In the run-up to the 2022 Olympics, Th. Summerer, Munich, in the editorial “Boycott, China and the Olympic (Un)Peace”, deals with the influence manoeuvres of totalitarian states on sports, although Art. 6 of the IOC Charter stipulates that the Olympic Games are competitions between athletes and not between countries. Examples of this are the sudden disappearance of the Chinese tennis player Shuai because of her accusations of sexual abuse of a politician and likewise a six-year torture of the Tibetan Wangchen because he reported about reprisals from China – nevertheless, the games will again take place in Beijing, and this despite further many critical voices.

Political boycott measures, as announced by the USA, England and Australia, would unfortunately quickly lose their effect. It will be better to sensitize the athletes and coaches to the situation in China and to support them, as has been assured for Germany by the DOSB.

In the article “Legal Problems of eSports and Arbitration as a Possible Solution”, L. Shmatenko, Geneva, discusses further legal issues of eSports, which were addressed in the article v. Colberg/Conraths, “The Organization of an eSports Competition from the Perspective of a Sports League” in SpuRt 2021, 328 – both articles are closely related.

This new electronic sports scene, called eSports, is gaining more and more importance, although compared to traditional sports disciplines, the structures and set-up of a clear organization are still largely lacking here. In particular, the author brings into play an arbitration jurisdiction that is to be created to resolve the disputes that have arisen to date. Similar to the CAS/TAS, this is to ensure fair and reasonable solutions and decisions.

First, a definition of “eSports” is attempted again, but then the market of these sports continues to be illuminated. The most different events are explained, starting with the event “DOTA” in Shanghai in the Mercedes-Benz Arena with a prize money of 24 million, the highest prize money ever in this sport. A wide variety of eSports disciplines exist in the event scene, which are explained in detail by the author, especially “MOBA”, “FPS”, “DCCG” and “RTS”.

The author discusses the legal issues in these sports in detail starting  with cheating, doping, game manipulation and even the exploitation of players by their organizers. Doping involves particularly performance-enhancing drugs, so-called “PEDs,” similar to those used in traditional sports. Similarly, technical “cheating” (eDoping) has developed as a cheating maneuver in a wide variety of variations, which are described. Game manipulation is also a recurring problem in the eSports scene. New is the problem of player exploitation due to uncertainties in labor law, which is particularly significant because many underage players participate in competitions.

Current regulations to prevent disputes between the parties involved are in place, but are incomplete due to the young nature of the sport, which is still developing.  There are also several umbrella organizations that have been established to regulate the competitions. Their regulatory organizations bear the responsibility for disruption prevention, furthermore for the investigation and prosecution of all forms of fraud in eSports including match fixing and doping. Since there are a total of three organizations that claim to regulate the eSports industry, there are significant differences that require clarification.

To this end, eSports professionals and legal scholars believe it is imperative to create an independent arbitration board. Accordingly, a dedicated eSports arbitration board is urgently needed to ensure fair competitions. To this end, it will be particularly important to appoint special arbitrators who understand the industry and have the legal expertise to reach proper decisions in eSports disputes. These goals are far from being achieved.

In the article ” On the classification of no-fault fines by the DFB as preventive measures by the BGH ” W.-D. Walker, Gießen, deals with the decision of the BGH issued on 4.11.2021 in the legal dispute of FC Carl-Zeiss Jena against the DFB, which, although correct in the result, was rightly judged as deficiently reasoned by J.Orth in NJW 2021,220.

The author deals at the beginning with the fundamental admissibility of association penalties and with their constitutional limits, furthermore with their legal classification, according to which culpability is also a prerequisite for any association penalty. Since these penalties were imposed on the club by the DFB without any culpability being involved, what matters for their effectiveness is whether this is a preventive measure by the association, which is then covered by the association’s autonomy. Such penalties have been imposed by national and international associations for a long time without the clubs defending themselves against them in court. The present case is the first precedent reviewed by a state court.

