Football and Political Freedom: the Historical Experience of Divided Germany
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
OccasionalPaper 50 Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany Jutta Braun Imprint: Editor Liberal Institute Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit Karl-Marx-Straße 2 D-14482 Potsdam Phone +49 3 31.70 19-2 10 Fax +49 3 31.70 19-2 16 [email protected] www.freiheit.org Production COMDOK GmbH Office Berlin 2008 Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany Jutta Braun Paper prepared for the International Colloquium “Sports, Politics, Free Market and the State“ organized by the Liberal Institute, Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Potsdam, Germany, 27th June 2008. Contents Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany 5 The controversy over the 1988 UEFA Cup 5 Football between the two Germanys in the 1950s 10 Republikflucht as trauma for the SED 13 East Germany’s triumph at the Olympics 16 Fans out of control 18 Towards football unity 21 Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany While television viewers in Germany and abroad will be glued to their sets these days, following Euro 2008, few will remember just how highly politicised foot- ball was during the Cold War. Exactly 20 years ago, in 1988, a European football championship was also under way – the host country was the Federal Republic of Germany. However, a major political outrage in the run-up to the tournament almost put an end to West Germany’s chances of playing host. It was caused by the rivalry between the different systems in the East and the West and the special position occupied by West Berlin in superpower machinations. The United States described the city surrounded by communist troops as a “defended island of free- dom”. The Eastern Bloc countries, on the other hand, condemned it as a “hub for spying and espionage”, primarily because it was from here that several attempts had been made to escape from East to West. The Soviet Union had repeatedly tried to secure West Berlin as a political entity separate from the Federal Repu- blic, the most familiar milestones on this path being the Berlin Blockade in 1948 and Khrushchev’s ultimatum in 1958. The controversy over the 1988 UEFA Cup Today, we have virtually forgotten that West Berlin was often caught between the millstones of the Cold War, even within the international sports associations.1 In 1985, the German Football Association (Deutsche Fußball-Bund, DFB), under its president, Hermann Neuberger, had applied to host the 1988 UEFA Cup. The organisational concept submitted to the Union of European Football Association (UEFA) envisaged eight match venues, among them Cologne, Hamburg and Mu- nich. Yet West Berlin was not on the list. Neuberger had deliberately overlooked the Frontstadt or frontline city, fearing that its inclusion could well jinx the en- tire application procedure at the very outset. His worries were fuelled by his ex- periences. Fourteen years earlier, the Soviet Union had left no stone unturned in its efforts to exclude West Berlin from the list of venues identified for the 1974 FIFA World Cup in West Germany. On that occasion, however, Neuberger succee- 1 See Braun, Jutta, ‘Inselstadt im Abseits?, in: Braun, Jutta; Teichler, Hans Joachim (ed.): Sportstadt Berlin im Kalten Krieg. Prestigekämpfe und Systemwettstreit, Berlin, 2006, pp. 150–183. Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany ded in his efforts to include the “half city”, as the collective votes of the Eastern been left in the lurch. Ever since the 1950s, the people of West Berlin had invariably Bloc on the board of FIFA, the governing body of world football, did not constitute been able to rely on a supportive West German sports policy and on the backing of a majority. Ironically, and as luck would have it, East Germany of all countries in organised sport. Examples included an “air bridge for sport”,2 the choice of West the much despised “political unity” was drawn to play against Chile – which it did Berlin as the routine venue of the final game of the German Championships before with gritted teeth. The situation in 1985 however was far more dangerous. As the the launch of the Bundesliga,3 and a range of tax-related and practical measures Eastern Bloc enjoyed a comparatively strong position in UEFA, the president of the that were initiated to assist associations and clubs. Had this era now come to an West German football association was prompted to play safe and put an end to end? Were the “West Germans” no longer interested in securing freedom and vi- the sports solidarity with West Berlin so as not to jeopardise his country’s chances ability for West Berlin at all levels? Yet whenever West Germany decided to side of hosting the 1988 UEFA Cup. with the disappointed inhabitants of West Berlin, it would invariably unleash a storm of protest from across the political spectrum. The weekly magazine Die Zeit No sooner were these priorities set than there was a public outcry. More than summarised the incredulous reaction to Neuberger: anything else, the residents of this notoriously besieged enclave felt that they had „The Federal Chancellor has appealed to his national conscience, the executive committee of the SPD (Social Democratic Party) has expressed its “outrage”, an entire FDP (Free Democratic Party) party conference has called for remedial action. There is turmoil because the football boss has left Berlin out of the reckoning for the European championships.