In the editorial “Putin’s war and the contribution of sport”, Jan.F. Orth, Cologne, examines the possibilities of sport to end this war against Ukraine and to restore peace. Not all sports federations and their officials could obviously deal with this in a sufficiently sensible way. First of all, it must be pointed out that the large sports associations such as the IOC and FIFA, by awarding international competitions in Russia and exaggerated cooperation with the autocrat, have promoted the autocrat’s self-confidence and thereby prepared the ground for the war of aggression through his unopposed self-dramatisation.

Sport must counteract this inhuman behaviour, which violates the rules of international law, and withdraw Russia’s participation in major sporting events, and do so immediately. Unfortunately, this measure affects athletes and teams. Nevertheless, it is necessary. There must also be a reorientation in dealing with such regimes, because sport is not apolitical. There can be no excuses for the alleged lack of a legal basis. For such behaviour lacks not only any understanding, but quite clearly any basis for doing business, even if the legal issues are likely to be difficult in detail. In any case, Russia has more than earned not only political and social but also sporting ostracism.

In the article “Markus Anfang Case” – Criminal, Association and Labour Law Consequences of the Falsification of a COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate in Sport, S. Fischinger, M. Kubiciel and Jan F. Orth, Mannheim/Augsburg/Köln, examine the legal consequences of the use of a vaccination certificate forged by a football coach in German professional football.

So far, the Corona crisis in professional sport has not raised legal questions under criminal law, which changed with the case of Markus Anfang of SV Werder Bremen. This case thus offers reason to review the possible consequences under criminal, association and labour law for the future.

In the criminal law assessment, the documentary elements of the Criminal Code are to be considered, because a vaccination certificate is a health certificate in the sense of §§ 277 ff. of the Criminal Code. Here, the tightening of the certificate offences, which came into force on 22.11.2021, must be taken into account. The author Kubiciel explains in detail the criminal law requirements of §§ 277, 278 and 279 StGB in the old sequence. Accordingly, the offence is punishable under the special narrow conditions of §§ 277, 279 StGB.

Further offences can be considered according to the provisions of §§ 75 a para. 2, 74 para. 2 Infection Protection Act (IfSG). According to this, it is punishable if an incorrect certificate is used to deceive in legal transactions. According to this law, criminal liability was disputed because the act could only be committed by a person authorised to carry out the vaccination. The new regulations from 22.11.2021 have closed the gaps in criminal liability outlined above. Accordingly, Section 279 of the Criminal Code is only applicable if there are no other provisions threatening a more severe penalty.

In the assessment of these courses of action under association law, it is first of all a question of the legitimacy of the regulations under association law. In the authors’ view, the relevant regulations in association law have been enacted in legitimate interests, which is why there are no objections whatsoever to their enactment, especially for the large football associations. By creating rules to combat the pandemic in their area, the associations are therefore moving within the core area of their autonomy of association under Article 9 (2) of the Basic Law. This is because these rules, in particular the hygiene concept of the football situation, serve to safeguard the competitive sport of football.

The coach’s conduct clearly constitutes a violation of the hygiene concept according to Annex 1 of the DFL match regulations, which is explained in detail. Section 1 no. 4 of the DFB Laws and Procedures is to be used for punishment with an association fine, in conjunction with section 3 of the DFB Training Regulations no. 1, which also covers all forms and sporting conduct of coaches. The DFB Sports Court sentenced the coach to a suspension, i.e. ban from coaching, of twelve months as well as a fine of Euro 15,000.00, the coach agreed to this penalty.  The suspended sentence of the penalty was suspended from 01.07.2022 to give the coach the opportunity to find another club. The authors point out that such a penalty for coaches is also transferable to conduct of players taking into account §§ 19 LOS-DFL and § 2 licence agreement of the players.

With regard to the assessment under labour law, it must be taken into account that it depends on whether legal consequences can be permissibly attached to the vaccination status, in the case of e.g. different hygiene concepts; only then do consequences under labour law come into consideration.

First of all, the question of termination without notice according to § 626 BGB arises. Here, the authors examine the act of instigating the falsification of a Covid 19 vaccination certificate as well as the use of the falsified Covid 19 vaccination certificate. After examining the acts, we conclude that both a coach and a player are entitled to summary dismissal. As a rule, the interest in terminating a player without notice hardly comes into consideration because of a transfer fee paid, which is why an exemption is to be considered here. Also discussed are the questions of a resolutory condition due to a ban on activities/ suspension from playing, as well as compensation for damages according to § 628 Paragraph 2 BGB and tort claims, which, however, can hardly be considered altogether.

