BensGrandad
New member
Lord Bracknell said:
Do you honestly believe that David Beckham is 'employed' by Real Madrid. I would think that with all the tax advantages he will operate as a company and that company hire him out to Real Madrid.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
10k a week away from good side
- Thread starter Kinky Gerbil
- Start date
Do you honestly believe that David Beckham is 'employed' by Real Madrid. I would think that with all the tax advantages he will operate as a company and that company hire him out to Real Madrid.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The FA website throws some light on the taxation of footballers' earnings (and makes a comparison with IT consultants). It refers to an article by R Maas in Tax Journal, No.646. 27 May 2002, entitled "Bend the tax rules like Beckham?"
According to the author it has been suggested that David Beckham and other top footballers may face an Inland Revenue investigation into their use of personal service companies for sheltering income. It has further been suggested that IT contractors affected by IR35 will feel understandably aggrieved if Beckham's case is contested by the Revenue and he wins.
While Beckham cannot play football through a limited company, as the FA rules require footballers to be employees of their clubs, the author asks why he shouldn't open supermarkets or endorse football boots etc through a limited company when the tax system gives strong encouragement to carry out such commercial activities through a company. The author considers whether exploiting image rights bends any rules or whether the tax system treats David Beckham any more favourably than IT contractors.
So, there you have it ... professional footballers must be employees of their clubs. But they can moonlight for a company.
According to the author it has been suggested that David Beckham and other top footballers may face an Inland Revenue investigation into their use of personal service companies for sheltering income. It has further been suggested that IT contractors affected by IR35 will feel understandably aggrieved if Beckham's case is contested by the Revenue and he wins.
While Beckham cannot play football through a limited company, as the FA rules require footballers to be employees of their clubs, the author asks why he shouldn't open supermarkets or endorse football boots etc through a limited company when the tax system gives strong encouragement to carry out such commercial activities through a company. The author considers whether exploiting image rights bends any rules or whether the tax system treats David Beckham any more favourably than IT contractors.
So, there you have it ... professional footballers must be employees of their clubs. But they can moonlight for a company.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Rules are made to be bent not broken so employ a player for £80 per week under the tax threshhold. Then allow him to do whatever he wishes. to earn more money.
I know that what I have said about Crystal Palace is correct because I was on the committee of Surrey FA who were called upon to investigate their balance sheet. I also KNOW that it happened with Gary Stevens. The rules must have changed.
The IR35 is a nonsense that is very easily overcome I have run pubs for many years and each occassion I have NOT been directly employed by the company but self employed and then recently took my last 'employers' to an industrial tribunal and won the case that I defended myself and at the time I WAS SELF EMPLOYED a fact which the tribunal accepted but because I worked exclusively for that pub company I was treated as an employed person.
I know that what I have said about Crystal Palace is correct because I was on the committee of Surrey FA who were called upon to investigate their balance sheet. I also KNOW that it happened with Gary Stevens. The rules must have changed.
The IR35 is a nonsense that is very easily overcome I have run pubs for many years and each occassion I have NOT been directly employed by the company but self employed and then recently took my last 'employers' to an industrial tribunal and won the case that I defended myself and at the time I WAS SELF EMPLOYED a fact which the tribunal accepted but because I worked exclusively for that pub company I was treated as an employed person.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
But the FA are now developing rules to monitor the relationship between players' wages and club turnover - with a view to protecting the future of the game by introducing capping.
If a Club tried to persuade the FA that it had 30 professional players on the books and their average salary was only £80 a week, they'd be drummed out of the league before you could say "Bellotti".
There's not a cat in hell's chance of getting away with the sort of bending you're talking about, BensGrandad.
Apart from anything else, the likely consequence would be that the Inland Revenue would pursue the employers for non-deduction of PAYE and we'd see a queue of Clubs waiting for Winding Up Orders.
I bet, when you were a 'self-employed' pub licensee, you (and the pub's owners) would have strongly resisted any idea that the staff working for you were also self employed.
If a Club tried to persuade the FA that it had 30 professional players on the books and their average salary was only £80 a week, they'd be drummed out of the league before you could say "Bellotti".
There's not a cat in hell's chance of getting away with the sort of bending you're talking about, BensGrandad.
Apart from anything else, the likely consequence would be that the Inland Revenue would pursue the employers for non-deduction of PAYE and we'd see a queue of Clubs waiting for Winding Up Orders.
I bet, when you were a 'self-employed' pub licensee, you (and the pub's owners) would have strongly resisted any idea that the staff working for you were also self employed.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
That was slightly different because the people we employed were in the main housewives who were under the tax threshhold.
What is to stop you earning a nominal sum from youir employers and then doing another job to supplement your income. Which is exactly what most part-time workers are doing? The major examples are waitresses, barmaids, even postmen and firemen, provided they declare their second earnings.
What about Conference players do they only receive the money their clubs pay them? Also contracted players at say Worthing who earn perhaps £200 per game is that all they receive?
What is to stop you earning a nominal sum from youir employers and then doing another job to supplement your income. Which is exactly what most part-time workers are doing? The major examples are waitresses, barmaids, even postmen and firemen, provided they declare their second earnings.
What about Conference players do they only receive the money their clubs pay them? Also contracted players at say Worthing who earn perhaps £200 per game is that all they receive?
Last edited:
