No Beer for Racists! Kein Bier für Rassisten!

Football doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s part of our society. Political decisions that affect society as a whole also impact football, and conversely, football shapes our society.

A central element of our favorite sport is its integrative power. No matter where people come from, no matter what they earn, no matter who they love – when you throw a ball into their midst, no words or shared language are needed; only the ball and the desire to score matter. If societal debates increasingly focus on marginalizing or excluding certain groups of people, football risks losing what makes it so strong and appealing.

For this reason, the statutes of our club emphasize the central role of “sports as a unifying element between nationalities, cultures, religions, and social classes. It offers children, youth, and adults a sporting home regardless of gender, skin color, origin, faith, social status, or sexual identity.” (§2 Para. 3 of the statutes of BV. Borussia 09 e.V. Dortmund.)

The fact is, even during the ninety minutes that belong to our club, we remain grounded in reality – no matter how much we might wish for a break from it.

And then come the usual clichés. Either all foreigners are unemployed and living off our taxes, or they’re taking our jobs. Foreigners are all criminals and unwilling to integrate. The problem with such statements is already apparent: the contradiction between “they’re taking our jobs” and “they’re all lazy and don’t work” shows that these are not genuine concerns but rather an attempt to scapegoat a particular societal group. Such clichés are not only untrue but also sweeping generalizations and, because they only target foreigners, inherently racist. Similarly, the phrase “I’m not a Nazi, but…” is revealing. If you need this phrase before expressing your opinion, it already says a lot. If society perceives such opinions as far-right, it’s not because society is too soft but because the opinions following this phrase are usually unacceptable. Anyone with a sincere opinion, a genuine concern, or real worries can and should do without this phrase.

Racism has many facets, and language is one of them. Describing people with terms like “bunch” or other derogatory words devalues them. It’s simply inhumane and racist to label people as a “bunch” based on their origin, appearance, religion, or anything else. No discussion on such topics should be conducted on this basis. However, anyone interested in a serious debate should first clarify what they are actually talking about. If no distinction is made between migrants and refugees, asylum seekers, and people with a migration background, no factual debate can take place.

Asylum seekers are people who apply for admission and protection in a foreign country due to political, religious, or gender-specific persecution. These individuals are exercising a human right that is unconditionally granted to everyone worldwide.

All people who have fled to Germany are referred to as refugees, regardless of whether they fled due to economic hardship, political, racial, religious, or gender-specific persecution, or war.

Migrants have moved to a country for various reasons and live there permanently, temporarily, occasionally, or exclusively.

When we speak of people with a migration background, we include the children of migrants born here. According to the Federal Statistical Office, these are “all people who immigrated to the current territory of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, as well as all foreigners born in Germany and those born in Germany as Germans with at least one parent who immigrated or was born as a foreigner in Germany.”

These distinctions are important in serious debates because the different terms come with different rights and legal hurdles, such as entering the German labor market or enrolling at a German university. Moreover, we should fundamentally avoid generalizations. This type of thinking leads to deeper divides between “them” and “us” for some people, making harmonious coexistence in society more difficult. Those who can understand the various reasons why people come to or have come to Germany will find it easier to accept and support these individuals.

We are partly responsible for the conditions that drive people to flee. Moreover, Germany is not only morally obligated to help migrants but also relies on migration due to demographic changes. Refugees also contribute significantly to securing Germany’s social system by entering the labor market. Respecting human rights and helping people in need costs money. We can and must afford it. Refugees can also contribute a lot if given the chance. Even though many refugees are already professionally qualified, helping them is a humanitarian and international legal obligation that should never be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Of course, there are “other” social problems in Germany that politics should address. However, it is not a question of either-or. We should not let politicians and anti-constitutional parties divide us and blame social grievances on those who are even worse off. Instead, we should collectively ask ourselves: How can we tackle problems together so that everyone benefits?

A slogan as old as pub talk itself, still chanted today, even by far-right politicians. And yet, it doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny. If it were true, it’s hard to explain why the unemployment rate among foreigners in Germany is significantly higher than among people with German citizenship. In 2021, this rate was 14.7% for foreigners and 4.7% for Germans. This claim is therefore factually incorrect. These figures do not result from foreigners being lazier. The hurdles for people without German citizenship to find or keep a job are much higher than for German citizens. Foreigners in Germany often work in low-wage sectors and temporary jobs. These jobs are highly affected by economic fluctuations, leading to significantly more layoffs than in other sectors. Moreover, work is not a commodity that can be allocated. Companies advertise positions, review applications, and select their employees themselves. Complaining that a foreigner is taking “your” job ignores, firstly, that this is not the fault of competitors with a migration background, and secondly, that people with a migration background have a much harder time getting jobs or even being invited to interviews.

For asylum seekers, there is initially a nine-month work ban. Only after this period can the employment agency approve a job. However, it must be ensured that the position cannot be adequately filled by an EU citizen. In economically strong regions, this often means a de facto work ban.

First of all, it’s not reprehensible to flee to provide a safer economic life for oneself and one’s family. Between 1989 and 1998, nearly two million East Germans moved to West Germany to improve their standard of living. However, they were not perceived as economic refugees. Generally, poor economic conditions in the countries of origin are also accompanied by other problems such as war, persecution, or repression. Claiming that people fleeing war zones, persecution due to their religion, political or sexual orientation, or simply hunger are only coming to Germany to exploit the welfare system either indicates malicious intent or sheer ignorance. It’s all the more shocking that, according to a 2023 study by the market research company Ipsos, about 62% of respondents in Germany agreed with the statement that most refugees are not genuine refugees but only want to take advantage of social benefits. People fleeing countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, or Sudan and South Sudan do not do so lightly. They don’t board a rickety boat, risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean, on a whim. Many embark on months-long journeys on foot despite life-threatening conditions, exposed to violence and repression from border guards, such as in Hungary or Turkey. They leave family members behind and pay dubious smugglers with their last savings. They do all this not in the hope of receiving social benefits in Germany. In 2023 alone, over 4,000 people drowned or went missing in the Mediterranean while trying to reach Europe. Refugees outside Europe find it extremely difficult to come to Germany due to the Dublin Regulation. In Germany, according to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, approximately 244,000 asylum applications were filed in 2022. With about 84 million inhabitants, this amounts to about 2.9 asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants. Moreover, people who come to Germany as asylum seekers initially receive only financial assistance below the citizen’s income level, along with a minimum provision for food, housing, and hygiene. The stigmatizing and disempowering payment card is also increasingly being used. In the first three months, no one is entitled to social benefits – a measure, by the way, to curb alleged “welfare tourism.” Furthermore, asylum seekers in Germany are generally prohibited from working for the first nine months. These are hardly conditions for which one would lightly leave their homeland.

Crime and origin – a topic that repeatedly surfaces in public debate and rarely leaves anyone indifferent. Especially in the stadium, we all notice how different we are and how sport unites people from all social classes and cultures. But prejudices also come into play: “Foreigners are more criminal than Germans” – a statement quickly made but far from reality. The truth is much more complex.

Crime is primarily linked to living conditions. It’s easy to point fingers, but the fact is that poverty, lack of prospects, and social isolation push people into tight corners – and then the step toward crime isn’t far, regardless of where someone comes from. However, statistics can also mislead us: Some crimes, such as violations of residency laws, can only be committed by foreigners. If we include these cases without differentiating, it appears as though migrants are more criminal – but this is a fallacy.

The Police Crime Statistics (PKS) often present a distorted picture. Crimes like violations of residency laws appear as “foreigner-specific” and create the impression that migrants are inherently more criminal. The problem lies in the way data is counted and the blanket categorization of “foreigners” as a homogeneous group, leading to a skewed perception. And what does “foreigner” even mean in this context? Such a blanket term leads to racist thought patterns and limits understanding of the true causes of crime.