In the article “50 Years of Sports Law in Germany”, U. Steiner, Regensburg, highlights various events and personalities of 1972 as the beginning of German sports law.

The sports memories of 1972 are of course primarily focused on the 20th Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, but it can also be considered the year in which sports jurisprudence began in Germany. Peter Schlosser published his fundamental work on club and association jurisdiction in 1972, H.P.. Westermann brought out a polemic on the subject of association criminal law and general law. Most outstanding, however, is the anthology by Friedrich Christian Schröder and Hans Kauffmann entitled Sport und Recht (Sport and Law), which for the first time discusses and publishes sports law in greater breadth, including constitutional law. Primarily, it is also the lectures of a 1972 conference at the Judicial Academy in Trier.

The main topics in this volume were again and again the dogmatics of bodily injury in contact sports, at that time primarily with contributions of accidents in shooting sports. Doping was also already topical at that time.

The year 1972 is also the year of the entry of the Basic Law into the world of sport. The impetus for this was – almost typically – the so-called (football) Bundesliga scandal in the 1970/1971 season, which was concluded with severe sanctions by the DFB sports courts against players, coaches and officials as well as clubs in 1973. H.P. Westermann comments on the topic in his above-mentioned monograph, and K. Stern writes in detail about the fundamental rights of the sportsman in the aforementioned anthology Sport und Recht. This contribution is already fundamental, his remarks still apply today to the fundamental rights status of the athlete, his freedom of expression together with athlete contracts, advertising restrictions, compulsory arbitration and finally participation in sporting competitions outside the federation.

The 50 years of sports jurisprudence after 1972 are well known as a result of professionalisation, commercialisation and internationalisation. The events that developed in Wangen (1975) bring discussions, sports talks and working groups that make the original academic disdain for sports law history. Universities offer courses in sports law. Handbooks and commentaries are produced. Finally, the specialist lawyer for sports law has been introduced since 2018/2019.

In the article “Use of doping samples as evidence in criminal proceedings”, S. Jansen, Trier, examines the extent to which samples obtained by a sports association may also be used against athletes in criminal proceedings.

By way of introduction, the author refers to the introduction of criminal liability for self-doping by the Anti-Doping Act at the beginning of 2016 and that most criminal investigations are based on a report from NADA, which in turn takes action based on a doping sample. First, the author examines the admissibility of the collection of evidence by the sports federation. The athlete is obliged to comply with the NADA and WADA codes. This obligation always includes the submission of doping samples with the consequence of a doping control. Even if this procedure entails a considerable restriction of the athletes’ fundamental rights, it is permissible according to the prevailing opinion. For only in this way can equal opportunities in sport be guaranteed. Furthermore, the principle of nemo tenetur under criminal law is in any case not directly applicable to the relationship between the federation and the athlete, although it is constitutionally permissible. Overall, the obligation to hand over the doping sample to the sports association is not objectionable.

Whether the federation’s disclosure of the doping sample to the state investigating authorities is permissible and can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings may depend on how the principle of nemo tenetur is interpreted. In this regard, the author deals in detail with the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in the so-called Gemeinschuldner (common debtor) decision, in which it is stated that the personal right of the common debtor would be disproportionately impaired if self-incriminations brought about by coercion were utilised in criminal proceedings and thus misappropriated. In the dispute, the question of whether non-verbal participation is also covered by the principle of nemo tenetur comes up again and again; this is still disputed, utilisation of evidence would be inadmissible for the athlete under certain circumstances, at least with regard to urine samples.

The differentiation between active and passive participation is also addressed and discussed. However, such a differentiation cannot be convincingly justified.

In contrast to this prevailing view, a dissenting opinion limits the nemo tenetur principle to freedom of statement. After a detailed discussion of the opinions presented in this regard in the literature, the author also deals with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the fair trial principle. The ECtHR considers the nemo tenetur principle of fair trial to be covered by Article 6 of the ECHR. As a result, both the doping control by the federation and the use of doping samples as evidence in criminal proceedings – with regard to both urine and blood samples – are admissible. The doping samples are endogenous evidence that does not affect the core area of these principles. The core area of the nemo tenetur principle exclusively includes the freedom to testify. Also, freedom of self-revelation is not to be differentiated according to whether the accused must actively or passively, but rather whether he or she must cooperate communicatively. However, the courts have not yet ruled on the existence of a prohibition on taking evidence, which is probably due to the fact that there have not yet been any convictions following main trials for self-doping in the past.

