On 06.01.2017, the DRB, represented by the President Manfred Werner, the Vice President Günter Maienschein and the sporting director Jannis Zamanduridis, in Werdau, told the present representatives of the clubs from the associations of Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt, the statements of Hr. Wozniak would express a private opinion that is not in accordance with the official opinion of the DRB.
This makes it easier to overlook the numerous mistakes and incomplete rendition of facts in the interview, which, although wanting to cast the DRB a more favourable light, wouldn’t bear a factual review.
Crux of the matter:
The DRL has signaled willingness to talk for a long period of time and has even offered a mediator.
If you publicly advertise on the homepage of the DRB immediately before the meeting of clubs and national organizations on 14.01.2017 in Aschaffenburg: „the door is always open“ there is actually no reason not to talk to each other. May the DRB be measured by actions!
The DRL is happy to ask Kurt Beck to once again play the part of a mediator.
The interview that Mr. Wozniak has given (on request to the, since 03.12.2016 existing and published key issue paper of the DRL) conveys the impression that one would not really diverge in the objectives, although there is still work to be done on matters of detail. But concepts still need to be presented.
The DRL’s reaction: Well, let’s talk!
Already in the preliminary stages of a conversation, after a detailed study of the key issue paper on concepts that has been publicly known since 03.12.2016 one might say that:
- The youth work cited by the DRB in the interview is to remain in the DRB, in the LO, in the clubs according to the key issue paper. We do not assume that the DRB is seriously expecting any concepts from the DRL in this respect.
- It is identical with the squads and team athletes: These too should remain according to the key issue paper in the DRB and the LO. In respect thereof we do not assume that the DRL would require concepts. Even a collision with DOSB or Federal Ministry of the Interior does not arise.
- Thus, only the area of the registered leagues remains, which as a paid sport in the sense of tax law imposes a special treatment on the non-profit DRB anyway (e.g. with regard to value added tax).
Here, the clubs have clearly stated their expectations: the autonomous organization of the previous licensing leagues on a basis of democratic decision-making processes by the participating clubs.
Of course, the autonomous structuring is based on the international rules (with minor modifications, like the ones DRB has always made for team wrestling, for example, in terms of team rating) and on the basis of the relevant international and national anti-doping rules. Related to the latter, it should be added that the key issue paper offers to do so through the DRB, which has transferred central responsibilities to NADA and the German Sport Arbitration Court through its current regulatory framework.
The bottom line is, there is a number of collaboration subjects between the DRB and the registered leagues, which (following the example of other sports such as football, handball, ice hockey, etc.) are to be represented by a cooperation agreement. This may be a detail of the negotiations, as well as what kind of services the DRB would like to provide to the registered leagues at which reasonable charge (e.g. officials).
As with other sports, the cooperation agreement consolidates the general area (DRB) and the professional sport (DRL).
Autonomy equals personal responsibility. The necessary concepts exist and are adopted or adapted jointly by the participants of the professional league – on a democratic, autonomous basis and through immediate, direct co-determination of each participating team. In addition, the responsible associations are willing and able to do so.
In that regard, it may be a misunderstanding on the part of the DRB to demand concepts here. Not the DRB is the addressee, but the self-responsible organizing professional teams (as in football by the DFL, in handball by the HBL, in ice hockey by the DEL). In its key issue paper, the DRL also offered the DRB the opportunity to participate directly in these democratic decision-making processes: namely through membership in the DRL. This is an offer, but not a must. Incidentally, the key issues paper provides mutual information and advice – always based on reciprocity. This too is an offer, but not a must.
After all it is a fair concept, if DRB is willing to allow the self-responsibility of the clubs in the professional field and to shape the future of professional sports through the cooperation agreement with the DRL. A concept that has already proved its suitability in other sports. A concept that is suitable to reunite the disintegrating leagues and clubs.
The DRL wants to keep the door open to discussion – if this also applies to the DRB, let’s suit the action to the word!