You’ve probably read about the English Bridge Union’s attempt to get bridge reclassified as a sport rather than a game — meaning that its members would no longer have to pay VAT on entry fees for competitions. Last month, a tax tribunal rejected the move on the grounds that ‘a sport normally connotes a game with an athletic element’. You may think this sounds reasonable enough, but, as my six-year-old daughter would say, it not fair!
Many other European countries, including France, Holland and Poland, classify bridge as a sport — as does the International Olympic Committee. And HMRC recognises games like darts, billiards and croquet as sports — hardly ‘athletic’ activities — so why not bridge?
It’s not as if bridge makes no physical demands on a player. At a competitive level, it is absolutely gruelling. When I used to play regularly with Espen Erichsen, he was forever nagging me to go the gym to improve my stamina (fat chance).
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in