Thus, Walker examines the quality of this sanction and thus, first, the wording and the concept of punishment according to the provision of §§ 44 DFB statutes and § 9 a of the DFB’s rules of law and procedure. In the opinion of the author, a penalty is not present here, however, the BGH has already made it very easy for itself here with its reasoning. For a criminal law concept sounds in any case. Also, the purpose of a fine is addressed by the author; this serves opposite the association alone a preventive purpose, i.e. in the future beyond the association-legal defaults to meet appropriate measures. Likewise, from the view of the receiver horizon for the purpose of the fine it is to be assumed that here a punishment is present. The associations must bear responsibility here for the fact that third parties continue to cause disturbances despite their many efforts. Furthermore, the author critically examines the BGH’s statements on the preventive effect of fines, which has by no means been convincingly justified. Indeed, practical experience in the past shows that clubs are repeatedly affected by spectator riots despite extensive precautions, even though they have been repeatedly fined heavily in the past. The BGH’s ideas in this regard, on the other hand, are incomprehensible. Furthermore, it is completely unclear what additional efforts the clubs are to be induced to make by fines that allegedly have a preventive effect – even if, according to the BGH, the fines are intended to create incentives to take measures in the future that go beyond the requirements of association law. Overall, the BGH’s reasoning that these penalties are preventive measures by the association is not convincing.

Finally, the author addresses the consequences of this BGH ruling: The DFB, which won the years-long legal battle through several instances (including the independent arbitration court), is not much helped by this ruling. It can continue to order fines, but ultimately spectator disturbances will not be prevented at all, because there is no acceptance.

In their article “The Kimmich case or: dealing with vaccination refusers in professional soccer”, A.Rombach and D.Müller, Frankfurt a.Main, once again address the question of whether associations or clubs can impose vaccination requirements on players in team sports. In their article in SpuRt 2021,118 the authors were already of the opinion that vaccination requirements are permissible in any case if the vaccination can achieve greater protection against mutual infection.

Vaccination requirements in labor law, especially in soccer labor law, have occupied the literature through many other contributions. In any case, there is agreement that any compulsory vaccination is ruled out and that vaccination requirements are at most permissible if other protective measures against infection are not possible. In any case, the employer must be flexible and take into account the current situation based on scientific findings. The authors deal with the endangerment potential of the SARS-CoV-2 virus towards the end of the year 2021 and point out that at that time the danger of long-term consequences already existed due to contagions. In contrast, the risk potential of a vaccination must be weighed in every case; here, too, there are scientific studies that conclude, however, that long-term effects can only be observed in rare cases with certain vaccinations. Therefore, vaccination requirements under association law and labor law are to be measured according to different legal standards and pursue different goals. Vaccination requirements under association law are aimed above all at ensuring the smooth running of matches within the framework of the tournament calendar, avoiding distortions of competition and protecting the collective health of the people involved, while club vaccination requirements are aimed solely at protecting the club’s own workforce from mutual contagion. All in all, precise studies of vaccinated and recovered persons by experts must be consulted in every case, likewise the current incidence situation, in order to be able to derive the necessity of the vaccination requirement. Overall, the extent of vaccination protection and the question of the effect of booster vaccinations are also necessary to obtain clear findings on the necessity of vaccinations. The current state of scientific knowledge proves that the Corona vaccination is suitable, necessary and appropriate for the maintenance of the athletic performance of a competitive athlete in order to reduce the probability of infections or even the probability of performance-impairing long-term consequences necessary. In contrast, the vaccination side effects that may occur are of no consequence. The vaccinations recommended by the permanent vaccination commission (STIKO) are also part of the sports medicine standard. Therefore, the dynamics of the Corona pandemic, which will continue to affect sports operations in 2022 due to new viral mutations, requires a high degree of flexibility from those responsible for maintaining health protection and match organization concerns. Competition breaks can be used by the association and club side to encourage unvaccinated players to undergo initial vaccination and vaccinated players to undergo booster vaccination.

The article “Frustrated European Cup expectations of soccer players” by J.Drechsler, Frankfurt a.M., deals with the question of whether, in the case of player transfers to top European teams that are associated with the expectation of playing in international competitions, the disappointed expectation justifies termination.

At the outset, the author gives examples of the non-registration of players, which can have a wide variety of causes, on the one hand in the purely sporting planning of the club and the performance capability of the player, and on the other hand, however, administrative errors on the part of the club can lead to the fact that a player was inadvertently not registered. In this case, the player’s employer is clearly responsible.

