London Olympics 2012 Usain Bolt not to compete in Britain prior.
Usain Bolt remains one of the most prominent men in the field of athletics today, boasting of three Olympic gold medals, as well as a distinguished world record holder for the hundred metre, two hundred metre, as well as the four hundred metre relay race.
Of Jamaican origin, his sporting triumphs have never ceased to fascinate and enthral his fans, as well as followers of this field of sports. It is fascinating to discover that Bolt has the distinction of surpassing his own records of hundred metre and two hundred metre races, a feat that he currently accomplished at the 2009 World Championships. Such accomplishments are few of the many more that have respectfully earned him the title of “Lightning Bolt”. It is therefore undeniable that Bolt is truly deserving of the respect and appreciation he is showered with.
Yet, current events have triggered a debate that suggests that the athletic lovers from all over the globe may not get to see their favourite athlete perform in the recent future. A proposition that provoked significant fury a few years ago and resulted in Andre Aggasi, the celebrated tennis player to suffer defeat in a case against a taxman has now kindled fire again, with Bolt being at the receiving end this time.
This case raised eyebrows on the technicalities of sponsorship deals, with overseas players suffering the blunt. The victory of the case in favour of the tax man implied that overseas performers such as Andre Aggasi were obligated to provide a share of their earnings to the taxman, regardless of the extremely controversial issue that the income did not get channelled from the United Kingdom.
The gist of this strategy implies that foreign sportsmen may end up being obligated to pay sufficiently more than the amount they earn, since the taxman is now eligible to demand a share from their income. Not only is this methodology seemingly biased in favour of the taxman, it is also legally controversial, since the income that these players receive is not provided by the United Kingdom, hence challenging the protestation of the taxman in the first place.
This current bitterness has resulted in Usain Bolt pulling out of the Crystal Palace Diamond League event, to be held in August. Not only does this imply a blow to the thousands of spectators who arrive at every athletics event in the hope of rooting for their favourite player, but also puts in jeopardy the organizers of this grand tournament. Who had hoped to witness and showcase a three way rundown between Usain Bolt and his prominent rivals Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay. Although this amasses as a great deal of disappointment on the part of both the spectators and the arrangers, it is a ruling that seems justifiable on part of the athletes. In a country such as the United Kingdom where athletes can be charged with up to fifty percent tax rates on their appearance fee, together with a magnanimous proportion of their worldwide earnings, performers such as Bolt are definitely being insightful for nodding in favour of withdrawal from such events.
The proponents of this disposition fail to grasp the idea, that while athletes like Usain Bolt may suffer a temporary downfall by withdrawing, their stardom will enable them to continue participation at other major tournaments, continuing their successful streaks and being oblivious to their inability to perform in the United Kingdom. At the midst of this all, the most gravely affected will be the government of the country itself, since it will have to prepare itself for facing refusal to hold major events in the future.
The hosting of the UEFA Champions League final by Madrid instead of Wembley is a mere testimony of this argument. Therefore, while players such as Usain Bolt may be agonized by facing barriers to perform in tournaments that could prove to boost their careers further, they will never run short of tournaments around the globe to perform in. This leaves the government of the United Kingdom itself to burn ablaze in the fire it has kindled, and the sooner it realizes this, the lesser damage it will concede to its reputation, as well as its economic status.
Usain Bolt remains one of the most prominent men in the field of athletics today, boasting of three Olympic gold medals, as well as a distinguished world record holder for the hundred metre, two hundred metre, as well as the four hundred metre relay race.
Of Jamaican origin, his sporting triumphs have never ceased to fascinate and enthral his fans, as well as followers of this field of sports. It is fascinating to discover that Bolt has the distinction of surpassing his own records of hundred metre and two hundred metre races, a feat that he currently accomplished at the 2009 World Championships. Such accomplishments are few of the many more that have respectfully earned him the title of “Lightning Bolt”. It is therefore undeniable that Bolt is truly deserving of the respect and appreciation he is showered with.
Yet, current events have triggered a debate that suggests that the athletic lovers from all over the globe may not get to see their favourite athlete perform in the recent future. A proposition that provoked significant fury a few years ago and resulted in Andre Aggasi, the celebrated tennis player to suffer defeat in a case against a taxman has now kindled fire again, with Bolt being at the receiving end this time.
This case raised eyebrows on the technicalities of sponsorship deals, with overseas players suffering the blunt. The victory of the case in favour of the tax man implied that overseas performers such as Andre Aggasi were obligated to provide a share of their earnings to the taxman, regardless of the extremely controversial issue that the income did not get channelled from the United Kingdom.
The gist of this strategy implies that foreign sportsmen may end up being obligated to pay sufficiently more than the amount they earn, since the taxman is now eligible to demand a share from their income. Not only is this methodology seemingly biased in favour of the taxman, it is also legally controversial, since the income that these players receive is not provided by the United Kingdom, hence challenging the protestation of the taxman in the first place.
This current bitterness has resulted in Usain Bolt pulling out of the Crystal Palace Diamond League event, to be held in August. Not only does this imply a blow to the thousands of spectators who arrive at every athletics event in the hope of rooting for their favourite player, but also puts in jeopardy the organizers of this grand tournament. Who had hoped to witness and showcase a three way rundown between Usain Bolt and his prominent rivals Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay. Although this amasses as a great deal of disappointment on the part of both the spectators and the arrangers, it is a ruling that seems justifiable on part of the athletes. In a country such as the United Kingdom where athletes can be charged with up to fifty percent tax rates on their appearance fee, together with a magnanimous proportion of their worldwide earnings, performers such as Bolt are definitely being insightful for nodding in favour of withdrawal from such events.
The proponents of this disposition fail to grasp the idea, that while athletes like Usain Bolt may suffer a temporary downfall by withdrawing, their stardom will enable them to continue participation at other major tournaments, continuing their successful streaks and being oblivious to their inability to perform in the United Kingdom. At the midst of this all, the most gravely affected will be the government of the country itself, since it will have to prepare itself for facing refusal to hold major events in the future.
The hosting of the UEFA Champions League final by Madrid instead of Wembley is a mere testimony of this argument. Therefore, while players such as Usain Bolt may be agonized by facing barriers to perform in tournaments that could prove to boost their careers further, they will never run short of tournaments around the globe to perform in. This leaves the government of the United Kingdom itself to burn ablaze in the fire it has kindled, and the sooner it realizes this, the lesser damage it will concede to its reputation, as well as its economic status.
No comments:
Post a Comment