Gimme a break!

The Spanish government was set to remove a tax-break on high-earning foreigners (a tax-break aimed at encouraging leading executives to relocate to Spain) that would have hit the pocket's of Real Madrid's incoming galacticos (Mk II) hard. The plan has now been rejected, and the proposed increase in tax from 24% to 43% will not therefore happen. Cristiano Ronaldo et al. will probably be breathing a sigh of relief. Last year, the British government, in a similar move, announced that the earnings of players appearing for an overseas team in finals staged in the country would be exempt from taxation. It is thought that Wembley lost out in its bid to host UEFA's 2010 Champions League Final because players were liable to pay tax on earnings from bonuses and endorsements, should they play in the UK. However, the British government changed the law, and Wembley subsequently won the right to stage the 2011 Champions League Final. Are such tax advantages right? Are they fair? In terms of Adam Smith's canons of taxation, can we agree that both the Spanish and British governments were correct in their approach to managing these sports taxation issues? Does sport, does football, deserve such breaks? Aren't such tax advantages discriminatory, and shouldn't the general population be concerned? Or is it important that governments do their utmost to promote the hosting of leading sport events and support the immigration of the world's leading players and athletes? Indeed, taking the example of Ronaldo (CR9®?) as a case in point, if he is going to sell as many shirts as people think he will, could the net outcome be that whatever tax benefits are conferred upon such people, the economic activity they induce actually generates tax revenues in excess of any tax advantages they are given? Overall therefore, should tax breaks of the nature described above be made more progressive, more regressive, or should they remain the same?