Proposition 53K0713

Projet de loi modifiant le Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 en ce qui concerne la dispense de versement du précompte professionnel retenu sur les rémunérations des sportifs.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Peter Luykx, Jef Van den Bergh
N-VA Jan Jambon, Sarah Smeyers
Open Vld Herman De Croo
∉ Veerle Wouters

Submission date

Nov. 26, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

direct tax tax on income sport sports body tax-free allowance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Steven Vandeput (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As an expression of gratitude to the colleagues of the N-VA, I will begin with a Latin term. It is a captatio benevolentia: I refer to the written report.

Let me start with my critical argument. You could expect not to get flowers without a pot.

Colleagues, I read for you a passage from The Newspaper of March 15, written by – anyone who knows anything about sports journalism will agree with me – one of the most respected sports journalists, François Collin.

Are you ready to listen? “The salaries of the Belgian players are swinging out the pan. The broker of a modal player claims EUR 200 000 per year and justifies this with the argument that the clubs benefit from an exemption from overpayment of the corporate advance fee of 80 %. He also knows that this money is intended for youth work, but that there is hardly any control.”

Now it comes, colleagues: “In the amended bill of 26 November 2010”, which we are now discussing, “the umbilical cord with the youth is even cut, so that the reasoning of the brokers is still correct too. The taxpayer’s money disappears in the pockets of the football players instead of being spent on training young people.”

That is the opinion of François Collins on the bill whose main contributor is our colleague Jambon.

My colleagues, our group fully agrees with this. Moreover, we consider this bill a missed opportunity because it has not been used to address the fundamental problems of our football.

These fundamental problems are as follows. First, there is the problem of infrastructure that needs to be improved, especially for youth education. Second, there is a lack of a viable second class. Third, there is excessive individualism or, let us say, lack of solidarity between clubs. Last but not least, there is a lack of quality youth work.

Colleagues, with the present bill, we will give a tax advantage of 25 million euros per year for the three sports, football, basketball and volleyball, and we leave the opportunity to link to the advantage we give conditions that would raise the quality of our football in the medium and long term.

I will limit myself here to the problem of youth education. Colleagues, Germany and the Netherlands have probably played the most number of times in the last 30 years, along with Brazil, the World Cup football final. In Germany, clubs are required to invest in a good youth academy.

The clubs from the first and second Bundesliga allocate €76.5 million to youth training. In the Netherlands, the second most successful country of our neighbors, clubs have to spend a certain percentage of their budget on youth education.

In the committee, I have repeatedly pledged not to give up. I have asked you not to give up the only important point in the 2007 law. I am talking about the guarantee that part of those 25 million euros will go to youth education. Our pleasures fell on a cold stone and you just went on.

The bill is a blanco cheque to spend a pot of 25 million euros at will without any guarantee on youth training. Amendment by the Greens. The proposal, which I have submitted again today and for which I will call for voting, stipulates that the clubs must report annually on the spending of those 25 million euros. Even that you did not want.

So here is a blanco cheque that will ensure that those 25 million euros, as François Collin predicts, go up and into the pockets of already well-paid footballers and that there is little or nothing left to work out the most fundamental problem of our football, namely the lack of a good, qualitative youth education.

Mr. Speaker, I allow myself to correct my good colleague Van der Maelen. It is “capatio benevolentiae”. It is a genetic.

If you really want to hear kitchen Latin, I will give you a proverb in kitchen Latin, Mr. Van der Maelen: “digitus in oculo usque ad caudam” or “the finger in the eye to the elbow.” This is Latin cuisine!

I understand your obsession with everything that may not be collected by the State. You have expressed the best intentions. I thank you for what you said. But it is not exactly what you said. The bill in question, which I have been able to sign with, aims to apply some easing measures.

It is very important that the accompaniment of children under 12 years of age is respected in this bill. If you are engaged in sport – and I feel you are specialized in it – you should know that one of the great points in it is to guide youth players and players in a decent way. Those who have attended football tournaments can talk about it. This is a little less true of basketball, I know. This applies a bit to volleyball. You know I know something about that too.

It is good that the rigorous regulation we had is relaxed. It is also good that we have – one of the few times – received an opinion from the Court of Auditors on this subject. This does not happen so often. The figure you cited comes from the calculation of the Court of Auditors for the previous years: approximately 25 million euros. That’s a lot of money and important money, but you should remember that it’s not about the sport of the big stars in the newspaper. There are hundreds of thousands of young people, children, who play football or volleyball or basketball every week, which really means a contribution to the formation of their character and their discipline, through the teamwork organized in these teams.

