Is soccer dead, Mr. Golz?

Many fans are angry: the professional clubs are clearing the way for an external investor to join the German Football League. "Money is chronically tight in soccer," says Richard Golz. He has played 453 Bundesliga matches and now advises the management of sports clubs.

On Monday, the DFL member clubs approved the sale of the media shares to an investor by a narrow majority. Fans have been up in arms about the decision for months. Did soccer die on Monday?

Richard Golz: No, we are a long way from that. As is so often the case, the truth lies in the middle. The clubs have an insane need for investment and competitive pressure. So they inevitably have to talk about revenue pots. But there are points that the fans understandably point out.

Where?

I'm thinking of ticket prices, for example, which are comparatively reasonable in Germany. An investor naturally has an interest in increasing the clubs' income. And that would be possible with ticket revenues in view of the high demand and would probably change the atmosphere in the stadium. We have seen this in England, where the good atmosphere in the stadiums is now just a myth. I can therefore understand the concerns of fans who are afraid that German soccer will become more expensive and the atmosphere will turn into a play.

But ticket prices are not affected by the sale of TV rights, are they?

No, but everything is connected to everything else. The bigger and more profitable a club is, the better players it can buy. That makes the league more attractive, which in turn increases media revenue.

Many fan groups have already announced further protests. What can the clubs expect?

The usual: Banners, whistles, experts expressing criticism. But the clubs and the DFL have to face up to that now. There is no point in dealing with the issue defensively. That's why I don't think much of the fact that the vote was held in secret. In the case of Hannover 96, we are now seeing how this can become a political issue.

It is said that Hannover's president Martin Kind may have overruled the club's own position and agreed to the deal. And with one less vote in favor, the deal would not have gone through.

It probably won't be clarified, but it does put a strain on the whole issue, including 50+1. I think we need as much transparency as possible, and not just now. That is precisely why the vote should not have been held in secret.

Was there a lasting rift between fans and clubs on Monday?

I don't think so. It's still too early for that - the deal hasn't even been finalized yet. As I said, this process must now be as transparent as possible, including for the fans.

Nevertheless, the question arises as to how bad things must be financially for the clubs if they get involved in this dispute.

Even if you don't believe it, money is chronically tight in soccer. There are always clubs who, for example, have their TV revenues advanced. At the moment, however, I would say that most clubs are doing better again after corona. So the deal didn't come about out of sheer necessity.

The first vote in May did not achieve the necessary majority, but now it has. What was different this time?

The framework conditions were completely different back then. Ultimately, there were no negotiating partners for potential investors after the departure of Donata Hopfen in May. Many clubs then felt blindsided because nobody knew exactly how much money was involved. Nobody knew exactly how the money would be distributed, how much influence the investor would have. The entire first draft was not good, both in terms of content and communication. Now they've taken a more cautious approach, even though they should have communicated more with the fans. But I don't want to deny the new DFL management's sensitivity. I think Marc Lenz and Steffen Merkel have tried to ensure a good process so far.

In their statement, Lenz and Merkel used the term "red lines" for the potential investor a good dozen times, which also means that there should be no influence on the day-to-day business of the DFL. Why is this message not getting through to the fans?

There is a general fear of investors and of soccer being sold off. And, as I said, this is not unfounded. But we are still very different from England, Spain or France. The 50+1 rule is our greatest asset.

Some say that 50+1 has been dead since Monday. Many clubs are clearly acting against the interests of their own fans.

You have to differentiate between the Ultras and the wider fan base, who still want to compete in Europe. But yes, I can't completely resolve the contradiction.

The question also arises as to why the new deal - eight percent of the media rights for 1 billion euros - should be better than the 3 billion euros for twelve percent that the package from May provided for. Calculated down to the percentage point, the deal is significantly worse.

Yes, this question is of course obvious. The only way I can explain it is that the clubs have fewer concerns about inequality. To put it bluntly, you could say that the bigger the package, the more could flow to the big clubs. However, the biggest winner is certainly the potential investor.

On the other hand, it could also be said that no great leaps are possible. The gap to the English Premier League is unlikely to be closed with €1 billion - and interest in matches between Augsburg and Heidenheim will be limited internationally anyway.

Yes, you have to take a close and critical look at the various investment pots. There are obviously numerous clubs for whom internationalization is of secondary importance - even if I think the basic strategy makes sense. However, pouring money into regionally based Bundesliga clubs does not help anyone. That's why I think it's positive that the new package is smaller and more precise.

Why is private equity being brought on board at all? You could have borrowed the billion from the bank.

Yes, private equity is certainly the most expensive financing option overall. But they wanted the network and the resulting synergy effects, which is understandable.

But many fans warn that an investor wants influence. The DFL brushes aside the criticism. Are the fans being taken for fools by the DFL?

No. The DFL will have already given it some thought. For me, communication is the problem: just talking about red lines is too easy. It should have been clearly explained why this particular form of financing was chosen. That didn't happen sufficiently.

Have you ever experienced this in your career, that influence was exerted, for example by sponsors?

Not really. TV Spielfilm once wanted to get off our chest at HSV because we lost a few games in a row and there was a bit of chaos. They actually pulled that off for a while. But otherwise it was always kept away from us players.

There are currently two or three investors in talks. CVC and EQT are considered to have the best chances. What do you think an investor needs to bring to the table?

A certain affinity for soccer! Possibly also investments in this area already. But he must understand the values of German fan culture. Of course, an investor wants to assert his interests - and yes, he will also move red lines. We also experienced this at Sat.1 in the 80s and 90s, when reporting changed completely. But soccer has always retained its identity, and I hope it stays that way. I mean that above all in terms of competition.

Speaking of competition: Will the current plans make the Bundesliga more exciting again - probably the biggest problem at the moment?

No, it won't change anything. The gap will probably widen even further.

Could a new system of play help? Similar to the USA, there could be a fixed contingent of traditional teams with the greatest TV reach that are not relegated, plus a second group of sporting qualifiers, as well as redistribution through central marketing. That would be radical - but even in the capitalist USA it works well.

I have no imagination for that. We are in Europe, we have our own soccer and competition culture. We should have our own ideas so that sporting competition remains the focus.

Jannik Tillar spoke with Richard Golz

The interview first appeared on capital.de