San Marino is opening the door to contributions from citizens and businesses to support sports events and work on public property. The Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) has approved by majority vote a law on donations: a tool designed to channel private resources through tax breaks, with the aim of financing maintenance, restoration and new works.
Among the possible projects, Secretary of State Rossano Fabbri cites the heating system for the Multieventi swimming pool and an athletics facility. Members of the majority also point to other examples: school gymnasiums used by young people and sports federations, theatres, cinemas and student housing.
The measure was originally conceived to support sport and has since been expanded to cover work on publicly owned buildings. Donations earmarked for sports events qualify for tax deductibility, while contributions for work on public buildings trigger a tax credit — a distinction Fabbri clarified during the parliamentary debate.
For the majority, the mechanism allows private resources to complement public investment. Oscar Mina (PDCS) backed the involvement of citizens and businesses in keeping facilities efficient and safe: “It means creating a positive alliance between institutions, the business community and the world of sport.”
Paolo Crescentini (PSD) struck a similar note, describing donations as a form of support capable of generating benefits well beyond a single event or facility. “We are in favour of private individuals being able to incentivise and support sport, because the whole San Marino community ultimately benefits.”
The law passed, however, with Rete and Repubblica Futura voting against and Domani Motus Liberi abstaining. The opposition does not dispute the principle of enlisting private help for sport. Their reservations concern the scope of the law, the oversight mechanisms, and the influence donors could gain over which projects get chosen.
Emanuele Santi (Rete) warned that willingness to donate could end up reshaping the State’s priorities. “It is no longer the State that decides what is a priority, but the financial availability of a private donor who, through their intention to make these donations, will determine what becomes a priority.” He also flagged the cost of the tax breaks: even without a direct outlay, the tax credit still reduces public revenue.
Matteo Casali (RF) called for stronger checks and balances and a more substantial role for the Council. In his view, there is a risk that certain projects will be prioritised simply because they attract a funder: “Unfortunately, we will see works become strategic purely because someone is willing to put up the money.”
Fabbri rejected this interpretation, reiterating that the choice of projects remains firmly in the hands of public institutions. “Planning stays public, the choice stays public, the responsibility stays public.” He explained that projects follow established procedures and that financial planning runs through the budget.
A gap remains, however, over how much say the Council itself should have. Rete and RF object to the use of State Congress resolutions and regulations, calling instead for a decree that the Council could examine directly. For the opposition, debating budget figures is not the same as being able to weigh in on the actual list of projects.
The Secretary of State made a commitment on this point: “Before adopting any procedure, I will ensure the competent Commission is informed about the projects the State Congress considers strategic.”
Another point of contention was the line between donations and sponsorship. Casali insisted that contributions should not be matched by any form of advertising service: “It is entirely clear that a donation, by its very nature, cannot be followed by any request for a service in return.” Alongside Santi, he called for specific controls and penalties to guard against potential abuse.
The majority pointed to existing limits on recognition for donors, which may only take an institutional, informational or communicative form. Fabbri clarified: “The law rules out donors receiving money, tangible goods, direct economic benefits, or being bound to promote products, services, brands or activities.” He also maintained that the tools needed to carry out checks are already in place.
Fabio Righi (D-ML) explained his abstention by distinguishing between the law’s original principles, which he supports, and the amendments introduced along the way. He called for donations to be incorporated into a multi-year investment plan, with genuine political debate over which projects are deemed strategic.
For Andrea Ugolini (PDCS), the broader scope instead offers a concrete opportunity to restore and enhance public facilities. “The idea is precisely to support, for example, school gymnasiums used by young people and by certain federations.” The criterion for selecting projects, he added, must remain clear: “Public interest must be the guiding light in identifying these works.”
