The Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG) emphasized in the proceedings concerning a youth football coach that the bodies of sports associations are themselves allowed to take drastic measures to decisively counteract the threat of sexual abuse of children. In the present case, the Bavarian Football Association (BFV) expelled the youth football coach for life because he is said to have developed too close a relationship with a then ten-year-old boy in 2014. The coach, who lives in the district of Bad Tölz-Wolfratshausen, was hired by a club in the district of Landsberg am Lech for the football camp.
In the camp, it was said at first, he is said to have touched the ten-year-old boy immorally. The coach still firmly rejects this accusation. The fact is that no public prosecutor’s investigation was initiated into the alleged incident. That’s why there was never a court case. Rather, another boy had told his parents about the alleged assault, which they turned to the Bavarian Football Association. The association and executive committee then initially consulted the Munich child protection center. This recommended that the trainer no longer be allowed to work with children and young people. But the BFV went one step further: it excluded the coach from the association for life. With this measure, his existence was destroyed, said the youth coach on Thursday before the 29th Senate at the Munich Higher Regional Court.
The youth trainer initially appealed against the decision of the BFV before the district court in Munich – with success. Because the first court found that the decision with which the plaintiff was excluded from the BFV was invalid. The measure taken by the association is formally lawful. However, the exclusion was not factually justified. Because the BFV presidium and the association sports court had decided to exclude “due to an insufficient finding of facts”.
The judges of the OLG, meanwhile, stated in the oral hearing this Thursday, among other things, that the decision for the lifelong exclusion of the youth coach by the BFV and its presidency “hold up”. In a statement, the youth coach admitted to the BFV that he watched a film alone with the boy and comforted him because of his homesickness. This statement alone justified the decision taken by the BFV “for preventive defence”, said judge Andreas Müller. The well-being of children is a social good of the highest value, emphasized the chairman. Sports associations have the task of protecting children and, moreover, countering racist and inhuman behavior.
The fact that the BFV saw a “classic example of an initiation” in the way in which the plaintiff behaved towards the ten-year-old was unobjectionable, said judge Müller. On the contrary: the reaction of the BFV reveals “awareness of the problem”. Within the scope of its discretion, the association could assume that there was a risk. Even if the lifelong exclusion represents a significant encroachment on the rights of the plaintiff, this measure is “justified and proportionate”. The youth coach replied that he knew how important it was to hug a child who was crying. He had always enjoyed being a coach and had never been guilty of anything. The Higher Regional Court will announce a judgment on the matter at the end of June.