The article “Measures to combat the pandemic and the principle of proportionality using the example of amateur equestrian sport” by K. Fehn and B. Fehn, Cologne, examines the sovereign encroachments on the fundamental rights of Art. 12 para. 1 GG, 14 para. 1 GG and 2 para. 1 GG, – in this case in particular the violations of the requirement of certainty and the principle of proportionality on the basis of a decision of the Higher Administrative Court of NRW of 13.01.2021. On the basis of § 9 of the Corona Protection Ordinance NRW, which was valid at the time, the Higher Administrative Court prohibited the practice of equestrian sport on sports facilities. The reasoning in this regard is that the protection concept of this ordinance does not focus on the closure of concretely dangerous establishments, but on the reduction of personal contacts that are not absolutely necessary through a so-called “shutting down of public life”. The measures to reduce contacts are suitable to reduce infection risks. The ban on recreational and amateur sports contributes to the overall reduction of contact. This also applies to indoor and outdoor riding lessons. This reduction could only be controlled by a ban on use. Overall, the principle of proportionality was upheld, and the protection of public health had priority.

The authors are of the opinion that the mentioned provision of § 9 para. 5 of the Corona Protection Ordinance does not meet the requirements of the principle of certainty, nor does it comply with the principle of proportionality. With regard to the violation of the principle of certainty, the authors explain that, according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the intensity of the encroachment of the norm and the factual characteristics of the subject matter of the regulation are particularly important. Indeterminate legal terms must be open to interpretation. Article 9.5 of the Ordinance did not meet these requirements. Since, among other things, the movement of horses is permitted to the extent absolutely necessary for reasons of animal welfare, there is no demarcation here, for example, from the types of movement of horses in the area of sport and training-related exercises. Likewise, the addressees of the norm were not identifiable.

With regard to a violation of the principle of proportionality, the authors criticise in particular that the ordinance and also the decision of the OVG do not specifically state the justification of an identifiable purpose and the scope and extent. A prohibition of excess is supposed to ensure that state measures must be limited. Therefore, in particular in the regulations of the aforementioned ordinance, the suitability of the prohibition of sporting exercises and riding lessons is lacking, as there is no physical contact here. The authors explain this in detail with regard to many details of equestrian sports. Likewise, the necessity of these sovereign measures is also lacking, because there are many milder measures for giving riding lessons and sporting confirmation, which are also mentioned by way of example. For example, riding instructors could stand at a proper distance from the riders in the riding arena and teach. Radios could be used, of course mouth-nose masks could be worn and other protective measures could be taken.

As a result, § 9 of the aforementioned ordinance neither satisfies the principle of certainty nor the principle of proportionality – according to general experience, the state and municipalities must strive for more acceptance among the population in the future, so that the basically justified corona protection measures are also followed.

In the contribution “If not now, when?” N. Haug and Th. Funck, Bayreuth, deal with the questions of the salary cap in football, which is to play a decisive role on the part of UEFA in the reform of the so-called Financial Fair Play (FFP). The FFP introduced by UEFA in 2010 prescribed that European Cup participants in football should not spend more than they earn – to put it simply. The aim was to ensure the financial stability of the clubs and to manage within the framework of the input. However, this model has failed, in particular due to financial excesses by investor-run clubs Paris Saint Germain and Manchester City. A reform of the FFP is now planned with the aim of introducing a salary cap for the squad and head coach instead of the Break-Even requirement.

The authors examine the requirements step by step and conclude with their own regulatory proposal.

First, they look at the legal framework: The authors explain the differences between absolute and relative salary caps. The absolute one involves a fixed upper limit, whereas the relative one involves an upper limit in the form of a percentage of the respective annual turnover of the individual club. These salary caps are a suitable means of encouraging clubs to operate on a continuous basis. They also aim at better acceptance by the public, as average salaries are not too far removed from those of its fans. However, the permissibility of salary caps is controversial. They partly violate European antitrust law. However, they could be designed in such a way that the objectives pursued can be classified as legitimate with regard to the impaired norm of Union law in order to comply with the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the actual framework conditions have to be examined: In fact, it is probably certain that there is a compelling connection between salary expenditure and sporting success, as past times have proven. The fact that there are also major differences in the various national and international leagues in terms of income and salary expenditure by clubs is undisputed in the European club football case. Looking now at consumer interest in football, it is obvious that sporting competitions have to be close and competitive to be attractive. However, there is no clear evidence that the uncertainty of the outcome of a single match has a positive impact on consumer behaviour. Rather, a home win preference dominates, as does the balance of different competitions.

