Political posts: dismissal of a professional footballer invalid

The case: posts after 7 October

An employer who publicly issues a warning over certain conduct can no longer dismiss the employee for that same conduct. And a political post justifies summary dismissal only if, when interpreted in the light of freedom of expression, it amounts to a breach of duty. That is what the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court (LAG) decided in its judgment of 12 November 2025 in the case of a Bundesliga player (3 SLa 254/24). The player keeps his claim to remuneration and to a special payment, and the club receives neither a contractual penalty nor any money back.

The player had signed a contract in September 2023 with the club, whose first team plays in the Bundesliga. After the attack on Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on 7 October 2023, several posts appeared on his X and Instagram accounts. On 15 October 2023 he used the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” in an Instagram post. After the club pointed this out, he deleted the post seven minutes later.

On 17 October 2023 the club spoke to the player and suspended him. In a further meeting on 26 October it handed him a letter asking him to distance himself from his statements and to condemn the terrorist attack on Israeli civilians in unambiguous terms. The two sides were unable to agree on a joint statement. On 27 October the player stated on Instagram that he condemned the killing of all innocent civilians in Palestine and Israel. His sympathy was with the victims regardless of their nationality, and he stood for peace and humanity for all.

A formal warning by press release

On 30 October 2023 the club published a press release on its website under the heading “Formal warning”. In it, it stated among other things that it was giving the player a chance to rehabilitate himself and was planning his prompt return to training and matches. A formal warning is the employer’s official caution: it censures particular conduct and announces consequences, up to and including dismissal, should it be repeated.

In response to the press release, the player published a further post on Instagram on 1 November 2023. The club then issued extraordinary summary dismissals in two letters dated 2 November 2023. Its reasoning: with the new post, the player had qualified the statement distancing himself of 27 October, that is, the message that he did not wish to justify or support the attack and did not deny Israel’s right to exist.

The player brought a claim against the dismissals before the Mainz Labour Court and sought continued payment of his remuneration, including a contractual special payment. The club counterclaimed for repayment of part of the special payment and demanded a contractual penalty. The Labour Court ruled in the player’s favour and dismissed the counterclaim. The club appealed.

Why the dismissal failed

The appeal was unsuccessful. In its reasoning, the Higher Labour Court distinguishes between two periods. The first runs from 7 to 30 October 2023 and covers all posts up to the club’s press release. The club can no longer rely on that conduct to justify the dismissals. By issuing the press release of 30 October it waived any right of dismissal that may have arisen in respect of the conduct known to it. The player had taken note of the statement.

Behind this lies a principle that applies to every employer: anyone who issues a formal warning over certain conduct thereby declares that, on this occasion, the matter rests with the warning. A dismissal for precisely that conduct is then ruled out. The club had issued this warning publicly and at the same time announced a second chance. It had to be held to that.

Political posts and freedom of expression

That left the post of 1 November 2023 as the only possible ground for dismissal. The court interpreted the post and concluded that in it the player had neither justified or supported the attack of 7 October nor denied the State of Israel’s right to exist. The breach alleged by the club was therefore absent.

In interpreting the post, the player’s freedom of expression had to be taken into account, which the Basic Law guarantees to everyone and which also applies within the employment relationship. On the other side stands the employee’s duty to have regard to the employer’s legitimate interests, the so-called duty of consideration. A court must weigh the two positions against each other. Where a statement permits several readings, the employer may not choose the one least favourable to it.

Because the dismissals did not end the employment relationship, the player is entitled to his remuneration, including the special payment. The club can claim neither the contractual penalty nor part of the special payment. Nor does it get back the remuneration it paid in order to avert enforcement of the first-instance judgment.

What this means for employers

The case is set in professional football, but the rules apply in every company. Three points matter for HR departments.

First: a formal warning uses up the ground for dismissal. That is all the more true where the company makes the warning public and at the same time announces that it is giving the employee a second chance. Before making such a statement, it should be settled that dismissal for the known incidents is no longer intended. Public statements made during an ongoing conflict have legal effect, even if they are primarily addressed to fans, customers or the press.

Second: political statements by employees on social networks are not in themselves a ground for dismissal. An employer who wants to dismiss must show that a statement crosses the line into a breach of duty. Anyone relying on a post as a ground for dismissal should first read it as a court will read it: by its wording, in context and in the light of freedom of expression.

Third: an ineffective summary dismissal is expensive. Two years passed between the dismissals and the Higher Labour Court’s judgment, and the club does not get back the remuneration paid during that time. Every employer who dismisses summarily without having secured the ground for dismissal bears this risk.