LUXEMBOURG (CN) - Stacking up the deck against the United Kingdom, an adviser to the EU’s high court said Thursday that the card game contract bridge should be considered a sport for the purposes of tax exemption.
“The fact that tournaments take place on an international stage and that the results of the game seem to be directly dependent on the skill and training invested in the activity ... point in the direction of contract bridge being a sport,” Advocate General Maciej Szpunar wrote. “Considerable mental effort and training are necessary in order to compete in duplicate contract bridge.”
Szpunar, whose recommendation is not actually binding on the European Court of Justice, emphasized that the game is not one of chance and that chance indeed plays a relatively small role in gameplay.
The International Olympic Committee also classified bridge as a sport in 1998, according to the ruling, and bridge will be even offered at the 2020 Olympic Games.
Szpunar began focusing on the game’s status after the English Bridge Union, a national body that organizes contract bridge tournaments in the UK and charges players, made a VAT refund claim, short for value-added tax. The union charges players an entry fee to play in the tournaments it organizes and wanted to recover VAT that had been paid in that vein.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs refused the English Bridge Union’s claims, however, even though the tax authorities of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands all treat duplicate bridge as a sport for the purposes of the VAT Directive.
Aligning with Ireland and Sweden, which also do not treat bridge as a sport, the UK argued that sports must have a significant element of physical activity for the purposes of the VAT Directive.
To unravel this theory, however, Szpunar made several references to the classification of chess as a sport by several respected bodies, including the International Olympic Committee.
“I infer from this that an activity does not necessarily need to have a physical element in order for it to be accepted as a sport,” the 14-page opinion states. “This appears to me to be only logical. A mandatory physical element would ipso facto exclude a number of activities which are generally regarded as a sport, even though the physical element is more than marginal and the classification of which as a sport is beyond doubt. Shooting or archery would spring to mind here.”
Szpunar emphasized that the term “sport” is not defined in the VAT Directive, nor is there an all-encompassing definition of the term that would apply throughout the EU.