Essential is the registration of players for the club competitions at UEFA, which has to be done according to certain regulations. Here, deadlines must be observed after the player’s transfer. For a possible termination of a player’s contract with his club, only extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 626 of the German Civil Code is possible. According to this, an extensive weighing of the interests of the parties to the employment contract in the termination of the employment contract must be examined, but on the other hand, the interest in continuing the employment relationship must also be examined. The author sets out the athlete’s interest in termination, in the case of deliberate non-nomination by the club, as well as in the case of non-nomination due to oversight by the club. Only in the case of a deliberate non-reporting due to sporting planning is a possible interest of the athlete not worthy of protection in the sense of § 626 BGB, but very much so in the case of a purely inadvertent non-reporting by those responsible at the club. However, the interests of the employer club in maintaining the employment contract must also be closely examined. This depends, on the one hand, on the mutual trust of the player and the club, but also in detail on the international transfer system. This requires that the clubs be able to rely on the existence of concluded employment contracts. In this respect, the employer’s interest is very high, which in turn speaks against the possibility of termination by the player. As a result, the possibilities of termination due to disappointed expectations as a result of not playing in international competition are low. Exceptionally, a termination could be justified if a violation or improper handling of association law requirements by the employer can be substantiated.

In the article, “ The new Financial Fair Play funding pot of the 3. Liga in the light of sports economics and EU antitrust law “, L.Bliesze, Hamburg, examines the extent to which this is suitable for achieving the objectives in comparison with the previously introduced and much discussed Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations: Just as the UEFA FFP stipulates that soccer-related expenditures may not exceed revenues received in the same manner – with the consequence of sanctions – , the DFB FFP does not include a sanction-proof ban on overspending, but merely sets incentives for sustainable management.

The author looks at the economics of professional soccer, which is currently characterized by the fact that the successful club is the one that operates at the greatest expense to all participants, with the consequence that there is a risk that they will operate at a deficit. The author further deals with the UEFA FFP and European competition law and explains that the latter is considered to be contrary to antitrust law due to a lack of necessity. In the following, he examines the regulatory content of the DFB-FFP with the conclusion that in its current form it is probably not suitable for achieving the objective, because the introduction of an incentive system, in contrast to the sanction-protected regulatory area, leads to a competitive balance being less affected. Thus, although the DFB-FFP does not constitute a violation of antitrust law, it is questionable whether it is suitable for achieving its objective. The author doubts this and explains in detail that it suffers from various shortcomings, although the DFB’s approach of creating incentives is certainly correct. In addition, only monetary incentives could help. Further, it would be conceivable to transfer the retained funds to a fund that would provide liquidity for creditors of insolvent clubs. The author makes further suggestions to avoid possible wrong incentives, which, however, would still have to be worked out in detail with the specific conditions for such a system.

J.Kührt/M.Musiol, Halle a.d.Saale, explain in their article “The obligation of listed soccer clubs to ad hoc publicity” the obligation under capital market law from Art. 17 of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), according to which insider information directly affecting the issuer must be published without delay.

Indeed, against the background of transfers, contract extensions or downtime, these questions arise, which the authors explain in particular. The purpose of this disclosure obligation is to ensure the functioning of the capital market by creating transparency, to ensure realistic stock market prices and to prevent insider trading. The relevant statutory regulations are based on EU/EC directives. The stock market-oriented soccer clubs, such as Borussia Dortmund and, most recently, SpVgg Unterhaching, are worthy of mention in this context. The 5+1 provision set out in Section 8 (3) of the DFL Articles of Association is not an obstacle in this respect, although this is largely watered down due to the KGaA corporate structure that is widespread in the Bundesliga.

The core of the disclosure requirement is the existence of inside information – legally defined in Art.7 (1) lit. A MAR as precise information which is not publicly known, which directly or indirectly concerns one or more issuers or one or more financial instruments and which, if publicly disclosed, would be likely to have a significant effect on their share price. According to this provision, each soccer club must verify non-public information directly affecting it as to whether it is “precise and relevant to the share price”. Otherwise, failure to disclose or incorrect disclosure may result in civil liability. The authors thus explain the criterion of “precise information” and use the example of player transfers and contract extensions, with the consequence that such disclosures must be made as soon as possible, i.e. even when negotiations are being prepared; the criterion of “price relevance” for the share price is also explained in detail.

However, there are exceptions to the publication requirement in that immediate publication is not necessarily required. In special cases, a delay may be granted if the legitimate interests of the issuer are impaired or if there is a risk of misleading the public and the confidentiality of the existing information can be ensured. At the latest when the interest in secrecy has ceased to exist, publication must be made without delay. In this respect, therefore, the listed soccer club is not exempt from carrying out a thoroughly complex assessment of its publicity obligation in order to clarify whether it has complied with its obligation to publish.