If you think that this contribution – that is what is mentioned in this bill – will be shattered by the “vedettism”, if I can so say, of professional top players, then I must also tell you that this bill, certain and firm for those who have signed it – the N-VA in main order, members of CD&V and I myself for Open Vld – will not wish to celebrate the goals you are trying to keep here as a sort of red lap for the Chamber. But yes, first, for flexibility will ensure compared to the previous scheme; second, will pay attention to children under twelve and, third, will release a number of opportunities in this regard for the clubs. If the treasury of 25 million euros – I have seen that we have no calculation for the current legislation – will melt, then it does not matter to me when it comes to the formation and transformation in a professional way of young players and players. We will approve this bill with great pleasure.

During the discussion in the committee, I jokingly said that it would be a matter of transparency if everyone could say of which club he is supporter and for whom he drives.

I said that, I am a supporter of Club Brugge but I drive for the general interest of football. I know that my good colleague and friend Herman De Croo is driving for Anderlecht. As for the account of Anderlecht, I know that Anderlecht effectively had a problem. They had a pot of approximately 3 million euros. They could spend that on players over 26 and 23 but those 25% that were guaranteed to go to youth training could not spend Anderlecht. What is the relief for which colleague De Croo pleads? The easing for which colleague De Croo pleads is that Anderlecht will be able to spend the surplus that had to go to youth education and that it cannot now spend in the future for those wages. That is the undermining of the quality youth education of Anderlecht to which you collaborate, colleague De Croo.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I could consider it as a personal fact, but it does not affect me. I rarely go to Anderlecht. I have never attended a match in the log of Anderlecht.

I am the founder of a volleyball team that plays in honorary division – Saturn – and that has many difficulties to do with youth formation. I know that they won’t make much profit from this, but you must understand that when you deal with the youth players in a professional way, you can do it in small and large clubs. Therefore, a service is shown to this category of residents.

If you are so committed to youth education and transparency, and I know you, why did you vote in the committee against the amendment of the colleagues of Ecolo-Groen!, supported by sp.a? That amendment requires as a minimum condition that we could get a annual report stating how much goes to the salaries of +26-year-olds and younger players and how much goes to youth training.

Even that we cannot know.

I am addressing the Secretary of State who is present here. All VAT payable amounts, all unpaid advance duties are controlled by the administration. You now pull a long nose to the administration. You do not trust the administration. It is shameful.

As a rapporteur, I refer to the report which shows that the Court of Auditors says it cannot provide us with information on the allocation of those resources because it does not receive it from the professional clubs.

We then asked the Secretary of State if he could tell us which destination will receive the 25 million euros that the clubs receive. He had to admit that he couldn’t do that either.

We write out a blank cheque.

Mr. Van der Maelen, if you refer to that amendment, then you must, in relation to the colleagues who did not follow the debate in the committee and who now hear it here, have the honesty to explain what it would actually mean.

What you wanted was that one would impose on every sports club that would fall under this scheme the administrative obligation to make a report, to report and thus to hire people to make those reports, which then nevertheless are read by anyone. If you know and follow the sporting life in this country, then you know that they complain about the rule-neverry and cracks under the beetle. This amendment only made it worse. That is why we adapt to it.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this caricature of Mrs. Rutten, who talks about bureaucracy. What is it about? Significant tax benefits for clubs that hire professional players. This can amount to hundreds of millions of euros annually. And to these poor clubs, they are asked annually to provide three figures: the amount saved through this measure (pre-count savings); the part of that amount that was devoted to the salaries of young players and the part of that amount that was devoted to the training of young players.

Then, the Secretary of State, present here, who, under the law, must communicate these figures annually – he has not yet done so, while the law was voted in 2007 – is asked to compile all these figures and communicate them to the parliament. That is good governance! This is transparency! This is not bureaucracy, contrary to what, very caricaturally, some colleagues claim!

Mr. le président, you think that all the clubs, whatever they are, are currently tenus de rentrer des comptes, des bilans, afin de montrer qu'ils sont en ordre, comme toutes les associations, comme toutes les ASBL, comme toute structure. La demande qui est formulée vise à reprendre quelques éléments, qui apparaîtront dans lesdits bilans. It is enough to do it in a clear and very simple way. It is enough of a little goodwill!

The word is now to Sporting Club Leuven.

