UK tax laws repel top athletes

But this might be about to change.

Hydration, shoes, sponsorship, training, diet… tax rules? The last item in that list will not have been weighing heavily on the minds of many runners in the London marathon last weekend.

They are, however rather more of a consideration for international athletes competing in UK pro-sports events. Thanks to current Treasury policy, entry could easily leave them seriously out of pocket.

The HMRC Foreign Entertainers Unit levies tax on foreign sportsmen and women not simply by reference to earnings made from the events they enter the UK to take part in, but also by looking at global sponsorship income.

At the highest levels of sport, the majority of annual earnings are in the form of such sponsorship arrangements. Sellers of training equipment, drinks, perfumes, watches — even broadband (thank you, Mr Branson) — want a sprinkling of top quality athletic shimmer to help shift their wares. The remuneration for many such favoured athletes makes some of their event winnings look positively mean by comparison.

The UK and US revenues are alone in plundering this branding income of international guests at their championships, matches, games, and competitions — with the result that participation in UK events can appear on stars’ books as a loss-making endeavour.

This policy has in recent years found many top athletes deciding against entering UK events. There is a difficult call to be made as to whether the reputational capital they accrue from appearing in UK events is worth the tax payable. The value a major sponsor may put on their man’s profile in the UK is often quite intangible; the prospect of a bill from HMRC running to tens, or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, is not.

This difficult decision has been averted, however, for two upcoming athletics meetings as after years of lobbying by the sports industry, the Treasury has at last issued a concession to their policy. Buried in the 629 pages of Finance Bill 2013 (only slightly down from last year’s record-breaking 686) lie two clauses that grant exemptions from income tax to accredited competitors at the 2013 Olympic Anniversary Games and 2014 Commonwealth Games. News that Usain Bolt will make his first non-Olympic UK appearance in four years indicates the concession is timely.

This year’s concession is stand-alone, but could augur wider change. The case has long been made that UK plc loses out from its current approach to international sport. The Treasury may see the arrival to our shores of itinerant stars as a cash cow to be milked, but the taxes raised are coming at the expense of more significant opportunities (including the 2010 Champions League final which went to Madrid instead).

The economic rally of Q3 last year demonstrated the value to the UK of hosting international sport. Stand-alone tax breaks encourage competitors to help make such events the international displays of expertise they should be. However, the fiscal atmosphere surrounding them remains tense and the UK could benefit hugely from a permanent softening of its policy.

Edward Keene is from private client law firm Maurice Turnor Gardner LLP. This story first appeared on Spear's magazine

Usain Bolt. Photograph: Getty Images

This is a story from the team at Spears magazine.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tony Blair might be a toxic figure - but his influence endures

Politicians at home and abroad are borrowing from the former prime minister's playbook. 

On 24 May at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, a short distance from where he once governed, Tony Blair resurfaced for a public discussion. Having arrived on an overnight flight, he looked drawn and puffy-eyed but soon warmed to his theme: a robust defence of liberal globalisation. He admitted, however, to bafflement at recent events in the world. "I thought I was pretty good at politics. But I look at politics today and I’m not sure I understand it."

Blair lost power in the summer of 2007. In the ensuing nine years, he lost reputation. His business ventures and alliances with autocrats have made him a pariah among both the public and his party. A YouGov poll published last year found that 61 per cent of voters regarded Blair as an electoral liability, while just 14 per cent viewed him as an asset. In contrast, John Major, whom he defeated by a landslide in 1997, had a neutral net rating of zero. It is ever harder to recall that Blair won not one general election (he is the only living Labour leader to have done so) but three.

His standing is likely to diminish further when the Iraq inquiry report is published on 6 July. Advance leaks to the Sunday Times suggest that he will be censured for allegedly guaranteeing British military support to the US a year before the invasion. Few minds on either side will be changed by the 2.6 million-word document. Yet its publication will help enshrine Iraq as the defining feature of a legacy that also includes the minimum wage, tax credits, Sure Start, devolution and civil partnerships.

Former leaders can ordinarily rely on their parties to act as a last line of defence. In Blair’s case, however, much of the greatest opprobrium comes from his own side. Jeremy Corbyn inclines to the view that Iraq was not merely a blunder but a crime. In last year’s Labour leadership election, Liz Kendall, the most Blair-esque candidate, was rewarded with 4.5 per cent of the vote. The former prime minister’s imprimatur has become the political equivalent of the black spot.

Yet outside of the Labour leadership, Blairism endures in notable and often surprising forms. Sadiq Khan won the party’s London mayoral selection by running to the left of Tessa Jowell, one of Tony Blair’s closest allies. But his successful campaign against Zac Goldsmith drew lessons from Blair’s election triumphs. Khan relentlessly presented himself as “pro-business” and reached out beyond Labour’s core vote. After his victory, he was liberated to use the B-word, contrasting what “Tony Blair did [in opposition]” with Corbyn’s approach.

In their defence of the UK’s EU membership, David Cameron and George Osborne have deployed arguments once advanced by New Labour. The strategically minded Chancellor has forged an unlikely friendship with his former nemesis Peter Mandelson. In the domestic sphere, through equal marriage, the National Living Wage and the 0.7 per cent overseas aid target, the Conservatives have built on, rather than dismantled, significant Labour achievements."They just swallowed the entire manual," Mandelson declared at a recent King’s College seminar. "They didn’t just read the executive summary, they are following the whole thing to the letter."

Among SNP supporters, "Blairite" is the pejorative of choice. But the parallels between their party and New Labour are more suggestive than they would wish. Like Blair, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have avoided income tax rises in order to retain the support of middle-class Scottish conservatives. In a speech last August on education, Sturgeon echoed the Blairite mantra that "what matters is what works".

Beyond British shores, political leaders are similarly inspired by Blair – and less reticent about acknowledging as much. Matteo Renzi, the 41-year-old centre-left Italian prime minister, is a long-standing admirer. "I adore one of his sayings,” he remarked in 2013. “I love all the traditions of my party, except one: that of losing elections."

In France, the reform-minded prime minister, Manuel Valls, and the minister of economy, Emmanuel Macron, are also self-described Blairites. Macron, who in April launched his own political movement, En Marche!, will shortly decide whether to challenge for the presidency next year. When he was compared to Blair by the TV presenter Andrew Marr, his response reflected the former prime minister’s diminished domestic reputation: “I don’t know if, in your mouth, that is a promise or a threat.”

The continuing attraction of Blair’s “third way” to European politicians reflects the failure of the project’s social-democratic critics to construct an alternative. Those who have sought to do so have struggled both in office (François Hollande) and out of it (Ed Miliband). The left is increasingly polarised between reformers and radicals (Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos), with those in between straining for relevance.

Despite his long absences from Britain, Blair’s friends say that he remains immersed in the intricacies of Labour politics. He has privately warned MPs that any attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot in the event of a leadership challenge would be overruled by the National Executive Committee. At Methodist Central Hall, he said of Corbyn’s supporters: “It’s clear they can take over a political party. What’s not clear to me is whether they can take over a country.”

It was Blair’s insufficient devotion to the former task that enabled the revival of the left. As Alastair Campbell recently acknowledged: “We failed to develop talent, failed to cement organisational and cultural change in the party and failed to secure our legacy.” Rather than effecting a permanent realignment, as the right of the party hoped and the left feared, New Labour failed to outlive its creators.

It instead endures in a fragmented form as politicians at home and abroad co-opt its defining features: its pro-business pragmatism, its big-tent electoralism, its presentational nous. Some of Corbyn’s ­allies privately fear that Labour will one day re-embrace Blairism. But its new adherents would never dare to use that name.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad