Your plan to get an investor on board and thus generate two billion euros fails. Although the head of the supervisory board, Hans-Joachim Watzke, tried not to take the failed search for investors too seriously and also highlighted the majority of the 36 clubs from the 1st and 2nd Bundesliga for the project, there was a lot of incomprehension in the subtext that too many clubs blocked the way for a billion dollar deal. The self-imposed two-thirds majority was clearly missed. In the secret agreement at the request of VfL Bochum, 20 clubs had spoken out in favor of starting negotiations, eleven were against, five abstained. Above all, Watzke did not want to understand the behavior of these clubs.

It was this Wednesday, after which the emotional debate had come to a head, about fundamental changes for German football. Some saw (or still see) the competitiveness of the Bundesliga in danger. A struggle for existence was declared. It was stalled with a democratic process. Not an investor. But no more problems now? Well, that wasn’t really what the opponents were about at all. Their fear was based on the fact that the power of an investor cannot be calculated. The Bundesliga product has grown dear to the hearts of the fans, the fundamental base of the clubs. They don’t want completely dismembered game days or cup finals in the desert, like the Spanish league already has.

The sunken plan envisaged the following: An investor should have acquired 12.5 percent of the shares in a DFL subsidiary, to which all media rights would have been outsourced, over 20 years. The league hoped that the sale would bring in proceeds of just those two billion euros (you can find out more about the distribution of the sum here!)

Right of veto is not explained

The fact that the DFL was apparently unable to moderate these concerns had already been shown at a panel discussion two weeks ago. Watzke and DFL interim managing director Axel Hellmann had answered questions from fans, mostly from BVB, but too often answered evasively. Some clubs and their representatives have recently complained about this lack of transparency. The DFL must be accused of not flanking this delicate path well. Or not having told the truth in some places. For example, the “Sportschau” revealed on the basis of internal DFL papersthat an investor should be given a “right of veto” for transactions that are “important” for him. When asked by the “Sportschau”, the DFL did not clarify which transactions were meant. The reluctance to clarify open questions, which FC Schalke 04 gave as the reason for voting against the plan, does not strengthen confidence in a path that has led to the abyss in other places.

At Hertha from Berlin, they know only too well how bad a deal with an investor can end. The “Big City Club” project launched by Lars Windhorst and his comrades-in-arms initially ended with the crash into the second division. It might even get worse. The license is in danger, the threatening Regionalliga scenario is far from off the table. At the Hertha general meeting, there was a clear vote against the DFL plan, which was not binding for the club. In addition to the protest cations week after week in the stadiums, this was the next open evidence of how great the rejection of foreign participation is. The entry of an investor via the central marketing of the media rights would have been an almost hopeless attempt to find a connection in the crazy and unlimited competition of money destruction, which must eventually end in the ruin of the leagues or clubs involved.

“Transparency is essential in these processes”

Fortunately, the active fan scene is not morally flexible enough to throw itself blindly into this pointless endeavor, as in some other countries where investors are lovingly embraced for their powerful patronage. For example in England, where a Saudi Arabian state fund bought Newcastle United, and the supporters in all their dreams and all their bliss faded out that human rights are trampled on in the country and unwelcome members of the opposition are sometimes simply killed.

Other examples with controversial investors: Manchester City, currently the most remarkable team in the world, or Paris St. Germain. Yes, the DFL bosses had assured that there was a governance catalog when selecting a private equity investor. But here, too, a lot of things seemed to be too vague in the preparation. The “backroom politics” lamented by the fans failed miserably. The organization “Unsere Kuman” confessed: “The result shows: Transparency is essential in these processes. Questions have to be answered.” Thomas Kessen, the spokesman for the fan alliance, told the sports information service: “We welcome the verdict, of course. That’s a strong sign. There were too many question marks. Some of them apparently deliberately kept information in order to get their own politics through.”

The DFL bosses reacted defiantly and argued past the core: “In the near future no one should come up with solidarity issues,” said Watzke. The BVB managing director explained that his club and FC Bayern in particular were willing to give up many rights and have them marketed centrally. “More solidarity than we had set up, especially the big clubs, you can’t be more solidarity,” said Watzke. However, since this solidarity is “not desired”, the top clubs would “make their minds up”. A new threat of secession, after which the other had just been moderated democratically.

source site-33