Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann has sharply dismissed accusations that the recently implemented stadium bans constitute a blanket suspicion of the entire fan base, a policy drawing increasing scrutiny across Germany. In an interview with “Welt” television, Herrmann labelled the claims of generalized suspicion as “utter nonsense” asserting the measures target specific individuals based on demonstrable misconduct.
Herrmann stressed the stadium bans are intended to penalize defined perpetrators, not to cast suspicion upon entire groups of supporters. He emphasized a national effort to ensure consistent criteria in the application of these bans, potentially extending them across all German stadiums. This coordinated approach, he argued, is designed to deter repeat offenses and maintain order at football matches.
Crucially, Herrmann pointed out that the primary responsibility for issuing stadium bans rests with Bundesliga clubs, rather than the state government. Only the most serious offenses are processed through the judicial system; in the vast majority of cases, individual clubs, the German Football League (DFL), or the German Football Association (DFB) determine who is permitted entry. “Stadium bans are not issued by an Interior Minister. They decide that” he stated, underscoring the delegated authority.
While acknowledging the significant role of clubs, Herrmann conceded that the DFB has requested police assistance in gathering intelligence. He committed to improving communication between law enforcement and clubs, emphasizing the need for police to provide pertinent information to inform decision-making. “We need to improve communication. If the police have relevant information, they must share it with the club. Because the club then decides on stadium bans” he declared.
The situation highlights a complex interplay between state responsibility, club autonomy and police intelligence gathering, raising questions about the proportionality of the bans and the potential for overreach, particularly concerning the potential for information sharing between police and clubs to impact civil liberties. The transparency of the criteria used by clubs and the DFB will be paramount in mitigating concerns of unfair targeting and ensuring the measures are genuinely proportionate to the offenses committed.