In evaluating various regulatory options, the authors examine the advantages of both relative and absolute salary caps and come to the conclusion that neither relative nor absolute salary caps are suitable for balancing the interests and games to be considered. Therefore, they present their own regulation proposal, which has the following objectives:

– Promoting financial and sporting competitive balance in the sub-competitions of the national leagues.

– Ensuring the financial stability of clubs.

– The avoidance of a violation of the freedom of movement of workers and the freedom of competition.

– The prevention of an exodus of top clubs due to excessive interference in their legal sphere.

To this end, it makes sense to integrate a salary cap in European football into UEFA’s existing FFP. To this end, the introduction of a differentiated salary cap in newly created articles of the UEFA FFP, namely 65 and 66, is proposed, as well as a luxury tax in Art. 67 and finally a newly formulated salary cap in Art. 68.

Overall, the authors believe that this introduction offers many opportunities. Furthermore, it would send a signal for more sporting competitive balance, financial stability and solidarity.

In the article “On the taxation of referees in amateur sport”, Th. Ludwig and F.S. Zawodsky, Berlin, point out the practical problems in the taxation of referees as a result of the various tax standards. In the article, a practically usable system of income tax and turnover tax regulations is worked out on the basis of a standard case.

By way of introduction, it is pointed out that, depending on the scope of his activity, the arbitrator participates in commercial transactions for tax purposes and thus has to pay tax on his income as income from trade or business pursuant to section 15, paragraph 2, sentence 1 EStG; on the other hand, if the arbitrator is active to a lesser extent, he pays tax on his income as so-called other income pursuant to section 22, no. 3 EStG.

According to the case law of the Federal Fiscal Court, a delimitation of the income is not entirely uniform, which is why the authors state for practical purposes that due to the trade tax allowance and the credit possibility against personal income tax, the correct allocation of income seems to be a purely theoretical problem. Which is why, for the purpose of this paper, if the arbitrator is resident in Germany, the income is generally taxable as other income under section 22 no. 3 EStG. In this framework, the income tax consequences of the arbitrator’s activities are dealt with and presented in a standard case structured according to the amount of the inflows. Depending on the amount of income, a total of eight variations of this standard case are presented. In each case, the so-called honorary allowances and hardship clauses are taken into account and thus elaborated in a school-like manner for practical use. In doing so, the authors state that referees with income of up to € 1,250.00 do not have to pay tax, nor does refereeing in itself oblige them to file a tax return. Only with an income of more than € 1,250.00 can a tax liability arise, which is why the authors deal here in particular with the deductible income-related expenses, which can arise in particular from travel costs, additional expenses for meals as well as work equipment and further training.

For the arbitrator in turn, who participates in commercial transactions and falls under the entrepreneur status, i.e. has to pay tax on his income according to § 15 para. 2 sentence 1 EStG, further advice is given, in particular on the place of his performance, furthermore for tax exemptions and small business regulation as well as for input tax deduction, whereby here, too, the presentation is made particularly clear by means of respective case examples. Finally, tips are given for the VAT return and advance VAT returns.

Overall, the presentation makes it clear that it is not always easy for referees to see through the tax law rules and regulations, which is why the authors ironically point out that those who deal with rules on the pitch should also do so off the pitch to the necessary extent.

In the article “Once again: Corona vaccination for professional footballers?”, Ph. Fischinger, Mannheim, once again responds to the article by Rombach/Müller, SpuRt2022, 13. As in SpuRt 2021, 118, Rombach/Müller again recently argued in SpuRt 2022, 13, for the admissibility of a vaccination obligation for professional footballers by association requirement or as a result of instructions from their club. The author again contradicts this. This time, however, briefly and in summary. Fischinger points out that the underlying facts of Rombach/Müller are only partially convincing. As far as the legal theses of Rombach/Müller are concerned, as usual, it often comes down to questions of weighing and proportionality, whereby there can hardly be a right or a wrong here and the Corona pandemic is an extremely dynamic event and the situations are constantly changing. In detail, Fischinger once again comments on his arguments regarding an obligation to vaccinate on the part of the association, furthermore the obligation to vaccinate due to an employer assignment, as well as on the conclusion of new employment contracts and finally on the legal consequences in the case of a Corona-related loss of working hours.

