Usain Bolt is wrong to oppose our tax laws

The sprinter won't compete in Britain again because he doesn't want to pay more tax.

Amid the drama of the Jamaican team's world record time in the 100m relay, which I was fortunate enough to witness in person, few noted Usain Bolt's post-race comments on tax. Asked why he did not compete in Britain more often (he refused to appear at Crystal Palace in 2010, for instance), Bolt cited our tax laws. "As soon as the law changes I'll be here all the time," he said.

Bolt's objection is to a law that allows the government to take a cut of his sponsorship and endorsement earnings as well as his appearance fee, which is currently taxed at 50 per cent. For instance, were he to take part in 10 meetings worldwide, with one in Britain, the Inland Revenue would tax him on 10 per cent of his worldwide sponsorship earnings. None of which is objectionable. Without tax funded events such as those in Britain, Bolt, who earns around £10m a year, would have no platform on which to perform and, consequently, no sponsorship. Those countries that don't tax non-resident sports people, as Britain does, should do.

The law was waived for the Olympics at the behest of the IOC (one wonders if we would have seen Bolt otherwise) and the government is now under pressure to permanently suspend it. But given the revenue it would lose from those athletes who do grace us with their presence, it is understandably reluctant to do so. Instead, it is Bolt who should reverse his stance and accept that it is legitimate for him to pay a proportion of his worldwide earnings to the British government. After all, having spending £9bn on the Olympics, we could do with the money.

Bolt's management complain that "his tax liability in the UK would exceed his appearance fee". Yet if true, that is only because his sponsorship earnings are so exorbitant to begin with. In any case, is it utopian to hope that athletes might be motivated by something other than money?

Update: Here's what the Treasury had to say on the subject in this year's Budget.

HMRC will revise its practice on the taxation of non-residents sports people to take training days into account when calculating the proportion of worldwide endorsement income subject to UK tax.

Jamaica's Usain Bolt reacts after winning the men's 200m Olympics final. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Calm down, everyone – of course Nigel Farage is in the running for TIME Person of the Year

The former Ukip leader has been shortlisted for the iconic magazine list.

While your mole is no fan of former Ukip leader and triumphalist frog Nigel Farage, it has to scurry to his defence in this instance. There's been a big brouhaha (ie. some people on Twitter have posted a few half-hearted opinions and crap jokes) about the bonvivant Brexiteer being shortlisted for TIME's iconic Person of the Year.

He is one of 11 contenders for the position listed by the magazine, alongside the likes of Donald Trump, Mark Zuckerberg and Beyoncé. (What a dinner party that would be. We hope Zuck puts the photos up on Facebook.)

Why are people surprised by this? Farage is the reason the UK is leaving the European Union, and by doing so has made a big impact on national and global politics. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin famously won the award, so we know it's not an endorsement, simply a measure of impact. And others on this year's list suggest this too: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump – all dubious political figures who have caused controversy.

So why the big deal about Farage?

Read more about TIME's shortlist here. The winner is announced tomorrow.

I'm a mole, innit.