Response to interpellation 2025/26:342 on safety for elite athletes and cultural workers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the security of elite athletes and cultural workers within the social insurance system. S argues that these groups lack security because scholarships and performance-based incomes are not counted as income qualifying for sickness benefit (SGI) 1. S believes that the system does not reflect modern working life for freelancers 1 2 and demands legislation as it is unreasonable that individuals who contribute to the insurance are left without protection 3 4. S criticizes the government for a lack of ambition 3. M argues that the government has already taken measures to simplify the framework conditions 5. M believes that the SGI inquiry's proposals are technically complicated and unclear 6 7 and that it would be irresponsible to proceed with proposals that have been rejected by referral bodies 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me if I intend to take any measures in light of the SGI investigation's proposals.
For those who might be sitting up in the gallery and listening, I can say that SGI in this context stands for sickness benefit-earning income, which is the basis for calculation for, among other things, sickness benefit and parental benefit. Only income from own gainful employment can be included in SGI. Employers and sole traders pay social security contributions to finance, among other things, sickness insurance and parental insurance. In that way, there is a connection between contributions and benefits.
The report of the SGI investigation, A security system for everyone – new rules for sickness benefit-earning income (SOU 2023:30), is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. One of the proposals in the investigation has already been implemented. In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), legislative proposals were submitted that enable accompanying family members of seconded state employees to receive back the SGI they had before the stay abroad, if all conditions are met. The amendment entered into force at the turn of the year on 1 January 2026.
Accompanying family members of aid workers and certain others are also covered by the change. The purpose is to strengthen the social security for accompanying family members of state employees and to facilitate for the Armed Forces to staff the positions that result, among other things, from the NATO entry. It will be a small but quite important piece in how the Swedish social security system keeps up and is adapted for the Swedish NATO membership, which is extremely important for Swedish security.
Another important piece of the puzzle, Madam Speaker, is that the age of 55 as an upper limit for self-employed persons to be able to choose a shorter waiting period in the health insurance has been removed, through a proposal by the government in the budget bill for 2025 (prop. 2024/25:1).
The government is working beyond this to improve and simplify the framework conditions for those who start, run and develop companies in Sweden. According to the government's strategy for companies in cultural and creative industries (skr. 2023/24:111), the public safety systems shall provide good conditions for individuals who support themselves both as employees and as self-employed, including cultural creators within cultural and creative industries.
The Government has further, in the regulatory letter for 2026, given Försäkringskassan a mandate to analyze SGI decisions regarding the relationship to income data. Försäkringskassan shall analyze the relationship between the determined SGI and the income data from the insured person respectively the income data that the employer has submitted to Skatteverket.
The purpose is to clarify how the processing of SGI works and what the conditions for automated decisions look like in different situations. The assignment is limited to income from employment. A summary partial report regarding the relationship between established SGI and income data shall be submitted to the Government Offices by May 22, 2026, at the latest. That is quite soon, this spring. The assignment shall be final-reported to the Government Offices by March 31, 2027, at the latest.
Work is also ongoing within the Government Offices regarding regulatory changes within SGI. The Government's firm opinion and assessment is that predictability must increase.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Tenje, for the answer!
What fantastic performances we have seen in the recently concluded Olympic Games! Our Swedish elite athletes have taken a record number of medals, made countless people rejoice together in front of the screens, and given us all pride.
But behind the successes lies a reality that all too often, unfortunately, remains invisible. Our elite athletes lack security in the social insurance system. When they become ill or are about to become parents, this is very clear, and several refrain from starting a family because the social insurance system is so insecure for them.
With the current regulations, scholarships or performance-based income are not counted as income qualifying for sickness benefit. This, of course, affects any parental allowance or sickness benefit when the active person is injured or ill or has a child. This has been pointed out by the Swedish Sports Confederation for a long time. It makes it extra difficult for elite athletes to get the same security as we others do.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats commissioned the inquiry that is usually called the SGI inquiry when we held government power. It was intended, among other things, to propose changes in this area, but the inquiry did not manage to be completed before Anna Tenje and the Tidö government took over responsibility. Since then, not much has happened, unfortunately, as is evident from the Minister's answer.
