Bundesliga's 50+1 Rule

[Eco]

This aspect of the German game has always interested me. 

Currently, there are a few teams that bypass the rules, and there recently has been some teams claiming that the rule in fact hurts the game. 

The  questionable clubs appear to really be RB and Hoffenhiem. I'm not sure how Hoffenheim gets around the rules whereas RB's structure is evidently shady, but not illegal and very corporate. 

Wolfsburg and Bayer are both backed by long standing German companies, but does the same anti-football sentiment revolve around them? 

I was reading about Hanover's owner, who appears to be the leading vocal opponent to the 50+1, however based on the vote that just took place, he is fairly alone in his desire to dismantle the rule. 

So, what are your thoughts on this rule? Do you think what RB has done is actually bad for football? 

[nudge]

Hmmm we had so many discussions on this topic that I'm not sure I really want to start it again, haha. In the end, it all comes down to different point of views. Personally, I'm glad that the rule is still in place and prevents football in Germany from going full re-t-ard like in most other countries and leagues, even if that means that most clubs (including mine) end up being not as competitive due to lack of money while some others take advantage of the loopholes and grey zones. 

[Eco]

6 minutes ago, nudge said:

Hmmm we had so many discussions on this topic that I'm not sure I really want to start it again, haha. In the end, it all comes down to different point of views. Personally, I'm glad that the rule is still in place and prevents football in Germany from going full re-t-ard like in most other countries and leagues, even if that means that most clubs (including mine) end up being not as competitive due to lack of money while some others take advantage of the loopholes and grey zones. 

Yeah - but my thoughts were around the fact that I didn't see a thread dedicated to this very topic. 

I would wager to say that the financial health of the clubs are much better in Germany than the rest of Europe, and I think that is one of the main purposes of this year. Well, this and the fact that the Bundesliga is trying to make sure the fans are heavily involved in the well being of their club. 

I probably don't need to say, but this is such a foreign concept here that I just am fascinated by it, as well as how certainly clubs perform using the loopholes and 'grey zones'. 

I have read about how RB operates to 'remain' in compliance with the 50+1 rule, but I still don't understand the areas that Hoffenheim and Wolfsburg  perform in. I know Hoffenheim is 96% owned by Hopp so it doesn't make sense why they aren't punished for not complying with the 50+1 rule. Wolfsburg have a pretty healthy Membership, but I'm assuming similar to RB, maybe they only allow VW employees join? 

[Azeem]

9 minutes ago, Eco said:

Yeah - but my thoughts were around the fact that I didn't see a thread dedicated to this very topic. 

I would wager to say that the financial health of the clubs are much better in Germany than the rest of Europe, and I think that is one of the main purposes of this year. Well, this and the fact that the Bundesliga is trying to make sure the fans are heavily involved in the well being of their club. 

I probably don't need to say, but this is such a foreign concept here that I just am fascinated by it, as well as how certainly clubs perform using the loopholes and 'grey zones'. 

I have read about how RB operates to 'remain' in compliance with the 50+1 rule, but I still don't understand the areas that Hoffenheim and Wolfsburg  perform in. I know Hoffenheim is 96% owned by Hopp so it doesn't make sense why they aren't punished for not complying with the 50+1 rule. Wolfsburg have a pretty healthy Membership, but I'm assuming similar to RB, maybe they only allow VW employees join? 

[nudge]

Just now, Eco said:

Yeah - but my thoughts were around the fact that I didn't see a thread dedicated to this very topic. 

I would wager to say that the financial health of the clubs are much better in Germany than the rest of Europe, and I think that is one of the main purposes of this year. Well, this and the fact that the Bundesliga is trying to make sure the fans are heavily involved in the well being of their club. 

I probably don't need to say, but this is such a foreign concept here that I just am fascinated by it, as well as how certainly clubs perform using the loopholes and 'grey zones'. 

I have read about how RB operates to 'remain' in compliance with the 50+1 rule, but I still don't understand the areas that Hoffenheim and Wolfsburg  perform in. I know Hoffenheim is 96% owned by Hopp so it doesn't make sense why they aren't punished for not complying with the 50+1 rule. Wolfsburg have a pretty healthy Membership, but I'm assuming similar to RB, maybe they only allow VW employees join? 

Hopp was allowed to officially acquire the majority of the voting shares at Hoffenheim, because the regulations say that any entity which substantially funds the club for 20 years or more without interuption is allowed to take advantage of the exception to the 50+1 rule and own the controlling stake in the club. Which is frankly taking the piss, because he already had all the power way before he was officially allowed to   Wolfsburg and Leverkusen are the other clubs that are exception to the rule based on the same grounds. Martin Kind applied for the same exemption but was rejected hehehehehe.

