Bundeskartellamt concludes proceeding on 50+1 rule under competition law in Germany today; no fundamental concerns, guidance to DFL on consistency

Bundeskartellamt concludes proceeding on 50+1 rule under competition law in Germany today; no fundamental concerns, guidance to DFL on consistency

Bundeskartellamt - Homepage - Bundeskartellamt concludes proceeding to assess 50+1 rule under competition law

Bundeskartellamt concludes proceeding to assess 50+1 rule under competition law

The Bundeskartellamt continues to consider the 50+1 rule to be permissible under competition law. However, this is subject to the condition that the rule is applied consistently and without differentiation, unless objectively justified. Following the conclusion of its proceeding, the Bundeskartellamt therefore believes it is appropriate to provide Deutsche Fußball Liga ( DFL ) with guidance on how to apply the rule in the most legally robust manner possible[1].

The Bundeskartellamt has today informed DFL and the football clubs and investors admitted to the proceeding about the conclusion of its proceeding to assess under competition law the 50+1 rule and the rule’s application, thereby closing the proceeding. The conclusion of the proceeding follows the hearing of DFL and the parties admitted to the proceeding concerning the Bundeskartellamt’s preliminary assessment communicated in mid-2025 ( see press release of 16 June 2025 ).

Taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to the application of competition law to sport, the Bundeskartellamt has finally determined that it has no fundamental concerns about the 50+1 rule. Although the rule restricts economic competition for investments in professional football, the objective of maintaining the club character of the sport and allowing club members to participate is capable of justifying an exemption from competition law prohibitions.

Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt : “We examined in detail the arguments put forward by all parties to the proceeding. Our assessment under competition law remains essentially unchanged: the objective of maintaining the club character of the sport and allowing club members to participate continues to justify the 50+1 rule. However, this is subject to the condition that the rule is applied consistently and without making objectively unjustified distinctions. Our assessment identifies various aspects DFL should take into account if it wishes to ensure that the rule is applied in the most legally robust manner possible. First, DFL should ensure that all Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs equally offer open access to membership, giving fans a say in how the clubs are run. Second, DFL should ensure that the principles of the 50+1 rule are also consistently respected in its own voting process. Third, we consider it necessary to further amend the proposed revised rules on the protection of the status quo for clubs which have already been granted a benefactor exemption.”

The Bundeskartellamt has today sent the parties a notice that the proceeding has been closed. The notice includes the Bundeskartellamt’s final assessment of the matter, as well as guidance in the event that DFL wishes to maintain the 50+1 rule in its current design.

Andreas Mundt : “This was not a proceeding to prohibit the 50+1 rule, and we have now also decided not to initiate one. DFL approached the Bundeskartellamt asking for a detailed assessment of this complicated legal issue at the intersection of competition law and sport. Our assessment outlines the competition law framework within which we believe the 50+1 rule can be applied in the most legally robust manner possible. It is the responsibility of DFL and its committees to decide how to operate within this framework. We cannot and do not wish to pre-empt the necessary decision-making processes.”

In light of the more recent case law of the CJEU relating to the application of competition law to sport (“ Super League ”, “ ISU ” and “ Royal Antwerp ” judgments of December 2023), the Bundeskartellamt examined whether these judgments affected the legality of the 50+1 rule. According to this case law, rules that restrict competition may nevertheless be permissible under competition law if they pursue a legitimate public interest objective. However, this is subject to the condition that the objective is pursued in a consistent and systematic manner. The Bundeskartellamt assessed DFL ’s licensing practice against these standards, identifying the following shortcomings.

Club character and member participation

The investigation showed that DFL ’s licensing practice does not sufficiently ensure that all Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs equally offer their fans the opportunity to be accepted as full voting members. To the extent that club character and member participation serve as the justification for the 50+1 rule under competition law, they must be ensured equally across all clubs. If the 50+1 rule is to be applied in the most legally robust manner possible, DFL should take this aspect into account more consistently in its licensing practice.

The investigation also showed that DFL did not consistently apply the 50+1 rule in its voting process regarding the participation of investors in its media revenue in December 2023. DFL was informed before the vote that the parent club of Hannover 96 had instructed the club’s CEO, Martin Kind, to vote against such participation. It was precisely this right to issue instructions that previously led DFL to assume that Hannover 96 complied with the 50+1 rule. However, DFL did not monitor whether the instruction was actually being complied with. The inconsistent application of the 50+1 rule in DFL ’s committees calls the exemption of the rule from competition law into question. The Bundeskartellamt’s assessment under competition law also identifies scope for improvement in this regard.

Benefactor exemptions and protecting the status quo for “works teams”

DFL ’s existing proposals to remove the possibility of granting benefactor exemptions remain fundamentally capable of helping to ensure that the 50+1 rule is applied in a legally robust manner in the future. Removing the possibility to grant benefactor exemptions would remedy the unequal treatment between standard clubs and clubs that have been granted a benefactor exemption. However, when assessed against the CJEU’s case law, the existing proposals for the long-term protection of the status quo for Bayer Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg are not sufficient. In the Bundeskartellamt’s view, the CJEU’s case law requires that all clubs are subject to comparable competitive conditions in the long term. To achieve this, it has to be ensured that, at least in the longer term, the parent club which is open to new members has a similar ability to influence the club’s professional division to that of the other clubs.

No intention to prohibit 50+1 rule

For the vast majority of Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs, the 50+1 rule currently meets the public interest objective of giving large sections of the general public the opportunity to participate in and influence decision-making in professional football in Germany. The Bundeskartellamt therefore sees no reason to take action against the application of the 50+1 rule. A prohibition would mean that the current opportunities to participate in the clubs would be removed and Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs would be fully open to investors. The Bundeskartellamt sees no public interest in such an intervention.

The authority will not impose any requirements for a specific future design of the 50+1 rule, and therefore cannot set any deadlines for amending the rule. Rather, its assessment under competition law outlines the legal framework within which it believes the 50+1 rule can be applied in the most legally robust manner possible. It is the responsibility of DFL and its committees to decide what action they will take as a result and how they will further develop DFL ’s statutes or the application of the rule where necessary. Given the 50+1 rule’s economic and sporting significance, a longer transition period may be appropriate in this context.

The Bundeskartellamt’s letter informing the parties that the proceeding has been closed is available here (in German)

Answers to frequently asked questions.

[1] Since August 2026, DFL e.V. has been trading as “Bundesliga e.V.”, and DFL GmbH as “ Bundesliga-Gruppe GmbH ”.

Bundeskartellamt schließt Verfahren zur kartellrechtlichen Bewertung der 50+1-Regel ab press releases 12.08.2026 Learn more

Bundeskartellamt schließt Verfahren zur kartellrechtlichen Bewertung der 50+1-Regel ab