Madam Speaker! This issue is not unique to the world of sports. In modern working life, more and more people work as "kombinatörer," that is, they combine their own projects, freelance assignments, assignments from employers, or scholarship support with a traditional employment. This is the reality for many actors, filmmakers, performing artists, and others. The trade union Scen & Film and the organization Klys have repeatedly over several years profitably highlighted that the government should address at least some of the SIG investigation's proposals to provide "kombinatörer" with better security.
Madam Speaker! If we want a vibrant cultural life, if we want security even for people who do not have a traditional permanent employment, and if we want people who invest in their elite sports and who in the future can also give us great international successes, then security must be strengthened.
Anna Tenje has the opportunity to make a difference here right now, but so far we have not seen much of that. We cheer when Sweden wins Olympic medals, and we applaud the actors on stage. But when the elite athlete gets injured or the cultural worker becomes a parent, the security unfortunately fails, and it is not enough.
In a modern working life with contractors, freelancers and others, the sickness insurance must reflect real incomes. Security should not depend on the form of employment. It should apply to everyone who works and builds Sweden strong. At least that is what we Social Democrats think.
My question to Anna Tenje is whether she thinks it is reasonable that elite athletes, cultural workers, freelancers and others who do not have a traditional employment do not have the same right to social security as we others do.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this important issue here today!
SGI is thus the foundation of our sickness insurance. It determines what compensation you can receive in case of illness, it affects your parental insurance, and it is completely crucial when it comes to the occupational injury insurance.
The occupational injury insurance is therefore intended to compensate for loss of income when someone is injured in their work, but it is based on the existence of a determined income to compare with. Without a stable SGI, the entire compensation is affected.
The system does not always keep up with how people actually work. I want to highlight actors who go from production to production, musicians who combine tours with teaching, technicians and stagehands who work intensively during a performance period and then stand without assignments for a while, and journalists, illustrators, and authors who combine short employments with assignments, perhaps in their own firm, or a project employment. These are, therefore, people who combine different types of income to be able to support themselves through their profession. They pay tax, they work and, as said, they contribute to our common insurance.
Many cultural workers testify about how difficult it is to have their SGI established when income comes from several different sources and varies significantly over the year. The system is built for a steady monthly salary from one and the same employer, not for project employment, freelance assignments, grants or self-employment in combination. The consequence is that the SGI can become low, unstable or, in the worst case, zero, despite the fact that the person has worked and had income over time. This means that one pays for an insurance that one is not able to take part in. One thus risks falling outside the protection that one has helped to finance. And when the SGI becomes uncertain, it hits the entire safety net – against sickness benefit, parental benefit and work injury compensation.
Madam Speaker! The occupational injury insurance itself needs to be modernized. The number of granted life annuities has decreased over time. The regulatory framework is complex, the income calculations are difficult to understand, and many experience that it is difficult to predict their right to compensation. I know that the matter is being prepared at the Government Offices, so we shall not delve into it. But if the SGI does not work for cultural workers and others with project-based work and if the occupational injury insurance is simultaneously constructed for a more linear working life, then we are building safety systems for yesterday.
Culture is not a niche interest. It is a part of our society, our democracy, and our economy. We cannot have a system that is built on people creating, contributing, and taking risks but which does not give them protection when something happens. The safety nets are part of the labor market's infrastructure. They should give people the courage to work, develop, and contribute. For that very reason, the SGI must also become predictable for cultural workers.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by apologizing. I actually did not thank the interpellor for the interpellation. It is customary to do so.
I also want to say that it is nice that Jessica Rodén is also participating in this debate so that we get a bit more life and movement.
I must admit, Madam Speaker, that when MP Åsa Eriksson began speaking about the fantastic achievements, I believed for a brief moment that it was praise for the government she wanted to give. But she landed on the fantastic successes during the Olympics, and there we are definitely in complete agreement. It was fantastic to see the achievements and successes there. This applies in particular to the Swedish women, as they actually won the medal table.
We also completely agree that a well-functioning SGI is extremely important for large parts of the social insurance. The Government has taken several measures regarding this. But above all, we are now preparing further proposals and questions regarding major changes to the SGI, and we have not landed on that yet.