“4 Yet Neuberger opposed all attempts at political intervention, insisting on the “au- tonomy of sport”. Nevertheless, the West German Government under Helmut Kohl went to great lengths one final time to secure West Berlin’s participation in the event. On 5 March 1985, the West German cabinet decided to hand over an aide memoire to the foreign ministers of the UEFA countries with which they maintained good relations. There was no time to lose as the final decision on which country would host the championships was scheduled for 15 March. The central statement in the communiqué read as follows: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would deeply regret it if the European Football Championships to be held in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1988 did not include West Berlin as a venue. In such a case, it would not con- sider it desirable to grant the hosting of the 1988 European Football Champion- ships to the DFB.5 2 This included financial subsidies for sporting ties as well as transport for West German teams to the island-city. 3 Until the Bundesliga was introduced in 1963, six finals were held in West Berlin. Red card for foul play Reiser 4 ‘Auf der Bananenschale der Politik’, Die Zeit, 1 March 1985. In 1985, DFB president Hermann Neuberger decided, out of consideration for the Eastern Bloc, to put an end to 5 Federal Archives Koblenz (BAK), BAK B 136 24413, Witte, 6 March 1985 VS-NfD Plurez to Paris, the solidarity in sport with West Berlin. Although West Germany was chosen to host the 1988 UEFA Cup, Helmut The Hague, Rome, Lisbon, Reykjavik, Edinburgh, Vienna, Berne, London; memo to: Moscow, Kohl’s Government was incensed. Prague, ChBK, Washington, StäV. Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany Football and political freedom: the historical experience of divided Germany UEFA’s executive committee, meeting the following day in Lisbon, was not in the „The 1988 European championship was a one-off event; we have long least impressed. On the contrary, various foreign politicians and sports officials come to terms with not having been there. The DFB Cup, on the other hand, criticised what they thought was a completely misplaced intervention by the West continues to matter to Berlin. The fantastic atmosphere that we have today, German Government. David H. Will, executive member from Scotland, was har- the enthusiasm and the chant ‘We’re going to Berlin’ – in 1985 we could sh in his criticism of the “incredible step”: “I do not need a foreign ministry and have only dreamed of this in this isolated enclave. Today it is a reality.“10 most certainly not the government of another country in order to take a decision as a sports official.”6 The DFB, also filled with consternation, expressed the “fee- The controversy of 1985 proves just how difficult it is to separate issues on the lings” of its members in a resolution dated 19 March 1985. As a “free, autono- daily political agenda from the inherent logic of the “beautiful game”. By its own mous sporting association in a free democratic state”, it refused to accept “orders definition, organised football in West Germany had been “apolitical” since its birth or instructions from any government or administrative body – and certainly not – at least to the extent that it positioned itself as an independent body that did from representatives of political parties”. The DFB continued to oppose the “mas- not take instructions from a party or a government. Based on this definition, the sive threats of all kinds of reprisals and the offensive nature of the attacks” on body consciously distanced itself from the political reshaping and Gleichschaltung Hermann Neuberger.7 (alignment) of sports organisations during the Third Reich. However, the football association invariably adopted a political stance when it came to relations with In the sealed-off island-city, however, the people welcomed the West German the second German state. In the 1950s and 1960s, DFB essentially backed the line Government’s statement of support in the controversy over the European cham- taken by the West German Government that claimed the right to be the sole re- pionships but believed that the DFB was a traitor.