In the article “The ne bis idem principle in (international) association law – scope and limits of Article 103 (3) of the Basic Law”, C. Franzenburg, Kiel, addresses the question of whether the principle of the prohibition of double jeopardy under Article 103 (3) of the Basic Law also applies in the relationship between criminal law and association law.

Although it has been clarified that this principle applies in association law, the scope of its application is disputed. This also applies to international references, in the case of a punishment for an offense by UEFA and a subsequent punishment by the DFB, which could possibly constitute a prohibited double punishment (see the case of the forced relegation of SV Wilhelmshaven). Franzenburg states at the outset that this principle is a fundamental right of criminal proceedings and, applied to association law, this principle does not apply in the relationship between criminal proceedings and association sanction, so that there is no double punishment, which is considered to be the prevailing opinion. The author examines whether this is compatible with the principle of the rule of law; specifically, this could contradict the requirement of legal certainty and a prohibition of excessiveness. It should be clarified that in this case double punishment does not contradict the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. However, since the law governing associations is a so-called internal law, this could correspond to a sanction. However, because the principle of the rule of law claims all-encompassing validity, sanctions must also apply in association law. However, a sanction under associational law must be credited against the state sanction. The author also examines the consideration of a sanction under association law in civil law and refers here to the case law, which has so far recognized claims for compensation for pain and suffering by the injured party in the case of foul play with injury consequences; since an association sanction also has a sanctioning character, this cannot refer to a compensation function under civil law.

While the previous complex of the validity of the ne bis idem principle in the relationship between association law and state jurisdiction is largely known, the following discussion of its validity in national and international association law has yet to be clarified in detail.

According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the provisions of fundamental law apply as a set of values to all areas of law, which makes it clear that this principle must also have general application in the law governing associations. German associations must take this principle into account. If, for example, an athlete commits a sanctioning offense in the responsible areas of a regional association and is punished for this by the federal association, further sanctioning by the regional association would be inadmissible. The starting position in the international area is questionable: If, for example, an international federation has already pronounced a sanction, it is questionable whether a German federation can additionally sanction. Franzenburg examines how to arrive at a solution here according to constitutional principles and concludes that the ne bis idem principle does not end at the geographical border, but rather that its scope depends exclusively on the sanctioning power within the association’s structure. In the author’s opinion, however, this only applies insofar as the German jurisdiction has competence. If, on the other hand, it is a matter of sanctions imposed by an association based abroad, the relevant law at the association’s headquarters is decisive.

F.Kirch, Essen, J.Ninic, Düsseldorf, warn in their contribution “A sporting challenge – pitfalls and dangers in VAT law” of the dangers of the not always comprehensible regulations in VAT law, because it is not for nothing that VAT is generally described as the most dangerous of all types of tax. It is therefore all the more important to pay attention to this complex in order to avoid tax risks. Because even small mistakes can quickly lead to far-reaching consequences. The sports industry is also in need of recommendations for action on the sales tax “playing field”.

By way of introduction, the authors mention the temporary VAT rate reduction, tax rate changes for restaurateurs, EU Quick Fixes have been ridiculed as a cost-neutral marginal tax, although more and more attention needs to be paid to these points, according to the economists. It is pointed out that despite these large tax losses, sales tax was repeatedly the largest source of tax revenue for the state at the federal level in 2019 alone, at 118,944 million euros.

In the article, the authors deal with the key points in the facts of the sales tax law, which always lead to problems: Concept of entrepreneur, taxable performance and tax exemptions, tax base and tax incurrence.

The legal definition of the term “entrepreneur” is found in Section 2 I of the German Turnover Tax Act (UStG), which is a central provision; according to this definition, the taxable performance of an entrepreneur is taxed (Section 1 (1) UStG). Thus, the decisive factor is the entrepreneurial status, which is defined as a person who performs a commercial or professional activity. The authors explain this term as well as the activity “for the purpose of generating income” (§ 1 UStG) in detail. In selected individual cases, numerous professional groups in the field of sports business are cited, which are quickly overlooked on the borderline to an entrepreneur: Here, for example, we are talking about influencers, who often provide effective advertising for companies. These then fall under the concept of entrepreneur if their economic activity is provided on a sustained basis. The same applies to athletes in the field of eSports. Here, too, the distinction between a hobby or a gimmick and an economic activity is fluid; it depends, for example, on the scope and the amount of income.

