(Wineparty Investigations)
There is no longer a dispute within the Tyrolean Sommelier Association but a war. A war being fought personally: ruthlessly, but without showing its face – and one that is now seriously affecting long-standing chairman Norbert Waldnig not only as an office-holder but as a human being, as we ourselves learned in a moving telephone conversation. It is immediately apparent when speaking to Waldnig: this is someone who has devoted a large part of his life, with great passion and even greater commitment, to the training and careers of Tyrolean sommeliers. And that was and remains the right thing to do, for which he, at 61 and approaching retirement, deserves thanks.
For years, Waldnig has been regarded in Austria as one of the defining figures of the profession – and his Tyrolean association as Austria’s most powerful and successful. Yet it is precisely the closeness that made Waldnig strong that is now making him vulnerable: for almost 15 years, he supported Suwi Zlatic, probably the most prominent Tyrolean sommelier of the present day. And that is now becoming a test of endurance.
The fact that Zlatic and Waldnig have now fallen out bitterly is about more than a private or association feud. It is the reflection of a policy pursued by the Tyrolean association for decades: promoting individual top sommeliers with almost limitless support – while at the same time completely taking ownership of them. The case of Aldo Sohm, a predecessor of Zlatic and long since an international star, already showed how risky this strategy is. Talents were built up, their egos fuelled, their careers made the boss’s responsibility – but they were scarcely protected against the inevitable envy, internal tensions and human wear and tear.
Today, precisely that is coming back to haunt them. Those who were once left out, who felt sidelined or outmanoeuvred, are now taking Zlatic’s side in Tirol. What began as an internal power struggle has become an open front: Zlatic and his followers on one side, Waldnig and his loyalists on the other. And in the middle of this war stand not just two men, but an entire association that for months has produced more headlines than structure.
This war now also includes the accusation levelled at us that we intervened in the dispute in a partisan manner – on Zlatic’s side. The Tyrolean association claims that our reporting was based exclusively on documents passed to us by Waldnig’s opponent Zlatic, and by a sommelier working in Switzerland, anonymously. In other words: that we were used.
In reality, however, the picture is more complex. Since the first publication, we have received 16 emails. In them, whistleblowers describe structures, procedures and personal experiences within the Tyrolean Sommelier Association. Some of these messages come from people who openly identify themselves; other emails are anonymous, and these anonymous emails, factual in tone almost to an extreme, cannot necessarily be attributed to Zlatic and his circle through their tone, style or specific indications. Of course, we are aware that any AI used could also write excellently formulated and accusatory emails for Zlatic and his fellow campaigners. But if that is the case, it merely shows how immensely well and professionally Waldnig’s opponents have prepared.
That is precisely everyday journalism: anonymous tips are not inherently worthless, but require a clear method: check, compare, verify. We have done so. Documents, photographs, WhatsApp records and PDFs were examined using data forensics. We checked the senders’ statements against other sources. We weigh what can be substantiated – and what remains speculation.
It is possible that Zlatic and his circle are also waging their conflict with Waldnig in this way. But that does not make the information irrelevant. What matters is not who sends it, but whether it stands up to scrutiny.
The Sommelier Union itself has now also responded – though not only with a substantive discussion of the allegations against the Tyrolean association, but with the claim that our reporting violates press law. A serious accusation, but one that falls flat. We make it clear: neither Austrian nor German law has seen us violate the principles of press law. On the contrary: we work according to the same standards that apply throughout investigative journalism – protecting sources, checking documents, revealing facts. And reporting with a clearly stated reservation in the first article is also standard practice. The fact that the Union is retreating to legal side issues instead of addressing the actual problem is telling. We therefore expressly reserve the right to examine taking legal action ourselves against the Sommelier Union. The chairwoman of the SUA, Annemarie Foidl, is herself Tyrolean. And with her emails to Wineparty last week, when she and the Union took responsibility for responding to the first article, she prevented rather than encouraged open communication, because – as we now know – many telephone calls took place about how to respond to the article. Ms Foidl, who was actually never the person addressed, took this over herself without much ado.
With its threat of legal action, the Union is also attempting to prevent the publication of further documents. Specifically, this concerns an anonymously forwarded email exchange that we have received and which – entirely in the spirit of journalistic diligence – we forwarded to both the Union and the Tyrolean association for comment.
Here first is the complete wording of our email and of the forwarded email exchange:
Dear Norbert Waldnig, dear Annemarie Foidl,
I am sending you an email exchange uncovered during my research. I ask for your comments on the points by Monday at 10 a.m. These emails came from a third-party source that I cannot verify. I therefore also need information on whether these emails arrived in your inboxes and were read. Many thanks and best wishes, mk
Email to Annemarie Foidl without reply, 3 September
Dear Annemarie,
Thank you for your reply and for forwarding the email to me again.
I am only replying now because the message affected me deeply.