Mr. Speaker, not only on behalf of the sports clubs of Leuven, but for example also of clubs like Anderlecht or like Standard, I find it almost offensive, in the knowledge that these are people who make contracts of tens of millions with bank guarantees from Kazakhstan and Tajikistan and transfers that go from one billionaire to another, overnight, at midnight on a certain date, that Mrs. Rutten apparently thinks that they are unable to draw up a report in three lines and with three digits, once a year, in exchange for that kind of amounts. I find that almost offensive compared to the professionalism that these people actually characterize.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, i stel het volgende vast. The legislation is three years old. During the three years I have no single amendment seen from eleven colleagues, which is today a discovery. Om het in het Frans te zeggen, everything that is excessive is insignificant.

However, I would like to point out that this is not just about football. This is already a first case.

It’s not just about professional football. It starts at first class, but goes to second class, and so on.

In addition, you are talking about salaries. Well, in the bill, it is embedded that the exemption from corporate advance tax for some part should be invested in the youth, among other things.

Our bill also specifies that the maximum amount may be equal to the minimum wage applicable to non-European players. Anything they want to give to their players will have to pay for themselves, will not be paid with that retained corporate advance fee and will therefore not come from the taxpayer.

Replica of Mr Van der Maelen, in the name of Mr Tobback.

We are a sport-minded group. We want to help the sport move forward.

We believe that, for example, football in the width should be strengthened. Like in the Netherlands and Germany, this means that more support needs to be given to youth education.

The law is from 2007. In 2009 the legislation was changed. It provides, without becoming technical, the guarantee that 25 % should go to youth education. What are you holding at different clubs? They did not reach 25%. To put it in their terms, they lose a part of the benefit by giving it back to the State.

Sp.a is willing to talk about expanding the opportunities for youth education. Now it is just about youth loans. We have a youth infrastructure. Provide fees for camps abroad, training competitions, and so on. We said, do that 25% in this way.

The Pro League clubs want their hands free. They want this guarantee of 25% to be spent on youth education. They want to spend that on wages. You are right, colleague, but by the system you are referring to there is a blocking of the amount that can be spent per player. Do you know how many players they have to spend that on? The 75% that they used to have will now become 85%. They will give 10% more wages. The youth players will be the focus of the story. For us, this is a serious line through the opportunities for growth and strengthening of our football. That is the difference of opinion between you and me.

I have seen in the committee that Jan Jambon decided not to vote on that amendment. Your party always insists on transparency and accountability of public funds, but if it is a bill of your own party leader then those principles suddenly no longer count.

I am not going to say the same again. It will be a serious football match. I hope it will not be a football match where we will immediately throw tennis balls. This is only in Wallonia.

The N-VA group is very pleased that we, along with a number of other parties, have approved this bill in the committee, that there have been other parties who wanted to support us in it and that beyond the boundaries of opposition and majority, present or future. However, we can prove that with our parties here, with the people or parliamentarians here, we have really been able to do parliamentary work. Unfortunately, this cannot always happen for all subjects, but in this proposal we have achieved it.

I would like to point out that this bill has a long history. We have had to make changes several times and this time too there are some shortcomings that we wanted to remove from this story.

Where was there a problem? The problem was that some older players would no longer be recruited because they were no longer so favourable for the football teams. With the bill, we want older players not to be taxally priced out of the labour market, so they also do not have to leave abroad. To avoid those past abuses – I admit that very high prices were paid for very young players – we have provided a maximum, as I ⁇ to you later, Mr. Van der Maelen.

Why do we want that? Older players over 26 years of age can be very useful within the operation of such a sports club, whether it is football, volleyball or basketball: it does not matter, nor at what level one plays. These older players can support and frame the young players. Clubs should, in our view, be able to freely invest themselves in what they want: whether that is in training, in young players or in older players, and that without disregarding any of the three categories. The reductions on the salary of the older players should therefore be able to divide the clubs over the youth work.

In order to promote the further professionalization of youth work, we have included in the present bill a provision aimed at removing the lower age limit for young sports practitioners, to which Mr. De Croo has already referred, which is for sports practitioners from twelve to twenty-three years. Thus, the expenditure obligation is also extended to the salaries of trainers of minors under twelve. Thus, we can encourage the young people and clubs involved to invest in additional trainers and guides of the youngest, whatever you have in mind, Mr. Van der Maelen.