The taxable performance is another important criterion after the affirmation of the entrepreneurial status for VAT purposes. In § 3 UStG, VAT law differentiates between performance in the form of a delivery and other performance, which includes all forms of performance. This service must be provided in return for payment. Furthermore, it depends on a so-called “exchange of services”. The place of taxability is also decisive for the performance. Here, too, the authors bring selected individual cases from the sports industry, initially again for the athletes of eSports, but also for other sports that receive prize money depending on their placement in a competition, ranging from motor sports races to tennis and golf tournaments as well as athletics competitions.

Finally, the authors explain the details of the tax exemption, as well as the tax base and the tax accrual. If there is a turnover that is taxable in principle, it can be tax-exempt through the individual exemption regulations, e.g. in the case of the so-called input tax deduction (§ 4 UStG) or also, for example, in the case of export deliveries and intra-Community deliveries (§ 4 No. and 2 in conjunction with §§ 6 – 7 UStG). There are countless exemptions also in the field of sports, most of which fulfill sports policy purposes, e.g. the promotion of youth sports. There is a tax exemption for such activities, services and non-profit facilities closely related to sports and physical education. When it comes to the taxation of sports associations, the tax authorities and the courts take their own paths, which are not always coordinated and often lead to difficult disputes.

In conclusion, the authors urgently advise every potential entrepreneur in sports to critically examine his business model and to deal with the correct VAT treatment in good time. The complex provisions of VAT law in connection with the constant pronouncements of the tax authorities based on national and EU case law demand this. Otherwise, the entrepreneur in the sports industry may have to reckon with high additional payments.

 

Jurisdiction:

Court of First Instance Brussels, 4th Chamber for Civil Matters, Judgment v. 15.10.2021, Ref. 2020/5156/1.

Admissibility of “homegrown player” rules under antitrust law.

Art. 14 ECHR, Art. 45, 101, 267 TFEU, Art. 14 Belgian Constitution, Art. 1717 § 3(b)(ii) Code judiciaire belge (CJB).

The following questions are referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

1.Is Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as prohibiting the rule on home-grown players (HGP) adopted by the UEFA Executive Committee on February 2, 2005, which was adopted by the 52 UEFA national associations at the UEFA Congress in Tallinn on April 21, 2005, and subsequently implemented by them by adopting national regulations?

2.Are Articles 45 and 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the application of the rule on the inclusion of home-grown players in the match report, as regulated by the Royal Belgian Football Association (URBSFA) by Articles P335.11 and P.1422 of the URBSFA regulations, respectively, and Title 4 Articles B4.106 and Title 6 Article B6.109 of the new URBSFA regulations?

BGH, decision v. 4.11.2021, file no. I ZB 54/20 (previously: OLG Frankfurt a.M., decision v. 23.6.2020, file no. 26 Sch 1/20, SpuRt 2020,255

Punitive nature of fines imposed by the DFB and ordre public

Art. 9 (1) GG; Sec. 25 BGB; Sec. 1059 (2) No. 2b) ZPO

1.The no-fault association penalty in the form of a fine imposed by the German Football Association pursuant to § 9 a of the DFB Code of Law and Procedure on a league participant for the conduct of its supporters does not constitute a penalty-like sanction that could be subject to the principle of culpability endowed with constitutional rank.

2.One of the fundamental principles of German law in the sense of ordre public is the principle of proportionality, which follows from the principle of the rule of law and the rights of freedom and which also claims validity in the civil law system. However, there is only a violation of ordre public if the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award leads to a result that blatantly violates the principle of proportionality.

OLG Karlsruhe, Decision V. 28.10.2021, Ref. 1 Rv 35 Ss 690/21 (legally binding).

On the intention to procure an advantage and foreign offences in the case of doping by a female sports soldier

§Sec. 3 (1) and (4), Sec. 4 (1) No. 4, (2) AntiDoping Act, Sec. 1 a (2) WStG

1.For a conviction for self-doping outside a competition of organized sport pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph 7 of the AntiDoping Act, the trial judge must, for the intent to procure an advantage required by law, make findings that the self-doping actually served to enhance performance in a specific competition.

2.Within the framework of the evaluation of evidence, the judge of the facts must determine the effect of the doping substances or methods concerned and, taking into account the temporal reference, explain which application was intended for which competition.