All in all, contrary to Rombach/Müller, a compulsory vaccination for professional athletes cannot be justified at the present time. It is to be hoped, however, that this assessment will not have to be changed at a later date due to the emergence of a new, more dangerous virus variant.



ÖOGH, Beschl. V. 25.3.2021, Az. 8 ObA 15/21w (legally binding).

Loss of market value of a professional hockey player as damage


  1. The pecuniary loss resulting from the reduction of his “market value” as an ice hockey player is not a concrete asset, but the sum of abilities – such as talent, experience, fitness – and characteristics – such as awareness, popularity, marketing value – which, within the framework of the existing supply and demand, enables the athlete concerned or his club to gain pecuniary advantages.
  2. Decisive is the loss or reduction of the resulting possibility to acquire an earning in the broadest sense. (Sentencing guidelines)

OLG Düsseldorf, Urt. v. 20.1.2022, Ref. VI-6 W 1/22 (Kart) (legally binding, temporary: LG Köln, Beschl. V. 20.12.2021, Ref. 33 0 277/21).

Interim admission to the 2022 Paralympic Winter Games

Art. 9 (1) GG; §§ 935, 940 ZPO; §§ 19,33 (1) GWB

  1. The arbitration clause of the IPC does not meet the requirements of independence and neutrality of the arbitral tribunal to be appointed due to the lack of objective selection criteria for the panel.
  2. The control by state courts is not limited to individual decisions of a monopoly association based on association standards, but the association standards themselves are also subject to judicial equity control.
  3. The athletes’ trust in the classification is only worth protecting to the extent that the IPC ensures fair competition conditions in the sense of not having to compete against athletes with physical advantages.
  4. The rejection of an application for admission to the Paralympic Games in a different classification may constitute unfair discrimination by the Federation against a top athlete on the basis of sporting and financial attractiveness, if it does not represent a fair and non-discriminatory allocation of participation places. This can be the case – as here – if the IPC denies a start in a class in which the applicant is medically (and thus athletically) disadvantaged in her performance compared to the other participants due to her physical impairments. (Guiding principles of the SpuRt editorial office)

OLG Hamm, Judg. 29.10.2021, ref. 11 U 60/21 (final; previously: LG Münster, ref. 8 0 345/20).

No reimbursement of professional footballer’s remuneration during domestic quarantine

§§ Sections 30, 56 IfSG, Sections 611 a, 615, 616 BGB; Section 106 GewO

  1. A professional footballer may be entitled to remuneration under labour law for the period of domestic quarantine against the club employing him, his employer, under section 611a of the Civil Code, if he is required to follow a domestic training schedule prescribed by the club after regular playing and training operations have been suspended.
  2. A claim for compensation according to § 615 BGB can be considered if the quarantine had to be ordered for operational reasons, e.g. because the quarantined player had contact with a fellow player infected with Corona during training.
  3. In the case of a 14-day quarantine, the player may also have been prevented from performing his work for a relatively insignificant period of time, so that he may be entitled to compensation pursuant to § 616 BGB.

The requirements for compensation of the club as employer pursuant to section 56 IfSG are not met if the club was obliged to pay the player the remuneration – now demanded as compensation – for one of the aforementioned reasons. (Official guidelines)

LG Hamburg, Urt. v. 24.1.2022, ref. no. 313 T 2/22 (legally binding).

Division into 2nd national tennis league by interim injunction

Art. 9 (1) GG, § 25 BGB

  1. Decisions of the association courts which do not constitute disciplinary measures are also subject to judicial review.
  2. A match evaluation decision of an association court which rejects a motion of bias against its chairman in contradiction to its own rules of procedure and also otherwise erroneously in law with the consequence that the rejected sports judge takes part in the proceedings is unlawful and has no binding effect vis-à-vis the state courts.
  3. In such a case, the state court can itself (at least hypothetically) carry out the match assessment provided for by association law due to the use of a player not entitled to play in the interim injunction proceedings. If this match evaluation leads to the fact that the team of the plaintiff in the injunction would no longer be on a relegation place arithmetically and according to the rules of the association of the defendant in the injunction, the court can order the association in the injunction to keep the club in the league for the next season. (Guiding principles of the SpuRt editorial office)

VGH Baden-Württemberg, Urt. v. 23.6.2021, Ref. 6 S 1481/18 (final, previously: VG Stuttgart, Urt. v. 8.5.2018, ref. 5 K 2085/15).