You refer to the cost price. The regulation already exists. Even today, regulation costs money to the state. Even today, only 20 % of the corporate advance fee must be transferred to the Treasury. Forty percent of the retained company advance fee for players over twenty-five years of age must now also be spent.

You claim that we currently have no numbers or that the parties concerned cannot present numbers at this time. However, the proposed new regulation came into force only from 1 July 2010. Thus, in my opinion, the figures in question are simply not available at this time, since the previous regulation, which still had deficiencies, only started on 1 July 2010.

As for the Greens amendment, we have made clear in the committee that we do not want all the teams involved to do much more paperwork. However, you can also read in the report – Mr Jan Jambon himself referred to it – that N-VA would have been willing to agree to the amendment if it was limited to only the professional teams. The above we have indicated. We aim only at the numbers. However, we cannot impose that any team in first or second national or any other, small football team, basketball team or volleyball team should do so. If, for example, we were to ask only the first national football teams, who have the relevant staff and sufficient information, we would have no problem with the amendment. We have made this very clear. However, in the amendment that proposed, the Greens asked to request information, as a rule, from the top to the bottom category. We do not want that.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the PS has always been sensitive to matters related to sport; the SPA is not the only party that loves sport, Mr. Van der Maelen, I wanted to clarify. Sport plays an essential role in the development of each and is an important vector of emancipation.

As previously stated, the bill that we are dealing with today changes a law text that has been in place since 2007. I think it is important to explain why it was voted. At the time, it proved important to stimulate Belgian sport and try to keep good and young athletes in the country. It was therefore decided to exempt part of the professional pre-accounts normally paid to the state in order to promote the life of clubs.

My party advocates the accessibility of sport for all and believes it is important to continue improving the status of athletes. This proposal has the potential to meet this double objective: it could allow different clubs to devote more resources to training; it also avoids the discrimination of athletes within the same club.

However, it was not a question for my group to take a light position. We therefore requested that the representatives of the Pro League, the Belgian Royal Union of Football Associations, the Volleyball League and the Basketball League be heard so that they can make a decision on the relevance of this proposal. They unanimously welcomed the proposals of the text, stating that it was more balanced than the previous one. And for a reason: clubs will now have less tendency to hire only players under 26 – I will return to it – and the proposal could promote the training of young people.

We are a responsible party that, in these difficult budgetary times, could not commit to a proposal without knowing in advance the budgetary impact it entails. We have therefore asked the Court of Auditors to give an opinion on the cost of a change in the law. In its report, the Court of Auditors states that the budget cost of the law is approximately 25 million.

Since the proposal does not extend the scope of the exemption, but rather the use, we believe there will be no additional impact. This has been understood in the discussions.

For my group, the most important impact of this proposal is that it is no longer limited to the training of young people over 12 years old, but that it now applies to the guidance of all children engaged in a sport.

The training of young children and adolescents should be a priority and a goal to be achieved beyond the expensive payment of a few club star players. Given all that has been said, my group will support this proposal but our support remains cautious because – I repeat – this proposal has potential but should be evaluated. As I requested in the committee, we want this change to be subject to an evaluation within a year. This assessment is also an obligation and, for the PS, it should apply only to major clubs. There is no question of imposing new administrative charges on small clubs.

I repeat my wish: that the Minister of Finance develops a circular in consultation with the sector to determine the best way to assess the implementation of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, my sports club is the Royal Sports Circle Natoye, a basketball club from Namur province that the Secretary of State Mr. Delizée knows well, very good youth trainer. And my Latin quote, it will be Panem and circenses, bread and games. In the name of high-level sport, which is important in our country, the majority of this Parliament will vote on a law that I think is poorly adjusted and whose impacts are poorly assessed.

I don’t know which sociologist or philosopher said that sport is the most important thing of the little things. It is very rare to talk about sport in this country. Yet, sport is good for health, it creates social bonds, it is a place of intercultural encounter, which is too rare in our society. It also has an economic significance that cannot be denied. Every week, every weekend, he throws thousands of our compatriots on the road, whether as spectators or actors of their sport, young and younger.

If it is true that high-level sports, high-paying stars, and sometimes even more than that, play a positive role of emulation, public authorities would be mistaken by only supporting this high-level sport.

They have a responsibility for redistribution and help at the base of this pyramid.

As I said, it would be a mistake to devote our sole support to high-level sports or to offer them excessive tax privileges. However, this seems to us to be the case. This is a trap in which some people have fallen.

