Our View: Are football clubs above the law?

It was very reassuring to hear deputies and several parties at Monday’s House finance committee meeting strongly object to the scandalous bill prepared by the government that would increase the tax on betting and the revenue used to pay off the tax debts of football clubs. The expectation was that the parties would have given their approval to the bill as it would bail out the indebted football clubs which, together, represent more than 100,000 voters.

Quite rightly they did not do so, refusing to back a bill which rewards the clubs for showing utter contempt for the law and consistently refusing to honour the repayment agreements made with the state for their debts. Akel deputy Aristos Damianou called on the government to withdraw the bill which he described as “rape of good administration,” while Disy’s Onoufrios Koullas said it was a paradox to increase taxation so that clubs could pay their tax debts.

What makes the bill doubly wrong is that it would offer financial assistance only to the clubs that have systematically not paid their tax dues, which total €38 million, while the few law-abiding clubs that have been paying their taxes and owe nothing to the state will get nothing. How fair and just would that be? Does the government really want to be known for rewarding law breakers with cash assistance? Has nobody at the presidential palace thought about this or has pleasing the football clubs overruled rationality and the principle of rule of law?

At the committee meeting, a possible violation of the EU directive on subsidies was also raised by the Commissioner for State Aid Control Stella Michaelidou, who had written to the finance ministry with her reservations about the treatment of football clubs. The government scheme contained elements of state aid, she pointed out, adding that there should be safeguards in place to ensure the debts were repaid. There have been half a dozen schemes in the last 20 years involving repayments schemes that most clubs did not comply with, so why would anything be different this time?

There is also the issue of having a level playing field. The clubs that live beyond their means have an advantage over those that are financially prudent, but it is the former that will be rewarded with state assistance to cover their profligacy. Nobody can accept the government’s assertion that its latest scheme is not a case of state assistance. What else could it be when the government is using the taxpayer’s money to pay the debts of companies that run football clubs?

The finance ministry is embarrassing itself by claiming its scheme does not constitute state assistance. But the embarrassment will not end there as the ministry issued documentation to the clubs – so they could take part in UEFA competitions – certifying that they have no debts to the state, based on the assumption that its bill would be approved. Now that this is looking unlikely the ministry’s documentation is invalid.

It is up to the legislature to put an end to this farce, even if it means clubs going under. The taxpayer has no obligation to fund the financial recklessness of irresponsible directors of football clubs.