Weapons authorities are not bound by certificates issued by shooting sport associations.

§4 Abs 4 S 3 WaffG 2002 vom 17.7.2009, § 14 Abs 2 WaffG 2002 vom 18.7.2009, § 14 Abs 3 WaffG 2002 vom 17.7.2009, § 4 Abs 4 WaffG 2002 vom 1.9.2002, § 45 Abs 2 WaffG 2002, § 45 Abs 3WaffG 2002, § 45 Abs 4 WaffG 2002, § 15 Abs 5 WaffG 2002 vom 1.9.220, § 15 Abs 1 WaffG 2002 v. 1.9.2020

  1. The requirements for the continued need of a sport shooter to possess weapons exceeding the so-called basic quota are the same as for the first-time acquisition of these weapons. The increased need for shooting in the sense of § 14 para 3 WaffG a.F. (juris: WaffG 2002, version: 2009-07-17) (or § 14 para 5 WaffG n.F. (juris: WaffG 2002, version: 2020-09-01)) must therefore also be verified in the context of a review according to § 4 para 4 S 3 WaffG a. F. (juris: WaffG 2002, version: 2009-07-17) (or § 4 Abs 4 WaffG n.F. (juris: WaffG 2002, version 2020-09-01)) for each individual weapon. (para 41)
  2. The shooting associations recognised under section 15(1) of the Weapons Act (juris: WaffG 2002, version 2020-09-01) do not have sovereign authority to verify the existence of a shooting need under section 14 of the Weapons Act (juris: WaffG 2002, version 2020-09-01). (para. 53)
  3. The certificates issued by them are a means of establishing the credibility of the need for shooting sports, but do not prevent the firearms authorities from independently verifying the requirements for need in individual cases where there is doubt. (marginal no. 54) (Official guidelines)

BFH, Urt. v. 16.12.2021, Az VI R 28/19 (legally binding, previously: FG Düsseldorf, Urt. v. 11.7.2019, Az. 14 K 1653/17 L)

Tax-free supplements for work actually performed on Sundays, public holidays or at night time

§§ Sections 3 b, 39 b EstG; Section 611 BGB; Sections 1,2 ArbZG; EStG VZ 2012, EStG VZ 2013, EStG VZ 2014, EStG VZ 2015; R 3 b para 6 sentence 2 LStR

  1. work actually performed on Sundays, public holidays or at night is any activity of the employee actually performed in the employer’s interest during the qualifying periods for which the employee is entitled to a basic wage.
  2. The classification of the activity according to the Working Hours Act is irrelevant for the interpretation of the concept of work actually performed on Sundays, public holidays or at night within the meaning of § 3 b para. 1 EstG.
  3. Section 3 b EstG does not require a concrete (individual) burdening activity of the employee for the tax exemption of Sunday, holiday or night work supplements. It is necessary, but also sufficient, that the employee actually performs a basic wage-reinforced activity at the times benefiting from the tax exemption. (Official Guidelines)

DFB-Bundesgericht, Urt. v. 18.11.2021, Ref. 4/2021/2022 BG (legally binding).

Only optional single-judge proceedings before the DFB Sports Court

Art. 9 (1) GG; § 25 BGB, §§ 8,13, 15, 16 RuVO-DFB

  1. The preceding single-judge proceedings before the DFB Sports Court pursuant to § 15 RuVO-DFB do not necessarily have to be conducted before the proceedings before the DFB Sports Court with an ordinary composition pursuant to § 16 no. 1 RuVO-DFB. This applies in particular if it is already foreseeable when the application is filed that an oral hearing (with taking of evidence) will be necessary to decide the matter.
  2. The requirements for proving an assault by spitting at a player.
  3. A player who shouts at an assistant referee with such vehemence that saliva in his mouth flies towards the assistant referee and hits him, accepts this consequence and thereby commits an extraordinary act of disrespect towards the assistant referee, which can be considered as particularly gross unsportsmanlike conduct. (Guidelines of the SpuRt editorial office)