As politicians, what matters is that the base of the Belgian sports pyramid is as wide as possible, which the text that will be voted just now unfortunately will not contribute to.

Let’s not be mistaken: we weren’t against adapting Belgian taxation taking into account the fact that foreign players benefited from a lower pre-count than that applied to Belgian players. This is a law that was passed, with our support, at the end of the 2003-2007 legislature.

This first adjustment of tax law was corrected within the framework of a law containing various provisions whose exposition of reasons was ⁇ enlightening. I allow myself to give you a reading. I quote: "Since the measure is not intended solely to finance the cost of wages of one or more young athletes, but primarily to encourage better training of all young athletes, the government considers that it is necessary to adapt the measure. Indeed, it is not acceptable that the condition of assignment can be fulfilled by paying only wages to one or more promising young players, thus diverting the measure from its original objective: the encouragement of the training of all young athletes. Therefore, the new measure (adopted in 2009) proposes that salaries paid to young athletes are now taken into account at a maximum of half of the funds allocated. For the other half, the debtor of the professional pre-count must provide proof that wages have been paid to persons in charge of training, guidance or support of young athletes.”

It was an interesting device aimed at re-balancing the advantage of this reduction in pre-account for the benefit of the training of young athletes who are active in professional clubs, leaving behind amateur clubs. However, it was a virtuous disposition. Indeed, Ms. Wouters, the club that failed to balance this type of investment between wages and training, could not benefit from this reduction of the pre-count, paid to the Belgian State rather than for the benefit of the club. This is the budgetary impact of the new measure you are proposing.

There is a limit on the salary paid in the future to the player under the age of 26.

(Brouhaha) by

I feel like it is becoming difficult for you! Can I ask the Honorary President of this Assembly, Mr. From Croo, a little attention! Let’s finish Mr. by Gilkinet!

Mr. De Croo, remember the time you presided over this Assembly!

The [...]

I am continuing. The current rule, before the vote of this law, is that half of the profit for clubs should be invested in the training of young players and that the other half should be invested in the salaries of players under 26.

In the new rule that will be voted, this 50-50 rule no longer exists. It is simply said that the salary paid to the young player is limited. Nothing prevents a club from dedicating the whole of this pre-account economy to paying salaries to young players and nothing at all to training young players. However, the training of young players is essential to prepare the elite of tomorrow and stimulate the youngest.

In other words, it was, in this article of the law with various provisions passed in 2009, to re-balance the tax privileges received by clubs that hire professional players for the benefit of the training of young players, at least those who evolved in these same clubs.

This probably annoys some professional clubs who invest less in training and want to invest more in wages, more in the short term and less in the medium and long term. I think that’s why this proposal came to the table.

Auditions were actually held to try to understand where the problem was, what efforts the clubs agreed to make to better support training and how the amounts were distributed between training and player salaries. We asked questions such as whether there was no way to create a fund with some of those pre-account savings that would benefit amateur clubs.

It was also proposed to invest these pre-account savings in important infrastructures. Indeed, if you look at the sports infrastructure of neighboring countries, you will find that our country is ⁇ lagging behind in this matter. Despite three financial committees, we did not have any real explanation on this subject. We could not really measure the budget impact of the measure, because budget impact will be very certain and for other measures that we propose...

(Browth of Happiness)

This is my amendment, Madame Fonck!

I wonder if I will not interrupt the session.

Mr. Gilkinet please finish!

Without being able to measure the budgetary impact of the new bill and yet, on other texts that we can file, it is ⁇ a legitimate requirement of our colleagues, without being able to measure its impact on youth training and its effectiveness, without being able to adopt this amendment – but ⁇ it will be the case right now – to create a little transparency in this system of good governance, we are put before the accomplished fact. Furthermore, we feel that the colleagues who voted the law and co-signed the bill didn’t really want to debate, but simply to please the clubs who asked them to change that law.

Obviously, sports federations will be happy, if we do not use the law to help them be virtuous in training. They were not going to tell us the opposite during their hearing in the Finance Committee, namely to vote on this law which diminished the degree of the State’s requirement to them, while a significant tax privilege is granted to them in this case.

I will finish, my colleagues.

This is indeed a good idea!

