DFB Statement on Harassment in the Tax Process

Frankfurt, Germany- The German Football Association (DFB) didn’t just welcome a verdict on Wednesday — it used it to draw a hard line.

On 04.02.2026 (4 February 2026), after the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main acquitted former DFB treasurer Dr. Stephan Osnabrügge of the charge of serious tax evasion, the federation issued a statement that reads less like routine legal housekeeping and more like an indictment of the indictment.

An acquittal — and a counterattack

The DFB says the ruling “confirmed the legal opinion of the DFB presented from the beginning,” and goes further: it claims the allegations in the indictment were “completely refuted.” That is the foundation of the federation’s argument — that this wasn’t a case that simply didn’t hold up in court, but one that should never have been pursued for as long as it was.

The core accusation is blunt: the public prosecutor’s office and tax investigators allegedly kept a criminal case alive for years despite earlier refutation by the DFB. In the DFB’s framing, the acquittal is not just a win; it’s proof of institutional stubbornness.

The most serious claim: shaping the evidence

The most explosive element of the statement is the allegation that the public prosecutor’s office influenced an auditor’s report.

According to the DFB, it became clear during the taking of evidence that, “at the instigation of the public prosecutor’s office,” exonerating passages were “specifically removed.” If accurate, that is not a procedural footnote — it strikes at the credibility of the investigative process itself.

The DFB also questions the roles of the Tax Investigation Department and the Directorate of Higher Finance, and argues that investigators neglected the tax office’s actual assessment practice — the very practice the DFB says was decisive and which it claims to have repeatedly highlighted.

Germany Football News:

• Germany Bounces Back, Takes Down Northern Ireland in World Cup Qualifier
• Germany U21 Defeat Albania U21 2-0 in International Friendly
• Slovakia Stuns Germany 2-0 in Historic World Cup Qualifying Upset

The raid as a message: power, optics, and reputational damage

The statement also revisits the optics of enforcement.

The DFB describes search measures involving around 200 officials — some partially armed — on DFB premises and those of its representatives as disproportionate. It alleges a “deliberate publicity effect,” pointing to significant spending of tax funds and “prior information” to the media.

This is where the DFB’s language shifts from legal critique to reputational grievance. The federation argues that the state’s approach came “at the expense of the reputation of the DFB and its representatives,” and that authorities accepted potential economic harm to both the organization and individuals involved.

In other words, even if the case ended in acquittal, the damage was already done.

Why this matters beyond one verdict

The DFB’s position is not subtle: it wants accountability.

By calling on Hessian state politics to “comprehensively clarify” the accusations that, it says, arise from the court’s own words, the federation is pushing the issue out of the courtroom and into the political arena.

That move matters because it reframes the story. This is no longer only about whether a former treasurer committed serious tax evasion. It becomes a broader question: what standards should govern tax investigations and prosecutors when the target is a major national institution — and what remedies exist when the process itself is alleged to be unfair?

Black Rifle Coffee: Black Rifle Coffee is for people who don’t hit snooze on standards. Fuel your day with bold coffee and a mission-first mindset. Black Rifle Coffee — Fuel the mission.

BUY NOW

The line between enforcement and harassment

The DFB is effectively arguing that the tax process became harassment: a years-long pursuit, allegedly driven by bias, amplified by spectacle, and sustained even as counter-evidence existed.

But that claim carries its own burden. If the DFB wants the public to accept this as more than institutional self-defense, the next phase will require clarity: what exactly did the court say, what exactly was removed from the auditors’ report, who ordered it, and what documentation supports the allegation?

Because in modern sport governance, credibility is everything — and the DFB is now asking the public to believe that credibility was compromised not by football, but by the state.

If the acquittal is the end of the legal case, the statement makes clear the DFB does not consider it the end of the story.

Bad Dawg Sports is built on independent coverage and real access — no recycled quotes, no empty outrage.

Subscribe to the Bad Dawg Sports newsletter for just $2/year (limited time) and get the full week’s biggest stories, plus the behind-the-scenes layer you won’t find in the headlines.