The Freedom of Form in Announcing a Championship Bonus from a Legal Perspective
In May 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the legal question of whether the promise of a bonus for a sporting championship—the so-called championship bonus—can be validly made without being bound to any specific formal requirements. The judgment (Ref. Xa ZR 90/08) provides clarity for practical purposes and has far-reaching significance, particularly for sports clubs, associations, and entrepreneurs who publicly offer comparable bonuses or rewards.
Key Points of the Decision
The court determined: A public promise pursuant to Section 657 of the German Civil Code (BGB) can be made without any formal requirements and does not need to be in writing. In the present case, a sports official gave a binding promise of a bonus payment to a football team in the event the team would win the championship. After the sporting achievement was accomplished, the—unwritten—promise led to disagreement and subsequent judicial clarification.
Applicability of Public Promise Law
The central question was whether the announcement of the bonus constituted a legally binding public promise within the meaning of Section 657 BGB. The BGH explicitly affirmed this. Unilateral declarations of intent, which refer to a future benefit in exchange for an objectively verifiable act—here, winning a championship—are effective as soon as they are communicated to the group of addressees.
Relevance and Scope of Freedom of Form
No Formal Requirement, but Clear Manifestation Required
The court explicitly emphasized that the law does not stipulate any formal requirement. The sole decisive factor is that the promise of a bonus is sufficiently concrete and clearly comprehensible to the recipients. Whether it is documented in writing, as a digital document, or communicated orally is secondary, provided the content and purpose of the obligation are unambiguous.
Implications for Practice
The consequence: Even spontaneous assurances given during social gatherings, meetings, or in the form of oral statements can establish full legal obligations. This not only concerns the sports sector, but can also be transferred to business contexts—for example, in the awarding of innovation bonuses, performance bonuses, or similar reward systems.
Distinction from Other Promises of Performance
Difference from Gift and Prize Competition
Of central importance is the distinction of the public promise under Section 657 BGB from other legal concepts. Unlike, for example, a gift under Section 518 BGB, which generally requires notarization, the public promise does not need any special form. Likewise, it differs in prize competitions, which are often subject to specific participation conditions or protection and information requirements. Here, the principle of transparency remains paramount.
Specification of the Group of Addressees
The ruling clarifies: The public promise is not necessarily directed at an indeterminate group of people; rather, it can (as in the case of teams or companies) target specifically individualized recipients without losing its legal nature. The decisive point is that the group of beneficiaries is clearly defined, and the performance is objectively verifiable.
Practical Significance for Companies, Associations, and Individuals
The BGH decision provides certainty for planning: Whenever a company, association, or organization promises bonuses or rewards for achieving certain goals, such pledges are binding even without adherence to special formal requirements, as long as they meet the criteria of a public promise. Although the evidentiary situation can be improved in practice through clear communication and documentation, a lack of formality does not constitute an obstacle to effectiveness under the highest court’s rulings.
At the same time, a precise review of the circumstances is recommended, particularly regarding the clarity and definiteness of the public promise as well as any potential deviations from objectives or conditions.
For organizations, companies, and individuals faced with similar issues or uncertainties regarding public promises or bonus pledges, it is advisable to obtain competent legal advice for legally secure structuring and risk assessment. The team of MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt is available as an experienced contact.
