[Football] Barcelona's Finances!

[Simster]

Okay, so they've paid 5% lower taxes than the others but in what way are they "robbing" peoples tax money?

I'm not continuing this because it is clear that my point stands - you'd do well to say "ok, didn't realise" rather than insisting I am wrong because you didn't know what I was talking about.

Just google "FC Barcelona taxpayer". Barcelona took illegal state aid from the Spanish govt, along with Real Madrid. That country has high unemployment so could do with its government spending tax a bit more sensibly rather than bailing out wealthy organisations such as them, never mind the fact that Spanish football is already heavily rigged in favour of its two biggest clubs because of their TV deals.

 

[Simster]

Can't find clubs with over 100% (though I'm sure there are some) - but plenty in the 80%+ bracket

https://www.footballcritic.com/news/revealed-the-teams-with-the-most-dangerous-wages-to-revenue-ratio/1048

There is an enormous difference between 80% and 103% as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it's fair to say they are comparable at all.

 

[Swansman]

I'm not continuing this because it is clear that my point stands - you'd do well to say "ok, didn't realise" rather than insisting I am wrong because you didn't know what I was talking about.

Just google "FC Barcelona taxpayer". Barcelona took illegal state aid from the Spanish govt, along with Real Madrid. That country has high unemployment so could do with its government spending tax a bit more sensibly rather than bailing out wealthy organisations such as them, never mind the fact that Spanish football is already heavily rigged in favour of its two biggest clubs because of their TV deals.

I dont think they did, no. At least I cant find any information about it and unless you can link to a source saying it then

The article you linked to said nothing about Barcelona taking "illegal state aid" other than the tax relief for the membership owned clubs (including Barca) and that they need to pay back the "€0-5m" (in Barcas case probably the latter) they owe because of that.

Thats all. They have not been "robbing" tax payers of any money beyond this flawed tax relief, according to the link you posted. The state didnt give Barca any money.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Every club has been living in a crazy beyond their means fashion, so none of us can sneer at Barcelona.

However I do think if a club Brighton's size topple, nobody will care and everything will carry on just the same.

If Barca topple. Maybe ... but not definitely ... things might change

 

[Simster]

I dont think they did, no. At least I cant find any information about it and unless you can link to a source saying it then

The article you linked to said nothing about Barcelona taking "illegal state aid" other than the tax relief for the membership owned clubs (including Barca) and that they need to pay back the "€0-5m" (in Barcas case probably the latter) they owe because of that.

Thats all. They have not been "robbing" tax payers of any money beyond this flawed tax relief, according to the link you posted. The state didnt give Barca any money.

It is behind a paywall, but:
https://www.ft.com/content/2b6aa26f-f2ac-426f-b218-612f4c21695c

or:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...rid-received-millions-ILLEGAL-tax-breaks.html
https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/04...nish-fooball-clubs-received-illegal-state-aid
https://www.politico.eu/article/fc-barcelona-got-illegal-tax-benefit-highest-eu-court-rules/


Again, you could google this yourself

 

[Swansman]

It is behind a paywall, but:
https://www.ft.com/content/2b6aa26f-f2ac-426f-b218-612f4c21695c

or:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...rid-received-millions-ILLEGAL-tax-breaks.html
https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/04...nish-fooball-clubs-received-illegal-state-aid
https://www.politico.eu/article/fc-barcelona-got-illegal-tax-benefit-highest-eu-court-rules/


Again, you could google this yourself

None of these articles claim what you claim - that the state were "bailing out wealthy clubs". Yes, the 5% tax reduction was illegal, but they have not recieved any money from the state and they have not "robbed tax payers".

Considering the taxes they've actually paid, they've brought in lots of money to the Spanish state. While the 5% tax reduction is obviously wrong, its quite negligible and however you want to turn it, they've not "robbed the tax payers" - they pay more than €300m in taxes per year as a club (and another €300m or so with the players paying their taxes) and get €0 (give or take a little) from the state. Hardly a robbery eh.

 

[MJsGhost]

https://businesschief.eu/corporate-...axpayers-money-unfairly-rules-eu-commission-1

Couldn't you have just googled it yourself?

Given the state of their finances, 5% lower tax rate on profits is unlikely to amount to much is it? This is a club €1.3bn in debt, so I can't imagine they've been reporting much in the way of profit, however much the concept stinks.

Okay, so they've paid 5% lower taxes than the others but in what way are they "robbing" peoples tax money?

Given the above, the amount is likely to be negligible (in relation to central government budgets), but I think the point stands.

Any amount of tax that should be collected, but is waived through a special arrangement like this is depriving the taxpayer - either through a reduction in govt spending, or increases in other taxes (which ultimately all come from the man in the street) to cover the shortfall. The pool of money to be spent is being 'robbed' of that 5% which should be coming from these big businesses and ultimately, that pool of money is the taxpayer's money.

You could argue that encouraging business through lower taxation (see UK tax breaks for the film production industry) increase the tax take overall, but I think the biggest problem here is that it was just helping to line Señor Messi's pockets, rather than any significant expansion of Barcelona's business.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Given the state of their finances, 5% lower tax rate on profits is unlikely to amount to much is it? This is a club €1.3bn in debt, so I can't imagine they've been reporting much in the way of profit, however much the concept stinks.



