A German court ruled Mainz was wrong to sack Anwar El Ghazi over the Gaza post
A German labor court ruled in favor of Dutch footballer Anwar El Ghazi as FSV Mainz 05 was found to have terminated his contract based on a social media post on the Gaza conflict. This ruling also supports the conflict between professional ethics and freedom of speech, especially in political issues.
El Ghazi’s controversy started in October 2023 when he posted some comments on his social media account: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This slogan has different connotations in activism for Palestine. Most people interpret them as a demand for the dismantling of the state of Israel or a demand for the halt of the Israeli occupation and the violation of Palestinians’ rights.
After these posts, Mainz decided to demote El Ghazi and said his comments were provocative and controversial. The club’s first response was to release an official statement saying that El Ghazi apologized and promised to stop this process. However, the situation ended when El Ghazi repeated the same in another post, expressing his disapproval of any form of violence against civilians irrespective of the side of the conflict and, therefore, exercising his freedom of speech on the same.
El Ghazi took this decision in court mainly due to his freedom of speech rights. The labor court agreed with the leading order: he should be reinstated and paid all arrears of wages and bonuses of approximately €1. It was revealed in the balance-of-payment of October that foreigners invested USD 5 million (approximately 5 million AU) in 1. 6 million.
This ruling agreed with El Ghazi’s anointment that he used to give other players a provocation remark; it was his right to freedom of speech. The decision also said more specifically that the dismissal was unjustified and unnecessary, and certain propositions were made in the guidelines concerning the termination of similar relations in the future.
This case relates to other extents about the behavior and speech of professional athletes more broadly. This reminds organizations of the precautions they should take when dismissing employees for their opinions, especially on freedom of speech laws.
This case is not limited to athletes possessing political views but refers to all of them. Hence, a warning is that before an organization embarks on punishing a person for the expressed opinion or action, they should look for legal requirements pertaining to freedom of speech in the encounter. Such advocacy groups have hailed this decision as Nujum Sports, which works for the rights of Muslims, especially the athletes. The organization accepted the verdict as a victory of free speech principles calling to professional bodies that should also protect athletes’ freedom of speech without consequences.
This case applies not only to professional athletes and the possession of political opinions but also to all of them. The organization accepted the verdict as the victory of the principles of free speech, appealing to the professional bodies that should also recognize athletes’ freedom of speech without penalties.
In any case of El Ghazi with the Mainz, this ruling enables him to be paid his contractual wages unless an agreement between the two parties is made. This case shows a conflict between employee rights and actions and freedom of speech, especially concerning sporting personalities, as their use of any given freedom of speech can have significant implications.