I do not actually believe, Madam Speaker, that there is any particularly great disagreement between the Social Democrats and the Moderates, or for that matter the government and the opposition, regarding the need to take a broader approach to this issue. At the same time, we have had this discussion previously, and in the previous interpellation debate that I had with Member Åsa Eriksson, I explained that the proposals coming from the investigation are complex and in some parts definitely difficult to understand.
This was confirmed during the consultation process and by the consulting bodies. For example, Försäkringskassan, which is the responsible authority, considers it uncertain how much of the processing can actually be automated, that the regulatory framework is very complex and can create problems for the processing, and that the regulatory framework leads to reduced predictability for the insured, that is, the cultural workers and elite athletes whom we speak so warmly about here today. This is something that could work contrary to the purposes that the investigation had to begin with.
The Swedish Social Insurance Agency, which is the responsible authority for monitoring these parts, and Företagarna and Svenskt Näringsliv also reject the investigation's various proposals.
Another example is that the trade union TCO views the fundamental principles in the proposal positively in principle, but still makes the assessment that it would not be appropriate as a basis for future legislation. Among other things, TCO points to the remaining uncertainties and that the regulatory framework appears to be very technically complicated.
There is also extensive criticism from the parties in the labor market.
That the responsible authorities and expert agencies have rejected the investigation's proposals has, of course, contributed to the fact that the government has had to review the issue further. I therefore see the fact that the issue is now being further prepared following the views of the referral bodies as a very natural step, and because the issue is so complex and so extensive, it is not something that is done in a heartbeat. It requires time and must also be allowed to take time so that it will be right and correct from the beginning, given that this concerns the safety of hundreds of thousands of hard-working people.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker and Anna Tenje! The Minister says that the government is preparing the issue further, and that is a standard expression when an issue is not prioritized or when the parties in the government base perhaps cannot reach an agreement – what do I know?
There are fewer than 200 days left until the election, so Anna Tenje has fewer than 200 days to come up with some proposals that can make a difference for Sweden's elite athletes, cultural workers and other combinators, if she is serious about wanting to improve safety for them.
It has been three and a half years. I mean that if one had wanted to move forward with some or any of the proposals in the SGI investigation, one could have either submitted a government bill or – if one is not satisfied with the proposals as they appear in the investigation – at least appointed an additional investigation to work further on what one is not completely satisfied with. The question is whether the government has any ambition to actually make a difference for these people. I do not see that, unfortunately.
The social democratic ideology is based on the fact that we stand together. We build society together, and we take care of one another even in illness and parenthood, and ensure that no one has to stand alone when life takes a turn. This also applies to elite athletes, combinators, and cultural workers. We believe that a more secure SGI system that reflects the reality of working methods and incomes strengthens both the individual and society as a whole. It also ensures that we can have a vibrant cultural life, successful elite athletes, and many successful combinators in the future.
Madam Speaker! The Minister took up TCO's referral response as a reason why the proposals have not been implemented yet. TCO is a central organization that has repeatedly conveyed the need for changes for members in their various trade unions who work as combinators. They are therefore also pushing and want the government to act on the issue.
The income underlying sickness benefit must be both predictable and fair for everyone who works. I believe the government should agree with this and act on it. We Social Democrats motioned in the Riksdag that the government should proceed with legislation and a bill and not let the issue rest.
As my colleague Jessica Rodén said, it is not reasonable that people who pay into the insurance should be left without protection when they become ill or parents. It should be easy to calculate one's SGI, and it should be predictable. One should have access to the security systems like everyone else.
Madam Speaker! I am trying once again to ask the question: Does Anna Tenje think it is reasonable that athletes, cultural workers, and freelancers do not have the same access to the social security system as people who have an employment? And if she does not think it is reasonable, will she then do something during these last 195 days – or whatever it is – she holds the position of Minister, to increase security?
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
Jessica Rodén waived her second contribution. The floor goes to Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance Anna Tenje.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Sometimes one is so clear in the opening statement and in the second round of debate that the member is satisfied with that. I am very grateful for that.
