Congress gives green light to Social Security bonuses for clubs

It seems that in the parliamentary activity is present that point of uncertainty that exists and must exist in sport and competition because against all odds in a context of approval of Bill “establishing a supplementary tax for multinational groups and large national groups, a tax on the margin of interest and commissions of certain financial institutions and a tax on liquids for electronic cigarettes and other tobacco-related products”, of a fiscal nature . The law contains an additional provision related to sports entities on labor issues.

Specifically, this approved Bill includes a “bonus for hiring in non-profit non-professional sports entities”. This bonus will be 100% of the business contribution for common contingencies for the hiring of trainers or monitors who provide services in clubs, associations or non-professional sports entities or “amateur” clubs.

They will be entitled to this 100% bonus of the business contribution for common contingencies as long as the training, preparation or coaching is intended for persons under 18 years of age.

An objective criterion of what is considered an “amateur” club for the purposes of this allowance is incorporated, specifically that which does not have “any of its athletes assigned in any discipline, modality or category” subject to a special employment relationship for professional athletes.

This criterion undoubtedly draws attention to the fact that, in accordance with the labor regulations governing professional athletes, as well as frequent judicial pronouncements, the figure of the coach who provides services on behalf of and within the scope of organization and management of a club or sports entity in exchange for remuneration is considered a professional athlete for all purposes, whether his team is participating in a professional competition or not.

Thus, many clubs could meet the initial requirements that would give access to this bonus, that is, being a club, having coaches or monitors and that these are dedicated to train people under 18 years of age, but would be excluded if the coaches they have have a professional contract, a circumstance that should be in accordance with the regulations.  

In other words, the legislator starts from the mistaken idea that the provision of services by a coach in a non-professional club is considered an ordinary employment relationship when in fact it is a relationship that by law must be formalized in accordance with the employment relationship of a professional athlete.

This undoubtedly leads us to the conclusion that this “objective criterion” would not be well configured for the intended purposes and that other criteria could have been used that were less confusing and contradictory to the regulations.

‍

Published in La Nueva España, November 27, 2024.

‍

For further information on the subject, please contact Diego García Diego