EUROPEAN TURMOIL SHOWS NO SIGN OF ENDING

European American football’s ongoing fracture has moved further into the legal arena, with the European League of Football (ELF) stepping up its position against teams now aligned with the European Football Alliance (EFA) and American Football League Europe (AFLE).

At the centre of the dispute is ELF founder and majority shareholder Zeljko Karajica, who has repeatedly stated that a number of clubs involved in the EFA project especially remain contractually tied to his league. Speaking in recent media appearances and league communications, Karajica has insisted that existing agreements remain valid and enforceable. He has stated that teams with contractual relationships ‘will be part of the upcoming (ELF) schedule’, while also maintaining that the ELF ‘will not budge an inch’ from its legal position.

Despite that schedule having yet to appear in any official form, the ELF’s stance is that several franchises — including teams now associated with the EFA — are still bound by active agreements, and a non-compete clause, and therefore cannot simply participate in a rival competition. That position places the EFA at the biggest risk as four of its six teams appear most exposed should those contractual claims ultimately be upheld.

By contrast, AFLE leadership has taken a different view. In comments to German media, managing director Moritz Heisler indicated that the league believes the relevant franchise agreements have either expired or been properly terminated, and that participating teams are not at risk from contractual claims. Heisler also suggested that, to date, no formal legal action has been received by the league, while expressing confidence in its legal position.

However, independent legal opinion cited across German reporting has raised questions about how some franchise exits were executed, particularly around whether formal termination procedures were correctly followed. In certain cases, experts have suggested that failures in process could weaken the legal standing of breakaway teams, potentially exposing them to claims for damages if contracts are deemed to remain in force.

The situation is further complicated by the involvement of Munich Ravens owner Thomas Krohne. While a key figure within the EFA project, Krohne also holds a minority stake in ELF GmbH, creating a dual-role dynamic that carries legal implications under German corporate law. In a recent interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Krohne indicated that the Ravens no longer consider themselves bound to the ELF and are committed to competing outside the league. He also questioned the credibility of the ELF’s proposed 2026 schedule. Observers note, however, that shareholder obligations — particularly fiduciary duties — could become a significant factor if the dispute progresses into formal legal proceedings.

Elsewhere, the AFLE’s Berlin Thunder’s use of insolvency proceedings has been highlighted in German reporting as a potential legal pathway to exit existing agreements, although the extent to which that applies across other franchises remains unclear.

Behind the scenes, the conflict has escalated into a broader corporate battle. Both sides are understood to have engaged legal teams, restructuring specialists, and communications advisers, underlining the scale of what is now at stake. With no resolution in sight and positions continuing to harden, the question is no longer simply whether multiple leagues can coexist in 2026.

Instead, the immediate issue is whether the EFA — built in part around teams whose contractual status is now contested — can withstand the legal pressure being applied. For now, that answer appears likely to be determined not on the field, but in the courts.