+34
An analysis of the stark contrast between the Olympic movement's resistance to direct athlete payments and the massive financial rewards distributed by the FIFA World Cup, exploring the historical roots of amateurism and the modern fight for fair compensation.
The stark contrast between the financial rewards of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games highlights a deep-seated contradiction within the Olympic movement. In Australian dollar terms, there is $1.3 billion in prizemoney riding on this month's FIFA World Cup.
Even a team that fails to win a match but navigates immigration successfully will still receive a guaranteed $13 million for their national federation. This stands in sharp relief against the experience of many Olympians. Kirsty Coventry, the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), recently stated she does not believe in paying athletes who compete at the Games. She argued that athletes enjoy a beautiful experience in villages and venues funded by the IOC's revenue.
However, this romantic view ignores the historical and economic realities that shape athlete compensation. The ethos of Olympic amateurism was never a noble abstraction but a class-based exclusionary tool. When Baron Pierre de Coubertin revived the modern Games in 1896, he imported the Victorian ideal of the gentleman amateur, a code deliberately engineered to bar working-class athletes. A gentleman could compete for nothing because he had a private income; a miner or bricklayer could not afford to.
This hypocrisy was brutally exposed in 1912 when Jim Thorpe, arguably the greatest all-around athlete in Olympic history, was stripped of his pentathlon and decathlon gold medals for having once received a small payment for playing minor league baseball. The amateurism ideal was used to punish Thorpe while others from privileged backgrounds faced no such scrutiny. Around 1981, the word "amateur" was quietly removed from the Olympic Charter, opening the Games to professionals.
The most iconic moment was the 1992 United States "Dream Team" of NBA millionaires. The very ideals for which Thorpe was crucified were abandoned when commercial realities made them inconvenient. The result is a perverse system: the IOC dismantled amateurism for the athletes who needed protection from financial exploitation, but effectively preserved poverty for the many Olympians who embody the Games' spirit.
The NBA star arrives at the Olympic Village already a multimillionaire; the race-walker, judoka, or modern pentathlete often arrives having remortgaged their future. Despite the Charter's solemn "fundamental principles" speaking of athlete dignity and charging the IOC with supporting them, the reality is different. The IOC points to its redistribution claim-returning 90% of its income to the Movement, more than $2.8 billion annually.
However, money that flows to national Olympic committees, administrators, and venues rarely reaches the athletes who win the medals. There is also a quieter form of exploitation enshrined in Article 40 of the Olympic Charter. The IOC controls athletes' names, images, and likenesses, using their defining performances to sell the Games in perpetuity while forbidding the athletes from monetizing their own success. Until recently, athletes faced sanctions for mere social media posts during the Games.
Leisel Jones, a nine-time Olympic medallist, has said she would now discourage a young person from pursuing an Olympic dream because it often ends in debt. Cam McEvoy, who broke a world record in Paris and received no payment, has called for a six-figure reward for gold medallists. These are not the grievances of the entitled but the arithmetic of athletes who gave everything and returned home with a certificate.
In contrast, the FIFA World Cup distributes nearly a billion dollars among participating nations. Nobody seriously argues that this money corrupts football or diminishes the joy of winning. It is simply understood that those who create the spectacle should share in its wealth. Football has embraced this reality; the Olympics resists it.
Defenders of the status quo claim the comparison is unfair-that football is professional while the Olympics is something purer. But that purity died in 1981 and was long buried before this generation.
What endures is not an ideal but an arrangement: the IOC controls the world's mostvaluable sporting property, sells broadcast rights for billions, and has built a vast bureaucracy on the proceeds, while asking the athletes to perform for free in the name of a romance the institution itself discarded decades ago. It need not be like this.
Proof comes from within the Movement: before the Paris Games, World Athletics became the first federation to break ranks, paying $50,000 to every track and field gold medallist and committing to reward all podium finishers in Los Angeles. Lord Sebastian Coe's reasoning was disarmingly simple: the revenue exists because the athletes are the show, so some of it should go to them. The sky did not cave in. A door was opened slightly.
Notably, Coe received only a low eight votes when he ran against Coventry for the IOC presidency, indicating the strength of conservative forces resistant to change
Olympic Games IOC Athlete Compensation Amateurism FIFA World Cup Prize Money Kirsty Coventry Jim Thorpe World Athletics Sebastian Coe
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Game changers: how a stroke of paint transformed basketball, and the athletes who play itFor decades, basketball was dominated by super tall players crowding around the basket for easy shots. Then things changed with a stroke of paint.
Read more »
Aussie 7s star has 'unfinished business' after injury ended 2024 Olympic debutFor an athlete still in the early stages of her professional career, Australian rugby 7s player Kaitlin Shave has already experienced the highs and lows of sport.
Read more »
Olympic cash debate swirls ahead of swimming trialsAustralian swimmer Shayna Jack has added her voice to growing calls for Olympic prize money, believing athletes are missing out on what they financially deserve.
Read more »
FIFA will splurge $1.3b on World Cup prizemoney. It’s time Olympic athletes were paid fairly, tooEven a team losing all three games at the World Cup will pocket $13 million. Against this, The IOC’s opposition to paying its athletes looks ever more ridiculous.
Read more »