• Renovation: the screenwriter and playwright Antonio Onetti, new president of the SGAE
  • Motion of censure.The SGAE dismisses Pilar Jurado as president

Antonio Onetti (Seville, 1962) is the new president of the General Society of Authors and Editors (SGAE), number 44 in its history, the seventh in the last decade.

Film and television writer, stage director, playwright and teacher, Onetti is not a newcomer to the entity, whose history since 2011 is written with intrigue, corruption, fraudulent plot and abuse . Onetti was part of the board of directors between 2012 and 2014 and chaired the Fundación Autor during that time (current Fundación SGAE).

In 2018 he aspired to the presidency in the elections, after José Miguel Fernández Sastrón was indicted in the 'Rueda' case , the alleged corrupt plot with which a series of authors would have earned millions of euros between 2006 and 2011 with the complicity of 14 televisions. He ended up being vice president on the board of directors of José Ángel Hevia, who in turn was removed shortly afterwards by a motion of censure, in 2019. Onetti ran again for the presidency, and lost again, then in front of Pilar Jurado, who Two weeks ago, she was also removed from office in a new motion of censure.

Onetti has indicated as a first objective to reestablish relations with the international body of authors' societies (the International Confederation of Societies of Authors, Cisac ), which in May of last year expelled the SGAE, and with the Ministry of Culture and Sport, who has spent more than a year trying to intervene the entity for its bad practices.