[Eco]

Ah - yes I have heard about the rule, and I knew it applied to Bayer and Wolfsburg, but not to Hopp. 

I remember teams and fans protesting against Hopp, but I don't remember anyone protesting against Bayer or Wolfsburg, so I wonder if it's because of the difference between a person owner over a company owner, or if it's the fact that Hoffenheim is so incredibly small ? 

[Eco]

Just now, nudge said:

Hopp was allowed to officially acquire the majority of the voting shares at Hoffenheim, because the regulations say that any entity which substantially funds the club for 20 years or more without interuption is allowed to take advantage of the exception to the 50+1 rule and own the controlling stake in the club. Which is frankly taking the piss, because he already had all the power way before he was officially allowed to   Wolfsburg and Leverkusen are the other clubs that are exception to the rule based on the same grounds. Martin Kind applied for the same exemption but was rejected hehehehehe.

So why do teams protest against Hopp, but not Bayer and Wolfsburg? 

[Spike]

Are TV deals dealt out evenly amongst the eighteen bundesliga clubs? There has to be a method of increasing parity between clubs financially but at the same time it wouldn’t be fair to dock TV money from clubs flush with cash like RB, Bayern, and Bayer.  I imagine there are ways of working with the 50+1 rule to level out the playground, though people don’t really like that because it upsets the status quo, and I doubt Bayern would like their dominance meddle with.

Out of the major leagues in Germany they were probably the closest along with the French league in terms of parity about a decade or so ago before Bayern really took full stride ahead of everyone, and PSG were bought out. I remember when a period when five or six different teams won the league1 when Lyon’s hegemony ended, and Bayern would only win every other year. Trace it back to the 90s and you had Kaiserslautern relegated, promoted, and Bundesliga champions in the span of three years, now that is what I wish football was like always, every team through hardwork and potential has a shot to turn it around and win the grand prize. I used to be super interested in German football but that kind of died out when Bayern went in hyperdrive and started smashing every team in Europe 5-0, maybe that is kind of why I despise them, success breeds contempt

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, nudge said:

Hopp was allowed to officially acquire the majority of the voting shares at Hoffenheim, because the regulations say that any entity which substantially funds the club for 20 years or more without interuption is allowed to take advantage of the exception to the 50+1 rule and own the controlling stake in the club. Which is frankly taking the piss, because he already had all the power way before he was officially allowed to   Wolfsburg and Leverkusen are the other clubs that are exception to the rule based on the same grounds. Martin Kind applied for the same exemption but was rejected hehehehehe.

I thought Bayer and Wolfsburg were even more different because the clubs were founded by the companies for their workers, so they were only ever owned by their founding companies?

[Eco]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

I thought Bayer and Wolfsburg were even more different because the clubs were founded by the companies for their workers, so they were only ever owned by their founding companies?

I think you are right, and I think you can only become a member IF you work for their respective company. 

[nudge]

1 minute ago, Eco said:

So why do teams protest against Hopp, but not Bayer and Wolfsburg? 

Fans have always shown their disdain for Wolfsburg (and to a certain degree for Leverkusen) too. The difference is, Leverkusen had their team founded in 1904 by Bayer and it happened to be a works team for the employees to play football which then naturally developed into a self-sustainable professional football club with a decent fan base throughout the years. VfLWolfsburg has been founded in 1945 and were completely irrelevant until the 90s when VW started pumping millions into the club which they saw as a sort of marketing opportunity for the company (similar to Red Bull, in a way). Both were given the exemption (Lex Leverkusen and Wolfsburg) based on the companies being the founders and having funded their respective clubs for decades from the very start, the exemption actually applied only for entities that had supported the club for over 20 years before 1999. 

[nudge]

5 hours ago, Spike said:

I thought Bayer and Wolfsburg were even more different because the clubs were founded by the companies for their workers, so they were only ever owned by their founding companies?

Yes, absolutely, and originally the exemption was only applicable for the entities that have been historically involved with a club for over 20 years before 1999 (hence it only applied to Bayer and VW). Thanks to Martin Kind, this has been removed a few years ago, paving the way for Hopp to take over the majority of Hoffenheim stake and any entity wishing to do the same in the future.

[nudge]

9 minutes ago, Eco said:

I think you are right, and I think you can only become a member IF you work for their respective company. 

No.

[nudge]

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

Are TV deals dealt out evenly amongst the eighteen bundesliga clubs? There has to be a method of increasing parity between clubs financially but at the same time it wouldn’t be fair to dock TV money from clubs flush with cash like RB, Bayern, and Bayer.  I imagine there are ways of working with the 50+1 rule to level out the playground, though people don’t really like that because it upsets the status quo, and I doubt Bayern would like their dominance meddle with.

