Wait Italy is cancelling the tax break? 
Hopefully that puts Pogba rumors to bed. We'll be in need of further downsizing, instead of big-ass 'investments'.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Serie A 2020-21 (55 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Status
Yup, as expected.
Hopefully that puts Pogba rumors to bed. We'll be in need of further downsizing, instead of big-ass 'investments'.
Hopefully that puts Pogba rumors to bed. We'll be in need of further downsizing, instead of big-ass 'investments'.
Buy on AliExpress.com
This rule would have had less consequences if Italian players weren't so mediocre.
We're practically back to square one now if this turns out to be true.
- - - Updated - - -
If we were anticipating this rule change, then this kind of explains Pirlo's appointment.
Two sacked coaches on your payroll, unsustainable wage bill. It became convenient for us to go for a coach with modest wages. Atleast we have made our squad younger else this could've been disastrous for us.
We're practically back to square one now if this turns out to be true.
- - - Updated - - -
If we were anticipating this rule change, then this kind of explains Pirlo's appointment.
Two sacked coaches on your payroll, unsustainable wage bill. It became convenient for us to go for a coach with modest wages. Atleast we have made our squad younger else this could've been disastrous for us.
Last edited:
Really curious to read the reasons some posters here have to be outraged at a tax agency, that is advocating to reduce tax breaks to the ultra rich in a time of economic crisis.
I guess its easier to think only about football fanaticism than to think about possible economic reasons behind this move.
I guess its easier to think only about football fanaticism than to think about possible economic reasons behind this move.
It's obvious the goal of the policy wasn't to please Italian football fans with a more attractive product but to bring more money into the country.
The best players bring the richest sponsors and more tourists. If these players and clubs don't have to pay such high taxes they could invest more in the country developing the infrastructure, creating new jobs etc.
Governments are good at wasting money. Italy is a prime example of that.
The best players bring the richest sponsors and more tourists. If these players and clubs don't have to pay such high taxes they could invest more in the country developing the infrastructure, creating new jobs etc.
Governments are good at wasting money. Italy is a prime example of that.
None of that is what happened though. Clubs didn't save the money and invest in the country, they spent the same, or more, in gross salaries to sign players from abroad who would receive higher net salaries. That's why the net salaries of Ramsey and Rabiot seem absurd. How does Juve being able to offer more money to Rabiot translate into a net benefit for everyone else?
Normally this is a course of action that I like, but during the current covid situation? Are going to blame burocracy or "italy" for not subsidising the richest football teams and instead focusing on other priorities?
Normally this is a course of action that I like, but during the current covid situation? Are going to blame burocracy or "italy" for not subsidising the richest football teams and instead focusing on other priorities?
What do you mean subsidizing? How much less people would visit Turin if it wasn't for Juventus? Foreign investors like Comisso, Friedkin, Sunig or Elliott wanting to build new stadiums for their clubs is subsidizing? You need to have an attractive product if you want to bring in sponsors. The tax rule helped to create the attractive product faster and cheaper. You need to have some patience though to wait before it bears fruits.
Rabiot and Ramsey got their fat salaries because they were free agents. It was the same with Can, Khedira etc. It was a business risk that the club decided to take. It's the same with all the transfers. Be it Hazard to Madrid or Van Dijk to LFC, some of them pay off and some of them don't.
Rabiot and Ramsey got their fat salaries because they were free agents. It was the same with Can, Khedira etc. It was a business risk that the club decided to take. It's the same with all the transfers. Be it Hazard to Madrid or Van Dijk to LFC, some of them pay off and some of them don't.
The tax cut we are having a conversation about? every business pays tax on salaries, from shops to companies, to football clubs. The government subsidizes the payroll tax of football clubs signing foreigners for multi million contracts. How many people would visit Turin without Juve? since when does Juve's existence depend on this subsidy? we have been around for over 100 years, not 3 since the tax cut was implemented.
If it's such sound economic policy then why don't we see the rest of the EU, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, etc. following suit?