It’s not nationality but social disadvantage and lack of opportunities that are the decisive factors. People struggling with poverty, isolation, and lack of prospects are more likely to be involved in criminal activities. Labeling people perpetuates prejudices and contributes to societal division. Overcoming these stereotypes is our responsibility.

The media often plays its part. Crimes committed by migrants are reported more sensationally, and the origin of the perpetrators is often highlighted, whereas it’s rarely an issue for Germans. How much do we really see, and how much is shaped by headlines telling us who is “different”? The way media reports on crime influences our perception of migrants and unconsciously reinforces prejudices.

At the same time, we must also consider age: young men, regardless of their origin, are more likely to be involved in crimes than older individuals. The image of the “criminal” should therefore be viewed more critically. What matters are not nationality but the social and economic conditions someone faces – or doesn’t.

It’s up to us to break down prejudices. Human rights are indivisible, and the right to live in peace and prosperity is one of the fundamental values of our society. Borussia Dortmund stands not only for sport but also for the fight against discrimination.

Integration is always a two-way process. It’s not just about how people adapt when they come to us but also about how open and supportive the society is that receives them. Often, it’s prejudices and barriers that make it difficult for people to integrate. If we don’t give them the opportunity to contribute to society and feel welcome, we can’t seriously expect them to integrate.

Moreover, many people who are new to a country have already faced enormous challenges and are doing great things to build a new life. It’s a significant achievement to navigate a new culture. Instead of criticizing these individuals, we should consider how we can better support them to create a truly inclusive society.

It may be true that our generations bear no immediate guilt for the Holocaust. However, as a society, we still carry a great responsibility – one that Germany only addressed far too late. Dozens of perpetrators were able to pursue careers in the civil service of the Federal Republic after the war without consequences. Gestapo files used to persecute homosexuals were also used in the Federal Republic to prosecute homosexual individuals. The responsibility toward all victims of Nazi crimes or those continued afterward does not end with the fall of Nazi Germany. From the guilt of many Germans during the Nazi era and afterward arises our obligation to oppose this ideology and never forget where it can lead. We must never stop listening to survivors and their descendants, taking their concerns about the rise of far-right parties seriously, and contradicting those who deny this responsibility. “Human dignity is inviolable” – as stated in Article 1 of the Basic Law. It couldn’t be clearer.

“You are not guilty of what happened, but you are responsible for ensuring it doesn’t happen again.” (Max Mannheimer, Holocaust survivor)

Inhumane and criminal behavior doesn’t become better when compared to others. That’s kindergarten-level reasoning. The Holocaust was planned in Germany and carried out by Germans bureaucratically, meticulously, and emotionlessly. This is tragically unique in human history. That’s why we still bear responsibility for all the victims of the Nazi era, including the former BVB groundskeeper and resistance fighter Heinrich Czerkus. This responsibility demands combating far-right and racist tendencies in all areas, whether at work, in the family, in the stadium, or in the pub. Those who relativize crimes forget. This is evident in statements like Björn Höcke’s about the Holocaust Memorial, which he called a “monument of shame,” or Alexander Gauland’s, who described Hitler’s and the Nazis’ reign of terror as a “speck of bird poop” in history.

Another form of relativization, unfortunately heard repeatedly, is the claim that not everything was bad during the Nazi era. It’s often said, for example, that Hitler built the autobahns. First of all: no. Everything during the Third Reich was indeed bad. The situation for all people who didn’t fit the Nazis’ worldview was life-threatening. Women were seen only as a means to bear and raise future soldiers, and the entire economic and social policy was geared toward war and destruction. The claim that Hitler invented or built the autobahns is Nazi propaganda and historically untrue. The idea of building autobahns in Germany originated during the Weimar Republic, long before Hitler came to power. Yes, under Hitler, the autobahns were expanded, but this was done using forced labor and solely for the purpose of transporting troops and materials for Germany’s war of annihilation. Believing the myth of Hitler as the “father of the autobahn” uncritically adopts Nazi propaganda. Anyone who doesn’t see all developments of that time as entirely bad should urgently reconsider their personal values.

This claim is often made to label people who identify as homosexual or bisexual as wrong, thereby denying gay and lesbian individuals the legitimacy of their sexuality. This statement is simply false. It raises the question of why “nature” – whatever that means – should be the standard for our individual and societal coexistence. This isn’t applied in other areas either. Otherwise, people who reject homosexuality for its supposed “unnaturalness” would also have to oppose flying or watching television. The fact that this isn’t the case exposes the inhumane component behind this statement. The claim that homosexuality is unnatural perpetuates the narrative that society makes people homosexual and that homosexuality is a product of our time. This is simply false. Homosexual and bisexual people have always existed, just as heterosexual people have. Labeling homosexuality as unnatural and wrong aims to establish heterosexuality as the “correct” norm. Attacks on and discrimination against non-heterosexual people are the result. Even in the animal kingdom, there are many examples of same-sex sexuality or “partnerships,” such as in raising “adopted” offspring.

In football, this is evident in the fact that hardly any footballer has come out as gay during their active career. In homophobic thinking, being gay means not being a “real” man. This would contradict the supposedly manliest of all sports – football. However, everyone should be able to live out the sexuality and love they desire. And since there are people who are homosexual, homosexuality is also natural.

Football is neither a man’s sport nor a man’s domain. Millions of girls and women worldwide are part of the diverse football cosmos, whether as players, coaches, referees, stewards, members, fans, journalists, or board members. Yet they constantly have to fight for their positions. Unlike boys and men, women and girls are constantly questioned about their understanding of football (“Do you know what offside is?”), and their intrinsic interest in the sport is dismissed (“She’s only here because of her boyfriend or Mats Hummels”). “You girl” and “pussy” are used as insults to express weakness and incompetence. Women’s football is treated as a different sport simply by being labeled as such – in contrast to the “normal” football (played by men) – and is falsely claimed to be inferior to “real” (men’s) football.

All these efforts to mark football as a male space, reserved solely for men and where men can be “real” men, repeatedly exclude women and femininity from football. The question that arises is, on the one hand, what “real men” and “real women” are supposed to be. Such claims reflect sexist, gender-stereotypical notions of men and women. Moreover, we should consider the impact of such attitudes and statements on our fellow human beings. We should do everything we can to ensure that girls and women don’t have to constantly prove themselves as “real fans,” “football experts,” or good players but can simply go to the stadium, the pitch, or their job like any male fan, player, or journalist. There’s a lot we can do to give girls and women a sense of safety and support in the stands and on the field. This includes finally abolishing the myth of football as a “man’s game.” Football is for everyone!

“Remigration” is a far-right buzzword designed to obscure its true meaning: deportations. The term “remigration” is intended to make deportation plans seem more palatable and socially acceptable. It’s a common strategy to shift discourse. The slogan “Remigration now” means nothing other than “Foreigners out.” This demand has a racist component. On the one hand, all foreign people are lumped together under the term “foreigners” without considering the background of their origin or residence status. The underlying understanding is usually not based on people’s actual nationality but on their skin color and/or (perceived) ancestry – a classic “blood and soil” narrative.

The idea that deportations offer a simple solution to complex social and economic problems ignores the real challenges and human costs involved. Deportations tear people from their environments. They lose their homes, families, friends, and livelihoods. In the countries to which they are deported, they often have no prospects. Some have never lived in these countries, don’t speak the language, and face threats ranging from violence to death sentences. Deportation can therefore be life-threatening.