To be honest, I am even very disappointed by the decision to give preference this time to colleagues with little or no competition experience. Especially because, after Budapest, you indicated to me that I had great potential and should represent Austria internationally in future, I find it difficult to understand this step. It calls into question much of what I have achieved so far.
Especially since this is not the first time the situation has unfolded this way: in 2021, I was told that the runner-up might go to the European Championship, but in the end I was not allowed to take part. Such developments are difficult to understand when one has invested time, money and energy over many years.
This makes transparency all the more important to me:
- What criteria are used to decide on participation?
- Who decides these criteria?
- How will the selection for Lisbon – World Championship 2026 be made?
- What specific requirements do you expect of candidates?
- Will there be a competition team in future, as in other countries?
I understand the desire to support young sommeliers, but I too had to prove myself at the time in order to be allowed to compete internationally through the Union for the first time.
I am also concerned about the 2023 competition. Is there an ethics or evaluation group dealing with it? What is the current state of affairs?
I consider it very important to handle this sensitive issue responsibly so that everyone involved retains confidence in the competitions.
Finally, I would like to address openly the fact that these repeated decisions also make me feel discriminated against to some extent. I would be very interested to know what experienced competition sommeliers such as René Antrag, Gerhard Retter, Aldo Sohm, Andreas Jechsmayr and many others think about this issue.
Email of 4 August to Mr Waldnig
A very good morning, Norbert; good morning, dear Board,
Many thanks for your detailed reply. It is positive to see that you are prepared to engage in discussion and regard transparency as an important value.
To move forward constructively on this basis, I would like to suggest several specific points for further clarification:
Transparency and access to information for all members
As already mentioned, a personal appointment at Freddy’s is possible, but geographically and organisationally difficult for many members to arrange.
My suggestion therefore:
Publication of all relevant documents in the password-protected members’ area of the TSOV website, or distribution by email to all members.
Including annual accounts, the cash book with income/expenditure by item, minutes of Board meetings, a list of all currently active members and sponsors, and decisions on expenditure such as fees, travel costs, sponsorship, etc.
Would it be possible to publish these documents by Sunday, 31 August?
General Assembly in August 2025
Given the current situation and the legitimate questions coming from several directions, holding a proper General Assembly in August would be an important signal of unity, transparency and democratic participation.
Is there already a specific date or plan for this General Assembly?
If not, when will it take place?
Competition 2023
Even though you point out that the matter falls under the Sommelier Union Austria, it nevertheless also affects confidence within the TSOV, since Carole organised the competitions and Max is a member. You emphasised support for the Tyrolean candidates, so their fair treatment also concerns you and the Board.
Has the TSOV conducted an internal investigation or issued a statement regarding the allegations?
Will the Board communicate proactively with the SUA or ASI about this? I ask you to resolve it internally. ASI has other problems at present, and personally I would not want a negative image of Austria to be cast internationally.
Is there a plan to develop an ethics code or binding guidelines for future competitions?
I admit that I was not involved in this competition. Here I wanted to speak on behalf of the wider community.
Involving members in communication and public profile
You emphasise the focus on continuing education. Nevertheless, continuing education and members’ visibility are not mutually exclusive.
Are there plans for formats such as introducing active members on social media each month?
Involving sommeliers as speakers, trainers or authors of specialist articles?
Digital working groups or members’ forums via the website or social media?
Further specific questions for clarification:
You mentioned a sum of approximately EUR 180,000.
What specific plans or strategies does the TSOV have for using this association capital in future?
What legal form does the TSOV officially have at present? A non-profit association under the Associations Act?
You mention that invoices can be issued upon request. Is there not generally an obligation to issue an invoice in Austria when income is received, particularly for events involving external participants or sponsors?
Training and continuing education: many active members, myself included, would like to pass on their knowledge. Would it therefore not make sense to appoint an internal education officer who would specifically contact members to assess their skills and develop continuing-education formats together?
Could you give me the contact details of Felix Carli and Markus Erd for a professional exchange?
I could not find any information about Nicole in the membership overview. Is Nicole currently a fee-paying or active member of the TSOV? If so, could you say why she does not appear online?
There is a rumour that Egon Mark was excluded from the last wine trip. Is that true, and if so, for what reason?”
As with the first story, the following also applies here: the email exchange in question comes from an anonymous source and should therefore be read with reservations. That is precisely why we forwarded the documents to both the Union and the Tyrolean association for comment.
Annemarie Foidl, President of the Sommelier Union Austria, confirmed receipt of the email – but barely addressed the specific points in her reply. Her statement reads:
„I am happy to share the following: Benjamin Zimmerling (one of those suspected by both the association and the federation of being an informant, ed.) was at this competition a year earlier, together with Suwi Zlatic. Zlatic won. Shortly before the Sommelier European Championship, we wanted to give Zlatic the opportunity to assess his form.