We could have avoided continuing to navigate in the mist in this matter, Mr. Secretary of State. In 2007, this Parliament passed a law, Article 6 of which says: "In the course of the first quarter of each year, the Minister of Finance shall communicate to the Ministers of the Communities having the sport in their attributions the distribution of the amounts referred, etc." I have asked you at least four times the question and a fifth time here to try to know the amounts saved by the clubs and those reinvested in training. With an amount ranging between 25 and 35 million euros on an annual basis, it does not seem to me, as a parliamentary, that this is an illegitimate request. Asking for three economic figures to be communicated annually (pre-count, money reinvested in wages, money reinvested in training) does not seem to me excessive, since this obviously does not affect amateur clubs that represent the vast majority of our clubs but clubs that operate with professional players.

Some have estimated that this was bureaucracy, an incredible administrative overload and that our administration could not provide this annual report. In terms of management of public affairs, it seems to me that operating like a ship in the mist and blind is not a good method. The analysis of this bill is a missed opportunity to improve the system, to make it more transparent, to organize a better solidarity between clubs for the benefit of the smaller of them and to really strengthen, through this tax path that is within the competence of the federal state, the training of our young players so that tomorrow Belgium will regain, in the different sports, the top of the poster that it has left for too long. If we continue to legislate as badly as you do, it is unfortunately not tomorrow the day before we will be qualified for the European or World Cups!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am also a football supporter, but I find it quite strange and also a little humiliating for the debate to bring the discussion back to supporting for one or another club. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

We are looking for a good arrangement, which can improve all our sports branches, all the leagues that work with professional sports practitioners, and which can also improve the youth training of those clubs. The present bill will address this, encourage a better youth work and ensure that Belgian youth also in our country will still have opportunities to continue to grow at a sufficiently high level.

In order to be able to place the proposal, it is important to briefly outline its history. Actually, it has not been discussed so much today. We must go back to 2002, when a circular issued by the Minister of Finance raised the company fee for foreign footballers, basketball and volleyball players from the national divisions to 18 %, while that for Belgian players was raised to 50 %. This ensured that the sports clubs made their advantage of hiring foreign players, while Belgian players went to live across the border, in order to also benefit from the same rate. This, of course, was not a healthy situation for our finances, nor for the sports clubs, nor for the players. The result was an influx of foreign players and a difficult flow of Belgian youth.

This was corrected by the law of 4 May 2007. This law was intended to eliminate the nefaste distinction between foreign players and domestic players.

Of course, there is a financial disadvantage for sports clubs if the players fall out for whom only 18% had to be paid. Therefore, a compensation system was developed, a system allowing clubs to keep a portion of the corporate advance fee in favor of their youth training and the salary of young players. Mr. Van der Maelen, your party has drafted and approved this law in 2007.

The present proposal goes further in terms of limiting the expenditure of the reimbursed or not to be paid corporate advance than the law you passed yourself in 2007. This 2007 law has also produced results. Currently, approximately 50 % of contracted Belgian football players – I will focus on the professional football sport – are under 23 years of age, indicating a smooth flow of youth.

I would like to emphasize that the distinction that is repeatedly made here between subsidizing youth education, on the one hand, and paying youth players, on the other hand, is actually a false discussion. After all, what is a good professional youth training, for which Mr Van der Maelen so strongly pleads, if that player must leave abroad when he can sign a contract because he cannot get enough good contract here? Then you have a good youth education and when the players are 16 years old and can sign contracts, they all go to the Netherlands, to France or to know a lot where.

My argument is that the distinction that you want to make so hard between youth education and salary, a part of the salary for those young professional players, is a false discussion, and that one should make it an en-en-story.

In view of the advanced hour, I do not want to discuss this with you until in the details. I am a realist, I know that there is a majority for this bill and that you will approve it.

You say that this new system will be better for youth education. Measurement is knowing. Approve our amendment so that we can see year after year if there is indeed more money going to youth education than with the system in version A of that bill.

We ask this in our amendment only for the sports clubs of the highest class of football, basketball and volleyball, as proposed by our colleague of the N-VA.

Let’s stop with the discussion about who is best at the youth education. I am convinced that our position is better; you are convinced of the other. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Approve this amendment. Then, on the basis of the figures, we will be able to examine year after year what is best in terms of youth education.

I dare to do this. If it turns out that you are right, I will admit that the annual report gives you right, Mr. Van den Bergh, and that you had it at the right end in the debate of 17 March. However, I hope that you can demonstrate the same fair play to encourage it to approve the amendment together with us.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I wanted to talk about the amendment at the end of my speech, but now you start yourself. This amendment is unnecessary. The prof leagues have committed themselves in the committee and also subsequently to make the figures available when it comes to the highest divisions, about the most professional clubs. If they have to take all the other clubs, including the lower squares, it becomes a much more difficult task.

