No compensation of damages after foul in football match without proof of gross violation of rules

Munich Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) confirms strict requirements for liability for sports accidents in its indicative ruling of 30 January 2025 (19 U 3374/24e)

Serious injury after alleged "reckless sliding tackle"

The plaintiff asserted damage claims at first instance against an opposing football player after a tackle during an amateur football match in which he suffered a fractured tibia and fibula, followed by a weakness of the big toe flexor and post-traumatic compartment syndrome. He claimed that the defendant had fouled him with a deliberate, illegal "reckless sliding tackle" (“Blutgrätsche”), despite there being no chance of reaching the ball. In addition to compensation for pain and suffering of at least 35,000 euros, the plaintiff also demanded compensation for material damage as a result of his need for inpatient treatment totalling around 64,000 euros.

Munich Regional Court II: no proof of gross violation of rules

The Munich Regional Court II (Landgericht, LG) dismissed the case. Voluntary participation in sporting activities subject to acceptance of the associated risk of injury excludes liability unless the injuring party has seriously violated the rules or acted with gross negligence. The burden of proof for this lies with the injured plaintiff. During the hearing of evidence, the Munich Regional Court II did not find any clear evidence of the gross violation of rules alleged by the plaintiff – especially due to contradictory witness statements. Rather, the court considered it more likely to be a case of a so-called "block tackle", i.e. a simultaneous attempt by both players to play the ball, meaning that civil liability could be ruled out in the absence of establishing any culpable behaviour on the part of the defendant.

Munich Higher Regional Court confirms decision in its indicative ruling

The Munich Higher Regional Court saw no prospects of success for the plaintiff's appeal and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed in accordance with Section 522 (2) sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). The plaintiff subsequently withdrew his appeal. In its indicative ruling, the Higher Regional Court clarified that criteria specific to the type of sport must be applied to liability in case of sporting activities and referred to previous case law, according to which participants in a physically demanding game such as football fundamentally accept the typical risks of injury. Football is a dynamic and combative game in which even actions that conform to the rules can lead to injuries. Only gross, obviously unfair behaviour - such as a kick only to the body without any connection to the ball - can give rise to liability. The injured party bears the burden of proof for these requirements. The Munich Higher Regional Court considered the evidence taken at first instance to be free of legal error, meaning that the plaintiff, as the Munich II Regional Court had rightly found, was unable to provide evidence and the claim was rightfully dismissed.

Conclusion: no liability without clear proof of fault

The indicative ruling of the Munich Higher Regional Court impressively shows that injuries in a football match do not automatically trigger liability on the part of the opposing player. A person wishing to assert damage claims must clearly and convincingly prove that the injuring party acted in a manner that triggers liability - i.e. a significant violation of the rules or gross negligence. Otherwise, the claim will usually be unsuccessful.

Back to list