Zimmerling repeatedly wanted to take part – but since there are sommeliers with less or no competition experience compared with him, other sommeliers are being given the opportunity to get a taste of competition. Our competition will take place in November.
This letter is Benjamin Zimmerling’s response to my rejection.
This seems only fair to us and is consistent with our mission and our attitude of supporting the next generation. Not begrudging others the opportunities one has received oneself – well… no comment.”
Norbert Waldnig, chairman of the Tyrolean Sommelier Association, takes a different approach. He sent the person who wrote the emails a detailed statement on his own behalf. Above all, he emphasises the association’s work to date and the danger that the current conflict could overshadow these achievements:
I share your regret 100%. Historically, the TSOV has always been handed over from one Board to the next with the aim of offering our members the best possible quality. Personal differences of opinion have always been resolved internally at Board level, collegially, with a solution-oriented approach and for the benefit of our members. There has never been an escalation like this in the TSOV’s 38-year history. I fear that, unfortunately, there will only be losers. When two people quarrel, third parties withdraw – nationally and internationally. It is a shame that this path was chosen.
It seems that you are missing important information about our outstanding association work to date, which I would be very happy to provide.
During our last term of office, 2022–2024, we organised more than 50 (!) continuing-education sessions, Diploma Sommelier updates, competition training sessions and tastings on various topics organised by the TSOV. We trained more than 2,486 hospitality employees and conducted numerous study trips, for example to Tuscany, Piedmont, Friuli, Summa or 100% Champagne in Munich.
With a clear conscience, I can say that we are a leading force in Austria. Together, we have created something truly special. I did a great deal of research and found that the TSOV is one of the most active sommelier associations. We love and live our subject, sommellerie. Our primary concern is always member benefit – and there has been plenty of it.
My whole heart is in the continuing education and support of sommeliers, professionally and personally. I also researched whether there are sommelier associations nationally and internationally that offer such additional programmes for the next generation free of charge within the association. Here too, we are leaders.
The quality of the support we offer our members’ next generation speaks for itself. Carole Stein, now an internationally sought-after trainer of young talent, from whom you also benefited yourself, especially during the COVID-related lockdown periods, provides competition support for candidates on behalf of the TSOV. In most other countries, candidates have to pay for such trainers out of their own pockets.
Unfortunately, the sommelier regulars’ tables did not work so well. Suwi took on this task and certainly tried often since the decision in 2017. Nevertheless, neither he nor others were able to make it happen. We are working on new concepts in this area, which are promising and strongly involve our young sommeliers.
There is always room for more. With active members who offer their assistance and get involved, we can continue to expand this record of success. I am pleased to read that you are interested in this, and I would look forward to working together.
With all the obvious successes of young talents, the TSOV’s focus is clearly on education, continuing education and supporting the next generation of sommeliers. I have just compared us with ASI, MS, SUA and SUD as well as MW, and here too we are more than in line with all of them. We do not want to get bogged down in social media, but remain clearly focused and structured. I am quite open to discussing this at the next Board meeting and introducing new ideas, so that the TSOV can continue to fulfil its leadership role in Austria.
The two statements reveal a striking pattern: although Annemarie Foidl confirms receipt of the emails, she barely addresses their content. Her argument remains at the level of supporting the next generation – understandable as a general principle, but not an answer to the points raised in the email concerning transparency, selection criteria and ethics.
Norbert Waldnig, by contrast, presents a broad balance sheet of the association, emphasising figures, events and the TSOV’s leading role in the Austrian context. He paints a picture of activity, commitment and continuing education – all undoubtedly important, but also more of a diversion. There is no clear, robust statement either on the specific allegations surrounding competitions or on questions about the association’s structures.
Both responses thus amount to the same thing: the major questions about transparency, internal control mechanisms and how criticism is handled remain unanswered. What remains are self-descriptions – brief on the one hand, detailed on the other, but without substance on the actual issue. This shows precisely how difficult the Tyrolean Sommelier Association and the Sommelier Union currently find it to strengthen their members’ confidence with clear, verifiable answers.
But let us turn to another point: the accusation that the training was not conducted on an equal-opportunities basis – an accusation that is also legally relevant.
On Tuesday afternoon, we spoke with Carol Stone, an internationally recognised sommelier trainer who has also been working in Austria for years. She rejects the suspicion that she supplied candidate Max Steiner with insider knowledge in advance. In her view, the PDF document sent to us was more likely a transcript of a lecture that Steiner sent to Zlatic. The reason: both had trained with him. Stone also emphasises that she has never charged a fee for her work in Austria and expressly denies having engaged in one-sided or undemocratic coaching. This clarification from Stone requires further investigation into the extent to which Zlatic may have used these photographs manipulatively – that too could have legal consequences.
We will continue our investigations this week. For the questions have not become smaller – on the contrary, they have become larger, more fundamental, and have long since concerned far more than Tirol.