# Spain and Professional Athletes: The Beckham Law Is Closed — What Replaces It

> Professional athletes are excluded from the article 93 LIRPF regime by RD 1006/1985. Rates of 24/47%, Madrid's 20% deduction and the 85/15 image rights rule.

Author: Alena Dunaeva — Lawyer, Family Office (https://wiki.private.law/en/authors/dunaeva)
Last modified: 2026-09-20T19:26:00.000Z
Canonical: https://wiki.private.law/en/spain-athletes
Publisher: wiki.private.law (https://wiki.private.law)
Version: 8296f60f8dc603f6ccd3a499078142923506cf099d320d6cef98ff6d1ac62871
Cite as: Spain and Professional Athletes: The Beckham Law Is Closed — What Replaces It. wiki.private.law. https://wiki.private.law/en/spain-athletes. Version 8296f60f8dc603f6ccd3a499078142923506cf099d320d6cef98ff6d1ac62871.
Topics: investments
Jurisdictions: spain
Product tags: tax-regime, non-dom, relocation
Semantic tags: tax-regime, non-dom, relocation

---

## Why a regime named after a footballer is shut to footballers

Spain's special regime for relocated workers — officially the *régimen especial aplicable a los trabajadores, profesionales, emprendedores e inversores desplazados a territorio español*, rendered by the tax authority as the "special tax regime applicable to workers, professionals, entrepreneurs and investors relocated to Spanish territory" — sits in article 93 of [Ley 35/2006 del IRPF](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2006-20764), the Personal Income Tax Act.

It picked up the nickname "Beckham Law" from David Beckham, who joined Real Madrid in 2003; the regime itself was created by Ley 62/2003 of 30 December with effect from 2004, its implementing rules following in [Real Decreto 687/2005 of 10 June 2005](https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2005-9875), which amended the IRPF Regulation, and the footballer was among its first prominent users.

The irony is that a professional sportsperson is today the one category of highly paid foreigner the regime is closed to as a matter of black-letter law. In describing the employment route into the regime, the current text of article 93 carves out, in the Agencia Tributaria's own English rendering, "the special employment relationship of professional athletes regulated by Royal Decree 1006/1985, of June 26". The same wording is repeated in the [Agencia Tributaria's guidance](https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/en_gb/ayuda/manuales-videos-folletos/manuales-practicos/manual-tributacion-no-residentes/regimenes-opcionales/regimen-especial-impatriados.html) on the inpatriate regime.

The amendment history of article 93 (Ley 26/2009, Ley 26/2014, Ley 28/2022, Ley 7/2024), the rates, the duration and the filing procedure are set out in [the Beckham Law](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law) and are not repeated here. This page covers the sporting part: where the boundary of the exclusion actually runs (sporting directors and management clear it; coaching staff is a contested category), what a resident athlete pays on the state and Madrid regional scales, how a signing bonus is computed on the ordinary scale, and how Madrid compensated for the closed federal door — through the deduction in article 17 bis of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010.

The load-bearing parameters this page works through:

- Norm · Art. 93 Ley 35/2006 del IRPF; sporting carve-out by Ley 26/2014, from 2015
- Who is carved out · A player under the special employment relationship of RD 1006/1985 — any sport, any contract size
- Who still qualifies · Sporting director, management, commercial staff, doctors and analysts; a coach is contested
- What a player pays · Ordinary resident IRPF on worldwide income, state scale plus regional scale
- Top marginal rate · 45.0% in Madrid, 50.0% in Catalonia, about 53.9% in Valencia
- Compensation · Madrid's 20% deduction under art. 17 bis of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010 (Ley 4/2024), casilla 2030
- Deduction period · Six-year holding; unused balance carried forward five periods
- Position at the date · Article 93 as amended by Ley 7/2024: the carve-out is untouched

## The article 93 conclusion: closed to a player under RD 1006/1985

The named sporting carve-out was written in by the version of article 93 enacted by [Ley 26/2014 of 27 November](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2014-12327) and applies to tax periods beginning on or after 1 January 2015; neither the Ley 28/2022 liberalisation nor the Ley 7/2024 amendment disturbed it. The conclusion is a single one and does not depend on the size of the contract, the sport or the player's nationality: a player whose relationship with the club is papered as the special employment relationship under RD 1006/1985 does not qualify for the article 93 regime. Everything else about the regime — the amendment history, the 24% and 47% rates, the six tax periods, the five-year prior non-residence requirement, the list of gateways — sits in [the Beckham Law](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law).

> ⚠️ The standard mistake in a negotiation with a club is to assume the Beckham regime is available by default because it carries a footballer's name. The exclusion attaches not to the profession but to the type of employment relationship: if the contract is drawn as the special sporting employment relationship under RD 1006/1985, the door is shut regardless of the sport, the size of the contract or the player's nationality. Discovering this after signing, and after filing Modelo 149, costs more than checking beforehand.

## The edges of the exclusion: what a relación laboral especial under RD 1006/1985 is

The carve-out is drafted narrowly, by reference to one specific piece of secondary legislation rather than to a profession or an industry. [Real Decreto 1006/1985 of 26 June](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1985-12313) (BOE No 153 of 27 June 1985) governs the special employment relationship of professional sportspersons. Article 1 defines a professional sportsperson as someone who, by virtue of a relationship established on a regular basis, voluntarily devotes himself to the practice of sport for the account of and within the organisation and direction of a club or sporting body, in exchange for remuneration.

### Who falls inside the exclusion

A squad player on a regular contract, across team and individual sports alike, wherever the relationship is papered under RD 1006/1985. The decree also reaches regular relationships between an athlete and the organisers of sporting spectacles, and with commercial undertakings that engage professional athletes for sporting activity.

### Who falls outside it

RD 1006/1985 itself, in article 1, excludes from its own scope those who practise sport within a club and receive only reimbursement of expenses; one-off appearances for an employer or for the organiser of a spectacle (which may be ordinary employment or another special relationship); and athletes in squads and national teams assembled by the national federations. Those relationships therefore fall outside the article 93 carve-out as well.

**Undisputed.** Sporting directors, general managers, a club's commercial and marketing staff, and its doctors, physiotherapists, analysts and scouts all work under an ordinary contract governed by the Estatuto de los Trabajadores and fall outside the RD 1006/1985 perimeter — their gateway into the article 93 regime is the standard employment one. Support in the case law: the Sala de lo Social of the TSJ of the Canary Islands, by a judgment of 4 June 2025 in the claim of the sporting director of the Gran Canaria basketball club, refused to equate a director deportivo with a professional sportsperson: his functions were administrative and coordinating and went beyond the practice of sport, and the relationship had run for six unbroken years, which contradicts the fixed-term architecture of RD 1006/1985. The court declared the fixed-term clauses void and recharacterised the termination as a dismissal under ordinary employment law.

**Contested category — coaches and fitness trainers.** Spanish labour case law extends RD 1006/1985 to coaching staff: the line runs from the Tribunal Supremo judgment of 14 May 1985 and is confirmed by TS judgments of 20 September 1988, 22 December 1989, 14 February and 28 May 1990. The doctrine objects that article 1 speaks of a person who "devotes himself to the practice of sport", whereas a coach trains those who practise it — the reasoning adopted by the TS (Contentious-Administrative Chamber) judgment of 16 July 1991. There is no separate DGT position on coaching staff for article 93 purposes: binding ruling V1203-21 of 30 April 2021, sometimes cited for the point, reproduces the whole text of article 93 including the sporting proviso but decides a different question — exclusion for income obtained through a permanent establishment (art. 93.1.c). A coach's status therefore remains contested, and the conclusion "the regime is open to him" cannot be drawn without analysing the specific contract.

The essential caveat for every technical role: what counts is how the relationship is actually characterised, not the job title printed in the contract. If the club has papered a technical staff member under RD 1006/1985, the risk of recharacterisation is real, and the position should be confirmed individually before filing Modelo 149 for [the Beckham regime](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law), not after.

> 💡 The practical point for a club transaction: the tax asymmetry inside a single organisation is enormous. A sporting director arriving from abroad on an Estatuto de los Trabajadores contract pays 24% on employment income up to €600,000 for six years. The captain of the same team pays the ordinary progressive scale on worldwide income. The head coach sits between them: labour case law pulls him towards RD 1006/1985, so a 24% rate cannot be modelled without analysing the specific contract.

The regime's parameters and procedure sit on the dedicated pages: the 24/47% rates, the six tax periods, the five-year non-residence requirement and the Modelo 149 election with its six-month clock from the Seguridad Social registration (alta) in [the Beckham Law](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law), the reporting of foreign assets and the wealth obligations in [Modelo 720](https://wiki.private.law/en/modelo-720) and [the wealth tax](https://wiki.private.law/en/spain-wealth-tax), and waiver (*renuncia*), exclusion (*exclusión*) and the irreversibility of leaving in [leaving the Beckham regime](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law-exit).

## Ordinary IRPF: what a resident athlete actually pays

An athlete with no access to article 93 pays ordinary resident IRPF: on worldwide income, on a progressive scale built from a state component and a regional one. The state scale (art. 63.1 LIRPF) tops out at 24.5% on a base above €300,000. Madrid's regional scale for 2026 (art. 1 of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010, as amended by Ley 13/2023 of 15 December 2023, deflated with effect from 1 January 2023):

| Regional base | Rate |
| --- | --- |
| up to €13,362.22 | 8.5% |
| up to €19,004.63 | 10.7% |
| up to €35,425.68 | 12.8% |
| up to €57,320.40 | 17.4% |
| above €57,320.40 | 20.5% |

The top aggregate marginal rate in Madrid is therefore 45.0% — below the 47% article 93 charges on the excess over €600,000, and the ordinary regime additionally carries deductions, treaty access and a residency certificate "within the meaning of the convention".

Each community sets its own half of the scale, so an identical contract carries a different tax bill.

| Community | Top regional rate | Threshold | Aggregate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Madrid (Decreto Legislativo 1/2010, as amended by Ley 13/2023) | 20.5% | above €57,320.40 | 45.0% |
| Catalonia (Book Six of the Codi tributari, Decreto Legislativo 1/2024, as amended by Decret llei 5/2025 of 25 March 2025) | 25.5% | above €175,000 | 50.0% |
| Comunitat Valenciana (art. 2 of Ley 13/1997 of the Generalitat) | 29.35% | above €200,000 | roughly 53.9% |

Valencia is the highest in Spain. The gap between Madrid and Valencia in the top band is close to nine percentage points on every euro above the threshold, and that is a tangible part of the negotiating arithmetic when choosing a club.

The second layer is residency itself. The tests sit in article 9 LIRPF: more than 183 days in the calendar year on Spanish territory, or the main nucleus or base of activities and economic interests located in Spain. Spain has no split-year mechanism: the tax period is the calendar year, and residency is settled for the year as a whole, with no division into before and after the move, unlike [the British split-year treatment](https://wiki.private.law/en/split-year-treatment). The general logic of the tests and of conflicts is set out in [the basics of tax residency](https://wiki.private.law/en/tax-residency-basics) and in [the tie-breaker analysis](https://wiki.private.law/en/tax-residency-tiebreaker).

The third layer is income from performances outside Spain. Here the allocation rule for sportspersons and entertainers in tax treaties applies: income from personal performance is taxable where the performance takes place, regardless of who is formally entitled to the fee. For a touring athlete this means a stack of source withholdings in different countries, credited against the Spanish tax — the mechanics are gathered in the pieces on [article 17](https://wiki.private.law/en/article-17-sportspersons) and on [tax residency under a permanent touring schedule](https://wiki.private.law/en/touring-tax-residency).

## The presentation date as a tax variable

Kylian Mbappé's move from Paris Saint-Germain to Real Madrid was announced on 3 June 2024 and the presentation at the Santiago Bernabéu took place on 16 July 2024. The club never disclosed the financial terms, the figures that circulated in the press are publicly unconfirmed and nothing can be computed from them — but the legal significance of the date itself is entirely concrete.

After 16 July fewer than 183 days remained in the calendar year, the day count for 2024 fell short, Spain has no split-year mechanism, and the whole year turned on the second limb of article 9 LIRPF — the location of the nucleus of economic interests. The outcome is binary: either the whole year is resident (worldwide income enters the Spanish base) or the whole year is non-resident (Spanish-source income only, under IRNR).

The practical consequence for a contract: a prima de fichaje that becomes exigible before residency starts never enters Spanish IRPF at all. The general mechanics of deferred remuneration across a change of country are covered in [deferred comp on relocation](https://wiki.private.law/en/deferred-comp-relocation).

## The signing bonus inside ordinary IRPF

For an athlete shut out of article 93 the bonus is computed under the general rules of the LIRPF, where two provisions operate that the article 93 regime does not offer at all.

### The period of allocation

Article 14.1.a LIRPF allocates employment income to the tax period in which it becomes payable to the recipient (*exigible*), not to the period of actual transfer and not to the date the contract is signed. The first Spanish year is therefore won or lost on the contractual term fixing when the bonus becomes exigible, not on the date of the payment instruction.

### The 30% reduction

Article 18.2 LIRPF grants a 30% reduction for employment income with a generation period exceeding two years and not obtained periodically; the base to which the reduction applies is capped at €300,000 a year. For a bonus this works where it is tied to a multi-year contract and paid in a single instalment, and fails where the bonus is broken into annual tranches: the periodicity of the payment removes the reduction by itself. The practical scale: a one-off €5m bonus, against the €300,000 base cap, yields €90,000 off the taxable base — no rescue, but not nothing either.

> ⚙️ A bonus spread across the years looks safer — the amounts land in years of guaranteed residency and no argument about source or timing arises. The price: the article 18.2 reduction disappears, and so does any argument that the bonus relates to the period before the move. Choosing between a lump sum and a spread payment is choosing between a 30% reduction on a base of up to €300,000 and predictability of source, and both should be modelled before signing.

> ⚙️ **The 85/15 rule on image rights.** Article 92 LIRPF imputes the image-rights consideration back to the athlete where he provides services to an employer under an employment contract and that employer or a connected person has acquired the image rights by contract. There is no imputation only where employment income for the period is at least 85% of the sum of that income and the total image-rights consideration — both streams together, which is where the "regla 85/15" and its 15% ceiling come from. The test, the case law and commercial rights monetised away from the club are covered in [image rights](https://wiki.private.law/en/image-rights).

## Madrid's 20% deduction: the athlete's own product

With the federal door closed to athletes, the compensation was built at regional level. [Ley 4/2024 of 20 November 2024](https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2025-3302) (BOCM No 284 of 28 November 2024) inserted article 17 bis into the consolidated text of the legal provisions of the Community of Madrid on taxes ceded by the State — Decreto Legislativo 1/2010 of 21 October 2010. The press promptly named it the "Ley Mbappé". It applies from the 2024 tax period.

The parameters, taken from the text of article 17 bis rather than from summaries:

- the deduction is 20% of the acquisition value of the investment, including inherent costs and taxes but excluding interest; it is credited against the regional part of the IRPF liability (*cuota íntegra autonómica*) and leaves the state part untouched;
- qualifying investments are a closed list of two items: securities representing the lending of capital to third parties (debt), and securities representing a participation in the equity of any type of entity; both, whether or not traded on organised markets. Investment funds and SICAVs do not appear on the list, and the norm contains no list of express exclusions (real estate, bank deposits, derivatives, crypto-assets) at all — anything absent from the closed list simply fails to qualify;
- the investment is made in the year Madrid residency is acquired or the following year; for securities of Spanish entities the preceding year is also allowed;
- the holding period is six years; on a transfer for consideration, full reinvestment of the proceeds in qualifying assets within one month is permitted; the obligation ends on the taxpayer's death;
- for non-traded equity — and only for it — the taxpayer's holding, together with a spouse and relatives to the second degree, must not exceed 40% of the capital on any day of the period, the taxpayer may not carry out executive or managerial functions in the entity or be employed by it, and the entity may not be incorporated or domiciled in a tax haven;
- the taxpayer must not have been Spanish-resident in the five years preceding the move and must maintain Madrid residency and IRPF taxpayer status throughout the holding period;
- the deduction is applied in the year of the investment and in the five immediately following tax periods;
- the only incompatibility is with articles 15 and 17 of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010 (the deductions for acquiring stakes in newly formed entities and for investment in MAB-listed companies) and only in respect of the same investments. There is no incompatibility with the article 93 regime in the text, nor could there be: the deduction is regional, and under article 93 neither the regional scale nor regional deductions apply, so the two never compete.
The mechanics suit an athlete better than they suit most inpatriates: a player on a large contract has a substantial regional liability, so the deduction is actually absorbed rather than capped out.

### How the deduction is claimed

There is no separate application, no advance clearance and no dedicated form: the deduction is claimed in the annual Renta return on Modelo 100 for the period in which the investment is made, and then in each of the five following periods for the unused balance. The return for 2025 is filed between 8 April and 30 June 2026. Within the block of Madrid regional deductions it occupies a single box — casilla 2030; it has no annex within Modelo 100. AEAT renumbers boxes each campaign, so the number is checked against the help manual for the relevant year.

Supporting documents are not attached to the return — they are retained and produced on request. The file has six components:

- acquisition contracts and broker confirmations showing date and amount (the acquisition value is the base of the deduction, inclusive of inherent costs and taxes);
- custodian statements at the end of each of the six years as evidence of uninterrupted holding;
- on a transfer, reinvestment documents dated within the one-month window;
- a certificado de residencia fiscal and empadronamiento in Madrid for each year of the period;
- evidence of the absence of Spanish residency in the five preceding years;
- for non-traded holdings, the computation of the family's aggregate stake plus confirmation that no executive functions or employment relationship exist.
The limitation period under art. 66 of Ley 58/2003 (LGT) is four years and restarts from the end of the filing window for each annual return, so the effective retention horizon for this deduction is the six-year holding period plus four years after the last return in which a condition is still tested.

### Where the deduction is lost

The norm sets four conditions, and breaching any one of them removes the deduction.

1. Residency: a transfer to another autonomous community or abroad before the six years are up terminates Madrid residency.
2. A transfer of the investment without full reinvestment of the proceeds in qualifying assets within one month.
3. Breaching the 40% cap on capital held together with a spouse and relatives to the second degree in non-traded holdings — a single day over the line is enough.
4. An executive or managerial position, or an employment relationship, in the non-traded entity invested in.
The month is a calendar month and does not stretch to accommodate settlement. The fourth condition is the classic trap for an athlete who put money into a club, an agency or his own brand and later took a formal role there. The norm does not spell out the mechanics of recapture; in practice the amounts claimed are added back in the return for the period in which the condition is breached.

> ⚠️ **A likely scenario, not a residual risk.** Against a typical contract length of three to five years, a transfer before the six-year holding period ends collapses the deduction entirely, so it belongs in the model as a contingent liability.

## Four regimes for sporting income in Spain

The four states below are not alternatives to choose between but four distinct legal positions an athlete can find himself in. The first is closed to a player, the second arrives automatically once the residency threshold is crossed, the third holds only through discipline on days and centre of interests, and the fourth sits on top of the second. The first three are compared against the same parameters.

| Parameter | Art. 93 LIRPF ("Beckham") | Ordinary IRPF resident | IRNR without a permanent establishment |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Open to a player under RD 1006/1985 | No | Yes | Yes, while non-resident |
| Open to a sporting director and management (coach contested) | Yes; contested for a coach | Yes | Yes, while non-resident |
| Base | All employment income wherever earned (art. 93.2.b) plus Spanish-source income | Worldwide income | Spanish source only |
| Rate | 24% up to €600,000 and 47% above; savings income 19–30% | Progressive scale: state part plus regional part | 24% general; 19% for residents of the EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein (art. 25 TRLIRNR) |
| Top marginal rate on an identical contract: Madrid / Catalonia / Valencia | 47% everywhere: the regional scale does not apply under the regime | 45.0% / 50.0% / about 53.9% | 24% (19% for the EU, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein) everywhere |
| Duration | Year of the change of residence plus five | Indefinite | Per income event |
| Key constraint | Sporting employment relationship excluded; no re-entry | Full resident wealth perimeter | The residency threshold must not be crossed (183 days or centre of interests) |

### The fourth state: Madrid's deduction

The Ley 4/2024 deduction does not compete with the first three states; it sits on top of ordinary resident IRPF in Madrid.

- Open to a player under RD 1006/1985 · Yes
- Open to a sporting director and management · Yes
- Effect · 20% of the investment against the regional part of the liability
- Geography · Madrid only; no equivalent in other communities
- Duration · Year of investment plus a five-year carry-forward
- Key constraint · Six-year holding, 40% ownership cap, no managerial role, Madrid only

## What to do instead of the article 93 regime: four working scenarios

**Scenario one — do not become resident.** For individual sports with a dense competition calendar this is the only way to avoid dragging a Spanish worldwide base along: income from performances in Spain is taxed under IRNR (article 25 of the [TRLIRNR](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2004-4527) — a 24% general rate, 19% for residents of EU states, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), and everything else stays in the country of residence. The construction demands discipline on days and on the centre of interests, not merely on the passport — details in the pieces on [residency while touring](https://wiki.private.law/en/touring-tax-residency) and [athlete tax profiles](https://wiki.private.law/en/athlete-visas).

**Scenario two — ordinary IRPF plus the Madrid deduction.** For a club player on a multi-year contract this is the baseline. What has to be modelled is not the headline contract rate but the aggregate: the regional scale of the chosen community, the 20% Madrid deduction on arrival from abroad, and the resident's wealth obligations.

**Scenario three — separate the phases of a career.** A playing contract under RD 1006/1985 and later work inside the club's structure are different employment relationships. A former player who left Spain and returns as a coach or sporting director after five full years of non-residence formally satisfies the general access rule for article 93 — provided he never applied for the regime or waived it earlier. That proviso matters: waiver and exclusion are irreversible.

**Scenario four — a different jurisdiction.** Competing regimes draw their sporting carve-outs differently and must be compared against the texts: [Italian flat tax](https://wiki.private.law/en/italy-flat-tax) · [Portuguese IFICI](https://wiki.private.law/en/portugal-ifici) · [Monaco](https://wiki.private.law/en/monaco-tax) · [Andorra](https://wiki.private.law/en/andorra-tax) · [UK FIG regime](https://wiki.private.law/en/uk-fig-regime) · [sportspersons in the United Kingdom](https://wiki.private.law/en/uk-sportsperson-tax) · [map of special tax regimes](https://wiki.private.law/en/special-tax-regimes). The ten bases are set against each other on common axes in the country matrix in [the athletes hub](https://wiki.private.law/en/athletes-hub).

> 🍓 **Short answer.** A professional athlete on a club contract does not qualify for Spain's article 93 LIRPF regime: the current text expressly excludes the special employment relationship under RD 1006/1985; the amendment history sits in [the Beckham Law](https://wiki.private.law/en/beckham-law). Sporting directors and management use the regime without controversy; coaches remain a contested category. What is left to a player: ordinary resident IRPF with a top marginal rate of 45.0% in Madrid, the 20% Madrid deduction under art. 17 bis of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010, the signing-bonus mechanics of arts. 14.1.a and 18.2 LIRPF, the non-resident IRNR model for touring individual athletes, and the 85/15 rule of article 92 LIRPF on image rights.

## Q/A

### **Can a footballer at a Spanish club use the Beckham Law**

No, if the contract is papered as the special employment relationship of a professional sportsperson under Real Decreto 1006/1985. The current text of article 93 LIRPF removes that relationship from the list of qualifying grounds for relocation, and the Agencia Tributaria's guidance on the inpatriate regime says the same. The carve-out does not depend on the sport, the size of the contract or the player's nationality. The other article 93 gateways — appointment as a director, entrepreneurial activity — are open in theory, but they have to exist in fact rather than be papered over a playing contract.

### **Do a coach and a sporting director qualify for the regime**

The answers differ. A sporting director, a general manager and a club's commercial and marketing staff qualify without controversy: they hold ordinary Estatuto de los Trabajadores contracts, the article 93 carve-out is addressed only to the special sporting employment relationship, and the case law bears this out (TSJ of the Canary Islands, 4 June 2025, refusing to characterise a director deportivo as a professional sportsperson). Coaches and fitness trainers are a contested category: Spanish labour case law extends RD 1006/1985 to coaching staff (the line from TS 14.05.1985 to TS 28.05.1990), the doctrine objects by reference to TS 16.07.1991, and there is no separate DGT position on coaches for article 93 purposes — binding ruling V1203-21 of 30 April 2021 reproduces the text of article 93 with the sporting proviso but decides a question about exclusion for income through a permanent establishment (art. 93.1.c). A 24% rate cannot be built into a coach's model without analysing the specific contract; the characterisation is confirmed before filing Modelo 149.

### **What does the "Ley Mbappé" give someone who could never have used article 93 anyway**

Art. 17 bis of Decreto Legislativo 1/2010 (as inserted by Ley 4/2024 of 20 November 2024, BOCM No 284 of 28.11.2024) reduces the regional part of the IRPF liability by 20% of the acquisition value of a qualifying investment, with the balance carried forward for five years. The norm sets out no incompatibility with the article 93 regime — it is incompatible only with arts. 15 and 17 of the same text and only for the same investments; the deduction is regional, and regional deductions do not apply under article 93 in any event. Conditions: no Spanish residence in the five years preceding the move, investment in the year residency is acquired or the following one, a six-year holding period and continued Madrid residency. It is claimed in the annual Renta return, casilla 2030 (the 2025 campaign runs from 8 April to 30 June 2026).

### **Can you play for a Spanish club and stay non-resident in Spain**

Not durably. Article 9 LIRPF supplies two independent tests: more than 183 days in the calendar year, and the location in Spain of the nucleus of activities and economic interests. A club contract satisfies the second even where the day count formally falls short. The only realistic case is an incomplete first year: on a move in the second half of the season the day test may not be met, in which case the whole year turns on the centre of interests. Spain has no split-year mechanism, so the outcome for each calendar year is binary.

### **How does Spain treat image rights payments made by a club**

Through the imputation regime of article 92 LIRPF. If the athlete has assigned the right to exploit his image, works for the club under an employment contract, and the club or a connected person has acquired the image rights by contract, the fee is imputed back to the athlete. There is a single exception: employment income for the period amounts to at least 85% of the sum of that income and the total image-rights consideration. The practical ceiling on the share routed through club-paid image rights is therefore 15% of the package.

### **What if the athlete has already used the article 93 regime on another basis**

Re-entry is barred. Under the AEAT instructions to Modelo 149, both a taxpayer who has waived the regime (renuncia, filed in November or December of the preceding year) and one excluded from it (exclusión, notified within a month of the breach) may not apply it again. The article 93 election is therefore a single-use resource, and spending it on a short episode before the main contract makes no sense.

---

## Factual claims

- The irony is that a professional sportsperson is today the one category of highly paid foreigner the regime is closed to as a matter of black-letter law.
- The amendment history of article 93 (Ley 26/2009, Ley 26/2014, Ley 28/2022, Ley 7/2024), the rates, the duration and the filing procedure are set out in the Beckham Law and are not repeated here.
- An athlete with no access to article 93 pays ordinary resident IRPF: on worldwide income, on a progressive scale built from a state component and a regional one.
- For an athlete shut out of article 93 the bonus is computed under the general rules of the LIRPF, where two provisions operate that the article 93 regime does not offer at all.
- Article 14.1.a LIRPF allocates employment income to the tax period in which it becomes payable to the recipient (exigible), not to the period of actual transfer and not to the date the contract is signed.
- Article 18.2 LIRPF grants a 30% reduction for employment income with a generation period exceeding two years and not obtained periodically; the base to which the reduction applies is capped at €300,000 a year.
- The parameters, taken from the text of article 17 bis rather than from summaries:
- The Ley 4/2024 deduction does not compete with the first three states; it sits on top of ordinary resident IRPF in Madrid.

---

Source: wiki.private.law — the private.law legal knowledge base. When quoting, cite the canonical page URL.
Consultation with a lawyer: https://t.me/private_law_bot