What are your objectives with regard to Cisac and the Ministry? The rudder blow given by the board of directors in recent days is strictly aimed at recovering relations with Cisac and with the Ministry in the best possible way. absolute will to resolve all the actions that have been raised, meet the requirements that have been asked of us and do so in the fastest and most efficient way possible. In this regard, on the same day of my appointment, last Thursday, I sent two letters to Cisac and the Ministry. Cisac responded immediately in a very favorable way and ready to have a first contact this Monday. I hope that with the Ministry we will follow the same line. So you have not yet spoken to Minister Uribes? No, but it is normal, very little time has passed. What I hope is that the Ministry understands our predisposition to collaborate and abide by everything it asks of us. The message of all this is that, of course, I'm not the one who will solve things either. The board of directors and the whole house is the one that has to solve the problems. There doesn't have to be any kind of personalism. That the president stop being an executive and become an institutional one, as the new statutes and the European directive mark, is the great change that we want to see implemented as soon as possible. I do not believe in a system that puts executive capacity in the authors, which is what we had before. If I were to run Coca-Cola I'd probably sink it. But for that there are professionals, like all management employees, who are the ones who do that job. Have relations with both institutions been bad because they have been very demanding or because SGAE has been confused in its relationship with both? Well, I think that what they are asking us is basically reasonable, they ask us to return to being a truly standardized entity within the standards of the European directive, and we are totally in favor of complying with it. All the partners and members of the board want to recover normality as soon as possible and that is what will make international entities trust us again. This involves establishing the maximum traceability between the collection and the distribution, that each author receive exactly what corresponds to him without taking another euro, and that there is a totally professionalized management. The fundamental change is already in the statutes approved in the last assembly. What we need is for the Ministry to finish sanctioning it, and then we can call elections to the board of directors and the supervisory body as soon as possible as required by European regulations. When do you expect to be able to call the elections? For October. My goal is to do it as soon as possible. At least they must be called with three months, and it does not seem logical to call them in August. Some partners had been alerting that the Ministry wanted to withdraw the license from the SGAE. I have no record, but it is true that there were signs indicating that the situation was very bad. Confidence was being lost. Would the Ministry have reasons to do so? I don't know, what I think is that we have to comply with a series of requirements that we have been asked to do and I am willing to push for compliance. In politics, it is often said that the real enemies are within the party itself. Does the same happen in the SGAE? This dynamic of friends and enemies I would like to go down in history, because really when we talk about enemies we think of people who can harm you, with whom you rival for power, and that is what that has to end. There has been a system in which the presidency had an executive character that somehow fostered all that. But that is over. That is what we have been asked to change. Because if there is no longer a grand prize, then the presidency will no longer be interesting for many people. When I arrived at the Fundación Autor in 2012, one of the things that I quickly realized and that was a central problem is that there were no regulations for aid. In the absence of regulations, anything was possible, and that is what could lead to one author being favored over another or to establishing a system of clientelism, which I am not saying was, but the system was could allow. The moment I put all my effort into turning everything that could and could not be black on white, the system changed. If we had a system in which the big prize was being president, with a salary and a whole series of royalties and power to influence and buy wills or to let you influence or benefit one school [group of authors] against another, everything That ends when the presidency ceases to be executive and politics ceases to have interference in management and vice versa. That is the philosophy that the Cisac asks us, that the Ministry asks us, that all the management entities have and that we are defending so that we can achieve normality. What were the causes that caused the motion of censure against Pilar Jurado? I would not like to speak of any previous presidency. All who have passed for the presidency deserve my consideration. We are all human and we make mistakes, and I prefer to talk about the future, yes, but you must understand that you are president after a motion of censure, and that the reasons for that motion are important, I can say that from the first minute I have wanted to shed my executive powers, I think it's something that has prevented the house from working properly. While I am president there will be the most absolute transparency in everything that happens in the house, both inside and outside, keeping the due confidentiality of things by law. What we want is to open the windows and let the air flow. I have not come here to look for corpses in the cabinets or to raise carpets, what we want is to solve the problems and I understand that a kind of custom has been generated to buy popcorn and see how we skin each other, but I would like to put an end to that. Since the motion of censure took place, on April 15, have there been changes in the entity's governing bodies? The board of directors dismissed the vice president [Inma Serrano] of the small law school [ which brings together musicians and lyricists], and four of the five members of the board of directors of the college of small law. This, which may have been controversial and which is not the desirable situation for all, has been an extreme measure that has been supported by both the school and the audiovisual school, the publishing house and the high-law school. We consider that the management that was being used with this control of the organs by this small sector was not correct. Are people linked to or suspected of being linked to the plot of the 'wheel' outside the governing bodies of the SGAE? Let's see, I would like to distinguish one thing. The 'wheel' is a process that exists in the National Court, where the prosecutor understands that there are some alleged crimes, and I have nothing to say about that because the justice will dictate its sentence and the SGAE will naturally obey it. As regards the board of directors, there is a sector of the small-law college [musicians] that is or has been more linked to night music and television and that has ceased to be part of the governing bodies. So it is clear of the 'wheel'? The small law school is 16 people and right now it is divided practically in half between the group of authors more linked to night music, who have certain criteria, and other authors who are not linked to night music or even having been understand that certain situations are part of the past. The distortion in the distribution that the valuation of night music could cause has been solved thanks to the fact that Parliament put a cap. When that cap has started to work, that business model is no longer so buoyant, and the ability to influence is being lost. There is a force and influence that has changed, and there has been a majority of the board, in which those members are not, who have decided that a change of direction was necessary and have used the statutory mechanisms to do it scrupulously. Musicians have dominated the SGAE presidency for several years ... Let's see, we have to understand one very important thing. If the president does not have the executive power and is limited to being an institutional representative, like a transmission belt, it does not matter what college he is. It has no influence capacity so that there is a preponderance of one school over another. This is very important. For that, what you have to do is reinforce a general direction and make an organizational chart in which the departments hang from where they have to hang, from the general direction and from the board of directors. An implicit idea of ​​that message is that the musicians have had Too much power over the years. No, no, no, no, no, no. I think it is a mistake to pose this as a confrontation between schools. We should all have the same rights and have the common good as a golden rule, whatever the schools, and there cannot be a preponderance of some over others. The SGAE is a very complex society in which there are many types of rights, many sectors, and what we need is that there is a balance and justice and that all partners are treated exactly the same. We are going to a separation of bags that will allow greater traceability. Before, the system was that all the rights came together, let's say that like in a pool and different taps came out from each side. Of course, when you put everything in that pool it is easier for some to be privileged over others. But if you have absolute traceability of the generation of rights and each author gets exactly what corresponds to him, that no longer has to do with one school or another. In the last year, numerous authors and companies from the SGAE have gone out to other management entities. Are you aiming to recover them? Of course, what happens is that I fully understand that there are a number of authors who, in certain situations, do not need to quote again because we all know them have decided that they were tired and were leaving. Those who have left have left have done so with considerable pain in their hearts, because many of them have been partners for 30 years, and there is a tear. I sincerely wish those who have left all the luck in the world and I hope they are comfortable in the entity they are in now. What we are going to do is restore confidence and normality so that everyone can be proud to be here, and if these partners consider that the conditions that made them leave have disappeared and they feel more comfortable returning to what they were Your house is great, but I am not going to make any appeal to anyone promising you anything. I'm going to work on what I have to do, which is to get this house back to normal. Another thing that has to be understood is that the SGAE is a model of a collective management entity and that means that we are not an investment fund that is looking for a business here and that must have the most influential partner happy. We are owners of our entity and as such we are obliged to have oversight of our governing bodies and we are civil society. That is the spirit of collective management entities and they must be governed by the common good and by common justice. Given the situation here, I decided to stay and try to fix things from the inside. At an economic level, how is the entity? There is no doubt that, as a result of the pandemic, the situation is as complicated as for the rest of the world. cultural entities and for all culture workers in this country, which is one of the groups that are being hit hardest economically. We have closed theaters, cinemas, discos, festivals canceled ... We have not experienced a situation like this since we can remember. As with the rest of the management companies around the world, it will mean significant losses for us, which we calculate at 30% of the collection. For this reason, we have implemented a savings plan. Has an ERTE been contemplated in that savings plan? Not right now. Is the SGAE bankrupt or bankrupt, as some of its partners say? No, no, no, it is absolutely false, the SGAE has a much greater solidity than many people think. First because it has its own funds and second because it has a statutory system according to which if at any time the deficit reaches a threshold, the administration discount would be skipped and the service it provides would be a little more expensive, but it would have more income to cover that deficit. What we are very clear about is that we are going to try to find all possible solutions so that we can get out of this crisis without leaving anyone on the road, without the staff being affected and trying to help partners who may be in trouble due to the crisis. So this complicated economic situation did not come from before? Is it only caused by the pandemic? Let's see, if we are fair, I am not going to tell you that the economic situation of SGAE at the moment was the most buoyant in its history. That's clear. If last year we had 300 million in collection because certain arrears were recovered, this year we are experiencing a contrary situation, with collection lines and some users who have not paid yet. We were around 250 million budget this year; when the culture is reactivated, what is the raw material will flow again and we will collect again.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • SGAE
  • National audience
  • culture
  • music

CultureThe screenwriter and playwright Antonio Onetti, new president of the SGAE

CultureThe SGAE dismisses Pilar Jurado as president

CultureDies actor and musician Esteban Yáñez at age 35 victim of Covid-19