Given the above, the amount is likely to be negligible (in relation to central government budgets), but I think the point stands.

Any amount of tax that should be collected, but is waived through a special arrangement like this is depriving the taxpayer - either through a reduction in govt spending, or increases in other taxes (which ultimately all come from the man in the street) to cover the shortfall. The pool of money to be spent is being 'robbed' of that 5% which should be coming from these big businesses and ultimately, that pool of money is the taxpayer's money.

You could argue that encouraging business through lower taxation (see UK tax breaks for the film production industry) increase the tax take overall, but I think the biggest problem here is that it was just helping to line Señor Messi's pockets, rather than any significant expansion of Barcelona's business.

I think this is a fair comparison.

Real and Barca are two of Spain's biggest cultural exports and sources of soft power. In increased tourism alone, i'd be surprised if the taxpayer was net down as a result of a reduction in corp tax for them

Not saying it's right, because a league is a competition and a competition should be fair. But from the Spanish / Catalan government point of view, providing a safety net was probably sensible.

That was pre covid when the numbers were more manageable and the tourists were flowing in for boozy football weekends and flowing out of the airports wearing Messi and Ronaldo shirts. The calculation has now shifted.

 

[MJsGhost]

I think this is a fair comparison.

Real and Barca are two of Spain's biggest cultural exports and sources of soft power. In increased tourism alone, i'd be surprised if the taxpayer was net down as a result of a reduction in corp tax for them

Not saying it's right, because a league is a competition and a competition should be fair. But from the Spanish / Catalan government point of view, providing a safety net was probably sensible.

That was pre covid when the numbers were more manageable and the tourists were flowing in for boozy football weekends and flowing out of the airports wearing Messi and Ronaldo shirts. The calculation has now shifted.

Cutting taxes to make the UK an attractive film location will have more of a direct consequence. It's not as if Barca can up sticks from Camp Nou and play their home games in Dublin thanks to lower taxes...

Anyway, unless there's a reduction in the Spanish equivalents of VAT or NI for them, the point is moot anyway - they don't make a profit to tax.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Barca wont topple, they will be fine. They have mismanaged their business to such an extent that they deserve what they get though. I have no time for them now, they have proved inept in critical areas which are core to running a business. Their euro league was for me the end. They are at the more extreme end of the nastiest part of this industry but pretend the opposite.

 

[JBizzle]

Although I do have a measure of sympathy for any club that's been financially mis-managed, the amount of fans (including those in the PL) that actually wanted the European Super League to go ahead because their mega clubs "deserved better" definitely dampened my support

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Pardon my ignorance but given the ownership structure of Barcelona I can’t see how they can get out of this mess? It’s not like they would sell to a Middle Eastern consortium or would this be considered?

Reckon they WILL announce a Middle Eastern 'strategic partner' before very long. Can't see how else they'll ever be in a position to cover a billion euros defecit

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Can't find clubs with over 100% (though I'm sure there are some) - but plenty in the 80%+ bracket

https://www.footballcritic.com/news/revealed-the-teams-with-the-most-dangerous-wages-to-revenue-ratio/1048

Thanks. Fair enough.

Wouldn’t have thought Tottenham would be so cheapskate.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Thanks. Fair enough.

Wouldn’t have thought Tottenham would be so cheapskate.

An old article (4 years ago - https://www.themag.co.uk/2017/04/championship-clubs-spending-100-turnover-wages-new-astonishing-figures-newcastle-united/) says that 15 of the 24 Championship clubs spent more than 100% of revenue on wages. Brentford were at 166% of revenue incredibly.

I can only imagine that that has got worse. As have the Prem figures.

 

[KZNSeagull]

An old article (4 years ago - https://www.themag.co.uk/2017/04/championship-clubs-spending-100-turnover-wages-new-astonishing-figures-newcastle-united/) says that 15 of the 24 Championship clubs spent more than 100% of revenue on wages. Brentford were at 166% of revenue incredibly.

I can only imagine that that has got worse. As have the Prem figures.

I don't think the Prem teams can spend more than 70 or 75% of TV revenue on salaries. They can spend their additional income on salaries though, but they shouldn't ever spend 100% of revenue on salaries.

 

[drew]

Thanks. Fair enough.

Wouldn’t have thought Tottenham would be so cheapskate.

They're known for it.

 

[drew]

I don't think the Prem teams can spend more than 70 or 75% of TV revenue on salaries. They can spend their additional income on salaries though, but they shouldn't ever spend 100% of revenue on salaries.

Don't think there is any rule stipulating that. The guideline is 70% but the mugs up the road have been closer to 80% for the last 4 seasons!

 

[AmexRuislip]

[tweet]1467751913181437956[/tweet]

 

[WhingForPresident]

So they've signed Ferran Torres for £55m. How the **** does that work?!

 

[Stat Brother]

So they've signed Ferran Torres for £55m. How the **** does that work?!

£1m less than what the Albion spent in the last transfer window.

#JustSayin'