I think that the parliamentary committee has all possibilities to request these figures every year, through the minister. The profligas have declared their willingness to cooperate with this. There is no obstacle to do so every year, if you want to be a good member of parliament to follow the consequences of this law. In fact, we do not need a legal regulation for this.

Read the report of the Court of Auditors. It states that the information requested by the parliamentary committee cannot be provided because the figures are not available.

We then asked the numbers to the Secretary of State, but he did not say that because such a lot was too busy.

For us, it may be limited to the football, basketball and volleyball clubs of the highest class.

We do not need a legal regulation for this.

No to? I tell you that we need one. This has been proven in practice.

I repeat what I said in the committee. The tax declaration of each club is checked by the tax office, file by file. However, we do not have global statistics. It is neither the role nor the task of the officials of the tax authorities to draw up statistics. That is not their job. It is their task to carry out fiscal control to avoid tax fraud. You know this too, Mr. Van der Maelen.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

I came up with the 2007 law. Mr. Van der Maelen, you may have to listen carefully. The 2007 law, which helped your party approve at the time, resulted in a number of other abuses. Some clubs fulfilled the spending obligation by hiring some expensive, young players and paying them generously. To the extent that the state with the law of 2007 that your party has helped approve. Today we limit the share of a player’s salary that can be paid with that non-corrupted corporate advance fee. That is black on white an improvement in the sentence that you ask yourself. Therefore, I do not understand your reasoning that we would go backwards.

This was approved by us in 2007. However, the problem was that it was also agreed that part of that money would go to youth education. In practice, this did not prove to be true. In 2009, a second version of this law was adopted. That second version stipulated that 25 % of the pot should be spent on youth education. This was against the intention of the clubs of the Pro League. They have now gone lobbying with several members of parliament and they have got them so far as to jump that 25-percent bargain. So simple is it. They have those figures, but they do not want to give them to the Court of Auditors, to Finance, or to the Chamber. You continue to persistently defend that there is no need for transparency in this matter. I would like to note that you would like to give a blanco cheque in this regard.

We have heard this argument several times. Next time, just say it’s the same demonstration.

Mr Van der Maelen already mentioned that a legislative amendment in 2009 wanted to fix that. This was, however, an adjusted regulation that had been introduced in the law containing various provisions of December 2009, however without sufficient consultation with the parties concerned.

What were the consequences? If it was effectively implemented, it created a lot of immediate negative consequences for 12 of the 16 first-class clubs. You can then talk about lobbying, but we can set black on white negative consequences for a lot of clubs. If there are some favorable and some less favourable, then it is a good thing that the Parliament has sought a regulation that is equal for all and has the same effects for all.

For example, the modal Belgian players over 26 years of age were early-rangeed out. This has already been mentioned too. The distinction between youth coaches of under and over twelve-year-olds caused confusion and accounting difficulties.

It is very important that this proposal has been developed in consultation with the various leagues. It’s not just about football, it’s also about basketball and volleyball, whose representatives in the committee have come testifying that they unanimously label this proposal as vital for national youth training.

The proposal stipulates that the salaries of all youth coaches, including those of under twelve years old, are eligible for the expenditure obligation.

In addition, Mr. Van der Maelen, the expenditure obligation for youth trainers works. The Pro League figures show that. The number of youth coaches with a contract of employment with a football club has almost doubled since the law came into force in 2007. As a foreign example, it may be possible to think of hiring trainers for specific positions if, for example, there are too few trainers to hire it.

In addition, the expenditure obligation is rationalized to prevent dumping of players aged over 26. Colleagues have already mentioned it. For that purpose, salaries of young professional sports practitioners are only limited to the expenditure obligation, in particular to the minimum wage of non-European players. This is the clear limitation on the spending of salary to a single player compared to the 2007 scheme that you have yourself approved.

Hopefully, we will succeed, thanks to this proposal, in putting our youth work to the point so that young talent in their own country gets the necessary care, framework and also a competitive remuneration. There is no professional youth training without offering a contract to the good youth afterwards and without unwanted side effects, in particular a shift between certain clubs.

I agree with you that it is recommended to evaluate the functioning and effects of the scheme on a regular basis, but for that we do not really need adapted legislation. Your amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I did not actually intend to speak, honestly not, because I did not follow the debate in the committee. The simple reason is that it is illegal.