3.The application of German anti-doping criminal law comes into consideration according to § 1 a para. 2 WStG if German sports soldiers commit acts of self-doping abroad (editor’s notes).

OLG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. V. 30.11.2021, Az. 11 U 172/19 (not legally binding temporarily: LG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. V. Oct. 24, 2019, Ref. 2-03 O 517/18

Compatibility of DFB player agent regulations with antitrust law.

Art. 101 TFEU; Section 33 GWB

On the compatibility of the “DFB Regulations for Player Agents” with antitrust law. (Guideline of the SpuRt editorial team)

LG München I, Urt. V. 8.10.2021, Ref. 3 HK O 5593/20 (not legally binding)

Injunctive relief for black marketing of Oktoberfest table reservations

§§ Sections 305 (2) No. 1,2, 307 (1), 399 (1), 808 BGB; Sections 8 (1), (3), No. 1, 3 (1), 5 (1) No. 1, 12 UWG

1.The unauthorized offering of (table) reservations for the Munich Oktoberfest is misleading and violates the Unfair Competition Act if the black marketeer cannot actually provide his customers with a legally effective claim to a reservation against the tent operator.

2.The mere ownership of a reservation confirmation cannot provide a claim to the purchased table reservation, which is legally to be classified as a registered document with an ownership clause within the meaning of Section 808 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

3.A prohibition of sale to commercial resellers is effective if it pursues the creditable purpose of ensuring a socially acceptable price structure and thus enabling less affluent citizens to have as equal access as possible to an Oktoberfest tent.

4.The negotiability of registered securities with a bearer clause within the meaning of Section 808 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) can also be excluded with legal effect vis-à-vis second and third party purchasers. (editor’s guidelines)

LG Munich I, decision, v. 25.11.2021, Az. 13 T 15372/21 (legally binding, temporarily: AG Munich, decision v. 19.11.2021, Az. 231 C 18299/21).

No inclusion of the “Qatar motion” on the agenda of the FCB members’ meeting

§ SECTION 32 BGB

A motion to add an item to the agenda of the general meeting of an association may be rejected if the intended subject of discussion and decision is removed from the decision-making competence of the general meeting due to a delegation of competence under the articles of association. (Guiding principle of the SpuRt editorship)

AG Munich, decision V. 19.11.2021, Az. 231 C 18299/21 (legally binding)

No inclusion of the “Qatar motion” on the agenda of the FCB members’ meeting

§ SECTION 32 BGB

On the anticipation of the main issue in preliminary injunction proceedings in the injunction request to put a motion to a vote and decision at a members’ meeting. (Guideline of the SpuRt editorial office)

ArbG Chemnitz, Urt. v. 1.10.2021, Az. 10 Ca 662/21 (not legally binding).

Termination requirements in case of suspected assault against exercise instructor

§§ Secs. 626 BGB, 1, 13 KSchG

On the requirements for an extraordinary and, in the alternative, ordinary termination on suspicion or pressure in the case of suspected assault against a gymnastics coach at a federal base. (Guideline of the SpuRt editorial office)

BFH, Urt. v. 7.9.2021, ref. IX R 30/18 (previously: Hessisches FG, judgment of 12.11.2018, ref. 5 K 1569/16).

Basis of assessment for the sports betting tax.

§ Section 10 (1), Section 11, Section 17 (1) sentence 3, (2) sentence 2, Section 20 (2) no. 3, (2) no. 5, (2) no. 7, Section 21 RennwLottG; Section 37 (1) sentence 1 RennwLottGABest.

1.The stake in a sports bet comprises the entire amount paid by the player to the organizer for the conclusion of the betting contract within the meaning of § 763 BGB.

2.The assessment basis for the calculation of the sports betting tax pursuant to § 17 para 2 sentence 2 RennwLottG a.F. is not to be reduced by the sports betting tax that may have been passed on to the player. (Official Guidelines)

Arbitration Tribunal of the Main Trotting Breeders’ Association, Arbitral Award dated October 25, 2021, Case No. Sch 03/2021

Removal of a horse due to unclear training conditions

Art. 9 para. 1 GG, § 25 BGB, § 83 A para. 1, 2 a and 3 a TRO i.V.m. § Section 28 para. 1 f TRO

On the requirements for a decision to remove a horse from a race according to § 83 A TRO due to unclear location and training conditions. (Guideline of the SpuRt editorial office)