To return to the question: I believe, just as I said earlier, that our parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates, or for that matter the opposition and the majority, share the problem picture that the member addresses in his interpellation. There is probably no doubt whatsoever about that. I believe that there is a very great will in this chamber to reach a solution to the issues we are talking about here today.
It is also the case that I wish the investigation's proposals had been perfect from the start and that the referral bodies and the parties in this chamber could then have been in complete agreement on these issues. That would clearly be the simplest way forward, but reality is not always such.
In this case, the inquiry's proposals have received a lot of criticism from the referral bodies for being very technically complicated and unclear. The responsible authority warns of reduced predictability and problems with the processing, which, Madam Speaker, was one of the parts that was to be resolved with the new proposals. The solution in the inquiry's proposals is therefore in itself counterproductive to what was actually to be resolved. These are therefore warning signs that really need to be taken seriously.
No one – neither elite athletes, cultural workers, nor for that matter anyone else who would be covered by the new system – would benefit in any way if, as the Social Democrats propose in their budget, a bill were moved in accordance with the proposals that are presented.
I have heard and received comments from both sports federations and industry organizations for cultural workers. On the whole, their requests boil down to a historical SGI. This is also something highlighted in the investigation's proposals, but the problem with the design proposed in the investigation is precisely that several heavy referral bodies reject it. It would simply be irresponsible for the Social Democrats to propose moving forward with these proposals without addressing the both relevant and heavy objections that have been raised.
This is a large part of our strength, I would say. One appoints an inquiry and hopes to get really good proposals. Then the proposals are sent out for a referral process. At that point, one receives relevant comments from all sides and angles in order to subsequently be able to make a balanced assessment and be able to weigh the pros and cons of whether this is a way forward or not.
I must say that one needs to listen to the views and wise comments that have come from many referral bodies that this risks becoming very complicated and difficult and definitely not provide the predictability that I am sure the previous government had in mind when the investigation was commissioned and which I agree needs to be in place.
Madam Speaker! To be clear and answer the interpellant's question: I have now received the views of the referral bodies. Several of them seem highly reasonable, and they are quite serious objections that I believe need to be addressed before one can proceed with major changes to the SGI regulations. The question is, as said, complex and very extensive, and I have great respect for it.
The status right now regarding this issue is that the will definitely remains. There are 194 days left until the election. There are oceans of time. The Chamber will see that many proposals and many solutions to major problems will come forward until election day – and after that, I definitely intend to have four more years.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is typical of Anna Tenje to speak nicely about what she wants to do, but unfortunately, we do not see as much workshop.
I want to believe Anna Tenje when she says that she shares the Social Democrats' position that everyone should have access to our safety nets – even elite athletes, cultural workers, and combinators. But if the will to rectify this is so great – which I want to believe it is – why has more not been done? If I remember correctly, the responses from the referral bodies came in about two years ago. Why has the Minister not acted? If one is serious, I mean that it must also be visible that one is moving forward and doing something to rectify the problems.
I ask once again: Will Anna Tenje deliver any solution to the problem during these last – if it is indeed 194 – days until the election? It might feel like oceans of time. I personally think it feels like quite a short time to achieve a change, but for all the people who truly need improved access to the social security systems, I hope I am wrong so that they can have financial security when they become ill or injured and so that they dare to have children and start a family.
For the last time today: Will Anna Tenje present a proposal for a solution to the problem during this parliamentary term?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, a big thank you to the interpellator and to the other members who have participated in the debate on this question!
I know that many are following the issue closely, and like everyone else, I am very keen that this is resolved in the best possible way for as many as possible. But it must be resolved in a simple and predictable way and with the help of a solution that makes it better, not a solution that complicates and makes the whole thing more difficult.
No one had wished more than I that the investigation had produced good proposals that could be moved forward with much faster – proposals that the referral bodies said yes to and that were truly embraced – but that was not the case now. Now we simply need to incorporate what the referral bodies describe as problems, which they do in a very good way, so that one knows what the next step is. This is, in fact, a large and complex issue, and it is important that it becomes correct and fair – and that we reach a solution.
There are 194 days left until the election, which is many days to come with many wise proposals and decisions. I will not miss that chance.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.