Volume 11, Issue 1

According to European law the ‘50+1’-rule of the German Football-League gets criticized due to its potential violation of competition regulations, the principles of free movement of capital and freedom of establishment. It is argued that it acts as a deterrent for potential investors. In this study we argue for a comprehensive approach, with due consideration given to economic and social aspects, towards ensuring football's integrity as well as a link between grassroots and elite level football in Europe. Using existing legislation and association guidelines of the European Big 5 leagues as a backdrop, we identify a legal form that complies with the principle of free movement of capital as required by European law. We also discuss a list of corresponding measures that includes a ban on multiownership, decentralized marketing of television rights with a subsequent redistribution, an orientation towards international accounting principles, and the introduction of a salary cap which goes in line with the motives of the ‘50+1’-rule.

Although men generally show a higher interest than women in watching football on television, women show equal levels of enthusiasm in viewing large-scale sports events like the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Championship. But what are their respective motives for watching these games? This explorative study analyses the intensity and evolution of viewing motives in 904 participants in an online survey during the televised 2012 UEFA European Championship and takes a closer look at gender differences. A factor analysis identifies four kev motives: suspense, information, curiosity about the teams, and estimatedpotential for conflicts. During the tournament, the intensity of these motives remained stable, but results indicate significant differences between women and men, even when controlling for the level of individual interest in football.

The term ‘intercultural conflict’ is used frequently not only in the media and in public discussions but also in the (sports) science discourse. It is notable that the label ‘intercultural’ is typically used in these contexts to describe any kind of dispute, disagreement, or conflict diat involves people from immigrant or different edmic backgrounds. The underlying logic assumes that such conflicts are the result of different mentalities, which are the product of cultural differences. This article will follow a different line of argumentation focusing on the reasons why these conflicts in sports are so persistently labeled as ‘intercultural’ conflicts. We raise the following question: How does the topos of interculturality enter into conflicts in sport? The aim of the article is to critically reflect established assumptions in the discourse about intercultural conflicts in sport. The theoretical framework utilized is systems theory.