I cannot understand at all that a socialist, leftist party represents millionaire laws. We are talking about clubs. Indeed, the history of the foregoing text has to do with clubs.

The original law dates from the mid-1980s. She was not conceived in Oostende, like the law of 2002, which was written tailor-made to the basketball club of Oostende. One should always check who is a minister when such laws are made. Well, the biggest supporter of Club Brugge in the mid-1980s was Jean-Luc Dehaene. He still supports it, but he doesn’t see himself there so often, of course because of the club’s results. In 1986, however, there was still a very good team, which became fourth in the world championship. Then, at that time, there was fear that players like Eric Gerets and Jan Ceulemans would leave for Italy. There were entire constructions, constructions based on social contributions and also fiscal constructions.

A football player is now retired at the age of 35. If they have a business manager insurance, they take it at their 35s, they take 18 to 20 percent of it and then they are gone.

We maintain that legislation for the best paid wholesalers here in Belgium. The average salary in Anderlecht is 1 million euros annually. The average ! Mr. Boussoufa will play abroad because he can get everything free of charge there. For example, in Russia there is a flat tax of 13%. But even to that he will escape, because he received from Anderlecht a proposal – for the Brusselsers here it may be a bit delicate to name names – of 2 million euros gross on an annual basis.

What happens here? The current law defends three sports. I come from a different sport, an armoise-sewing sport. The Olympic Games will be held again. Everyone will have a mouth full of medals again, except when we return, because then it will be an empty pocket again. A swimmer might want to enjoy that system, but he can’t. No judoka can do that.

We are talking here about the richest federations in our country, which are not even doing budget management. We will go after them again.

What is Football? Football is the sport of a mercenary army, a mercenary army of people purchased with brokers. In Flanders, they get another 7% on the first year’s bet, therefore they are interested in making that bet as high as possible. I will not even talk about the black part.

We’re sitting here in Parliament, but it’s just like we’re sitting here in the football school’s canteen. That is why I kept myself somewhat aside.

Let us consider the completeness of the present law. A cyclist is a worker, but a footballer is a servant. This is still the case. A cyclist pays about 6 000 euros annually to the federation, he moves to Monaco and the rest is cash. Therefore, here we make laws for the benefit of the bicycle union, the basketball union, and so on.

In 2002, the law was indeed amended; Mr. Vande Lanotte was then president of Oostende. Why Why ? Baseball is about Americans. In basketball, 70% of the players are American. A team must consist of 12 and of which 5 must be Belgian. In Oostende, sorry to have to say, there is only one Belgian in the team and 4 naturalized, namely from Serbia, America and Morocco.

We are here to discuss the youth players. The system exists from 1984. Has it done anything for the youth? Do we have better youth players? What has changed with this law between 2002 and 2007? What will change now? Also nothing. and nothing.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I would like to hear you talk about Germany and the training programs in the Netherlands and France. France does not have a tax system for its top athletes. You have to pay on the basis of your merit.

What do they have? They have training programs, the Institut National des Sports. In 67 provincial departments, the young athlete can get a training. It is up to us as politicians to ensure that the boys get an education.

We have Jewish schools. In Flanders, 618 pupils are in the sports schools to become top athletes. There are more than 500 footballers in top sports schools with subsidies from the Flemish Community.

What are we discussing here? We are discussing a sector that is not in trouble, a sector that puts itself in trouble by attracting an army of mercenaries from abroad, who are soon gone.

I hear then say that the added value of 26 players is very large compared to smaller players. Then I would like to know who it is. I would not know.

This is not a sector in difficulty. This is an industry that puts itself in trouble. As a politician, ⁇ of a socialist party, I would not advocate that.

There are enough sectors in difficulty. For the fisheries sector, we have done something about social legislation. We have done something for the bearers. This is not a sector in difficulty. We are opening a gate again.

I will approve the amendment. I also wanted to sign it, but it is not requested. My group is too big. This does not give a result. I will approve the amendment, because indeed the door is being opened wider and there will never be an improvement in this area, unless after a change of mentality and training.

You can invest in training, in sport for the future. You can invest in sports schools. However, returning the money and being satisfied that we can do something for the people of the profliga will result in the profliga increasing the salaries to buy players abroad again and our good 16-year-old players will play in the Netherlands, because they can be a professional there from 16 years old. That is the reality.

I have heard a lot of theory here. I am sorry to intervene on this in the end, but I still have a little bit of experience in top sports. I have been there for 34 years.

Thank you for the last word.