中国足协引援调节费制度的法律问题评析

Analysis on the Legal Issues Concerning the Transfer Adjustment Fee of Chinese Football Association

中国足协近年来出台的引援调节费制度因其无对价、经济诱导性以及专款专用等特征,在法律上应定性为管制性特别公课。文章从法律视角审视了调节费的法律属性,探寻其在足协《章程》以及现行法律法规中的合法性地位,并基于比例原则从以下三方面分析其是否具有合理性:(1)妥当性,由于调节费规则存在缺漏等问题,在实践中引发俱乐部的疑似规避行为,不利于达成政策目标;(2)必要性,相比于调节费制度,国外对市场主体行为干预力更小的财政公平制度以及更强调各方协商的工资帽、奢侈税制度,显示出更大的优越性;(3)狭义比例性,费率设置过高、对俱乐部预期利益的忽视及反"避税"措施的不精细,使得调节费的制度成本将超出其实施效果。进而据此提出相应建言。

The transfer adjustment fee, introduced by Chinesea Football Association, can be consideredseen as a kind of regulatory special public taxationcontributio of regulatory nnature. It has the characteristics of no consideration, economic inducement, and earmarked funds. As far as its legitimacy is concerned, the Chinese Football Association Constitution is not the source of its effectiveness. As an exercise of public power, the transfer adjustment fee also lacks the regulatory function of public law. In addition, the appropriatenss of the transfer adjustment fee is questionable for the taxation rules are ambiguous when itthe rationality of the adjustment fee is levied according to should be examined from the perspective of the principle of proportionality,. In terms of appropriateness, due to the ambiguity of the adjustment fee rules. As a result, a large number ofmany clubs are suspected of circumventevadeing regulation adjustment fees, which is agianst the intended purposes of the policy. This is not conducive to the achievement of the intended purpose of the policy. In terms of necessity, the transfer adjustment fee is unnecessary due to the existence of the different from the adjustment fee, there is a Financial Equity System, which is Fair Play with less interventional, and as well as the Salary Cap and the L luxury Ttax, both of which stress focus on the negotiation of the parties concerned and have detailed rules. and the rules of which are meticulous. In the narrow sense terms of proportionality, the taxation rate is too high and too high rate, the neglects clubs’ of the expected benefits of the clubs., and tThe simplifiedcation of anti-evation circumvention measures also makes show that itsthe institutional cost of the adjustment fee is nonot t in proportional to its policy effect. Therefore, the rationality of the policy of transfer adjustment fee s policy is questionable.hould also be questioned.