Out of the major leagues in Germany they were probably the closest along with the French league in terms of parity about a decade or so ago before Bayern really took full stride ahead of everyone, and PSG were bought out. I remember when a period when five or six different teams won the league1 when Lyon’s hegemony ended, and Bayern would only win every other year. Trace it back to the 90s and you had Kaiserslautern relegated, promoted, and Bundesliga champions in the span of three years, now that is what I wish football was like always, every team through hardwork and potential has a shot to turn it around and win the grand prize. I used to be super interested in German football but that kind of died out when Bayern went in hyperdrive and started smashing every team in Europe 5-0, maybe that is kind of why I despise them, success breeds contempt

The distribution is quite complicated, to be honest. Check this website out: https://www.fernsehgelder.de/ , it details the criteria which is used to determine the way it's distributed among 1. and 2. Liga clubs.

[Eco]

13 minutes ago, nudge said:

No.

Ha, that was worded poorly, as I meant it as a question.

[nudge]

1 minute ago, Eco said:

Ha, that was worded poorly, as I meant it as a question.

Haha no, anyone can become a member, and their memberships are actually even among the cheapest in the whole league.

[Eco]

25 minutes ago, nudge said:

The distribution is quite complicated, to be honest. Check this website out: https://www.fernsehgelder.de/ , it details the criteria which is used to determine the way it's distributed among 1. and 2. Liga clubs.

This is slightly confusing as it doesn't appear as straightforward as TV deals are here in the states, AND  the fact that I think Google is butchering some of the translations. 

[nudge]

2 minutes ago, Eco said:

This is slightly confusing as it doesn't appear as straightforward as TV deals are here in the states, AND  the fact that I think Google is butchering some of the translations. 

Maybe this is easier to understand: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/Bundesliga/agmd12-dfl-media-income-distribution-424720.jsp

 

[Batard]

This has much to do with German cultural identity. WWI reparations, hyper inflation, WWII annexations of Germany and displacement had huge impact on the national psyche. Germans generally loathe to be in debt or spend beyond their means, financially pragmatic compared to Britain for example with a national credit card debt that exceeds the debt of many African countries combined. Given the Premier League is the land of greed and frivolity, it's merely an extension of a British interest to spend spend spend spend and spend some more. The 50+1 rule is an extension of German interest to not spunk money up the wall that you don't have for fear of the shit that might lurk round the corner. There is a happy middle ground. 

EDIT: A great example of this is SkySports in Britain, that beats one off to the amounts of money spent. 

 

[nudge]

3 minutes ago, Batard said:

This has much to do with German cultural identity. WWI reparations, hyper inflation, WWII annexations of Germany and displacement had huge impact on the national psyche. Germans generally loathe to be in debt or spend beyond their means, financially pragmatic compared to Britain for example with a national credit card debt that exceeds the debt of many African countries combined. Given the Premier League is the land of greed and frivolity, it's merely an extension of a British interest to spend spend spend spend and spend some more. The 50+1 rule is an extension of German interest to not spunk money up the wall that you don't have for fear of the shit that might lurk round the corner. There is a happy middle ground. 

EDIT: A great example of this is SkySports in Britain, that beats one off to the amounts of money spent. 

 

A huge difference is also the fact that traditionally, German clubs have always been owned by member associations and as such, are deeply rooted in the community. 

[Azeem]

The way Batard put it German feels like my spirit nationality

[Eco]

2 minutes ago, Azeem said:

The way Batard put it German feels like my spirit nationality

This is similar to how I was thinking while reading it. 

[Batard]

27 minutes ago, nudge said:

A huge difference is also the fact that traditionally, German clubs have always been owned by member associations and as such, are deeply rooted in the community. 

That was the case in Britain until the late 80s, the Premier League and saturation of glory hunters really upped it from the Liverpool glory hunting of the 80s. Football became more about identifying with success than locality 

[Eco]

4 minutes ago, Batard said:

That was the case in Britain until the late 80s, the Premier League and saturation of glory hunters really upped it from the Liverpool glory hunting of the 80s. Football became more about identifying with success than locality 

I don't think it's a difference between identifying with success vs locality, but more about this mindset of 'win at all costs' vs 'trying to win but being smart'. German clubs just don't spend the kind of money that is being spent around Europe. This idea of winning this year and spend whatever it takes, only to worry about paying the bills later, is what has gotten so many teams in trouble..

[Batard]

Just now, Eco said:

I don't think it's a difference between identifying with success vs locality, but more about this mindset of 'win at all costs' vs 'trying to win but being smart'. German clubs just don't spend the kind of money that is being spent around Europe. This idea of winning this year and spend whatever it takes, only to worry about paying the bills later, is what has gotten so many teams in trouble..

I meant in terms of The fans mentality. Which in turn drove the behaviours at clubs. Still does in fact