Governments are trying to find funds from every corner to try to keep things afloat at the moment, maybe not subsidizing half of these huge contracts in top football handed out to obtain a competitive advantage is not something to be outraged about.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah no. The new tax cuts allowed us to sign foreign players with huge net wages, without blowing up our finances because we pay less tax on it.
Rabiot and Ramsey are tied as the 7th players most paid in the league. Why? because paying them this costs less to Juve than to pay it to residents.
In fact, for Juve, 4 of the top 5 earners were signed under these tax cuts. The club didn't "save the money and invest it into the country". Ronaldo, De Ligt, Rabiot, and Ramsey are 4 of our top 5. Only Dybala is outside the new tax regime in the top 5. It's the same for Inter. Their top 5 has Lukaku, Eriksen, Sanchez and Vidal. It's not about Bosman transfers, it's about being able to offer more money to the player.
Italy becoming a tax haven in football is controversial enough outside of a pandemic.
If it's such sound economic policy then why don't we see the rest of the EU, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, etc. following suit?
Governments are trying to find funds from every corner to try to keep things afloat at the moment, maybe not subsidizing half of these huge contracts in top football handed out to obtain a competitive advantage is not something to be outraged about.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah no. The new tax cuts allowed us to sign foreign players with huge net wages, without blowing up our finances because we pay less tax on it.
Rabiot and Ramsey are tied as the 7th players most paid in the league. Why? because paying them this costs less to Juve than to pay it to residents.
In fact, for Juve, 4 of the top 5 earners were signed under these tax cuts. The club didn't "save the money and invest it into the country". Ronaldo, De Ligt, Rabiot, and Ramsey are 4 of our top 5. Only Dybala is outside the new tax regime in the top 5. It's the same for Inter. Their top 5 has Lukaku, Eriksen, Sanchez and Vidal. It's not about Bosman transfers, it's about being able to offer more money to the player.
Italy becoming a tax haven in football is controversial enough outside of a pandemic.
Last edited:
Subsidizing is different to a tax relief.
Yes, every business pays taxes but the biggest earners pay more taxes (percent wise) than less successful individuals or businesses. So it's not like the government is subsidizing the big football clubs but it's taking less of THEIR money.
I was not writing about Juve's existence but the profit the citizens of Turin take from Juve's presence in their city. Most people wouldn't even know Turin existed if it wasn't for Juventus.
Speaking of other countries for once Italy did something first. The countries you mentioned are all socialistic countries so you won't see them doing such pro-business reforms.
So let's assume Serie A goes bankrupt and it won't be paying taxes at all. Do you think it would benefit the country? All the governments are doing is taking more loans that they will never be able to repay.
Have you thought about the fact that when you have better and more marketable players you will bring more money from abroad? Just look at all of our foreign sponsors. The money is coming from abroad to Italy. Same for the foreign investment in Fiorentina and Roma. Who is going to be hired to build the stadiums, Italians or Americans? Which city is going to benefit from the new infrastructure, New York or Florence and Rome?
Yes, every business pays taxes but the biggest earners pay more taxes (percent wise) than less successful individuals or businesses. So it's not like the government is subsidizing the big football clubs but it's taking less of THEIR money.
I was not writing about Juve's existence but the profit the citizens of Turin take from Juve's presence in their city. Most people wouldn't even know Turin existed if it wasn't for Juventus.
Speaking of other countries for once Italy did something first. The countries you mentioned are all socialistic countries so you won't see them doing such pro-business reforms.
So let's assume Serie A goes bankrupt and it won't be paying taxes at all. Do you think it would benefit the country? All the governments are doing is taking more loans that they will never be able to repay.
Have you thought about the fact that when you have better and more marketable players you will bring more money from abroad? Just look at all of our foreign sponsors. The money is coming from abroad to Italy. Same for the foreign investment in Fiorentina and Roma. Who is going to be hired to build the stadiums, Italians or Americans? Which city is going to benefit from the new infrastructure, New York or Florence and Rome?
- Status