Moreover, the demand for (more) deportations as a supposed solution to societal challenges perpetuates the narrative that “foreigners” are taking something away from Germans. In a globalized world, our countries are increasingly interconnected. Instead of excluding people, we should focus on finding solutions together for the challenges we face. If we truly care about the well-being of our society, we should choose approaches that offer humane and respectful solutions. For example, would I prefer to find a new, affordable apartment because rents have been capped and money has been invested in social housing, or because millions of people have lost their homes due to deportations? Racism and exclusion are not solutions but obstacles to a just and united society. We should strive for a better future for all people, not just those who fit the far-right’s idea of the “right” origin or passport.

Border controls are a hotly debated topic, and it’s important to consider both the legal and economic aspects. A key point is the Schengen Agreement, which enables free movement of people within Europe and is thus a fundamental part of European integration. As internationally traveling football fans, we should appreciate this personal freedom.

Economically, border controls could have significant disadvantages. Additional controls would slow down the movement of goods, leading to higher costs for businesses and, ultimately, higher prices for consumers. Moreover, bureaucracy would increase, particularly burdening smaller businesses that lack the resources to cope with additional requirements. Border controls could therefore challenge legal principles and cause economic drawbacks.

Restricting family reunification does more harm than good. People who are already here need their families to integrate more quickly, establish a stable livelihood, and maintain mental health. Preventing family reunification creates unnecessary social problems that will cost us more in the long run – both financially and socially. Moreover, it’s simply humane to allow people the right to be with their closest relatives. Why should we prevent this if it benefits social peace and cohesion?

How would you feel if you were hundreds or thousands of kilometers away from your original home, perhaps didn’t speak the local language, and couldn’t even be with your family?

The argument that rejected asylum seekers should be quickly deported may seem straightforward at first glance, but there are good reasons why it’s not that simple. For one, asylum procedures are often very complex, and a rejection doesn’t always mean the person has no need for protection. A hasty deportation can result in people being sent back to life-threatening situations.

Moreover, many examples show that deportations often occur to countries where the situation for those returned is unsafe – whether due to political instability, lack of medical care, or persecution. We must ask ourselves: Do we really want to send people back to such conditions?

Additionally, it’s often forgotten that integration takes time. Many rejected asylum seekers have already tried to establish themselves here, taken up work, or contributed to society. Quick deportations disrupt these efforts and prevent them from becoming a positive part of society in the long term.

Instead of pushing for quick solutions, we should ensure that procedures remain fair and transparent and that people in need of protection are genuinely protected. Human rights and individual dignity should always take precedence over short-term political measures.

The argument “No social benefits for migrants without residency status” is not only inhumane but also unwise. Every person, whether with or without papers, has basic rights and should receive support in emergencies. This is about more than bureaucracy – it’s about human lives.

If migrants without residency status receive no social safety net, they are pushed into poverty, illegality, and possibly crime. This cannot be in the interest of either the affected individuals or society as a whole. People without support become vulnerable to exploitation, black-market labor, or criminal activities – harming not only themselves but also social peace.

Moreover, denying basic assistance only exacerbates problems. Instead of improving the situation, it creates additional tensions and injustices. A fair and united society does not measure a person’s worth by their residency status; all people are equally valuable.

In many areas of our society, including football and stadiums, discussions around the term “gender” have increased. There are many positive developments, such as the use of gender-inclusive language, gender mainstreaming measures that consider “gender” as an important societal issue in its various facets, and the inclusion of diverse life paths for men, women, trans* individuals, or non-binary people.

At the same time, the topic seems to stir emotions. Hostility toward people who engage with the topic or identify as queer is the result. Accusations arise that there’s a “language dictatorship” in the form of “gendering” and that one can no longer truly be a man or a woman. It’s unfortunate if people feel this way because those advocating for more gender justice aim for the exact opposite. No one should be told how to live; rather, it’s about ensuring that everyone – regardless of gender or identity – has the same opportunities and rights. No one loses anything by ensuring equality. On the contrary: it creates a society where we are all freer to develop as we wish without being stuck in rigid roles. Those who claim this is a threat may fear change, but: justice harms no one.