Before moving on to Super Bowl weekend (yes, Jaden, we're back to calling it that) and all the football-related posts that come with it, I couldn't ignore saying something about an article I saw earlier this week. It was an opinion piece in The Sports Examiner about U.S. race walk Olympian Allen James and his feelings that Olympians should be paid. Needless to say, I agree with the article. James is 100 percent wrong.
I'll let you read the article for yourselves, but to sum up the conversation, James is basically making the same argument as those who want to see college athletes get paid. He takes issue with the fact that the IOC generates billions of dollars in revenue, yet none of it goes directly to the athletes. Which is missing the entire point!
IOC President Thomas Bach has actually already addressed this, and his explanation provided some clarity on the IOC's position, which, I must say, is pretty reasonable. The IOC makes a lot of money, yes. But almost all of it goes to the 206 National Olympic Committees and the various International Federations. In fact, the IOC redistributes 90 percent of its revenue and uses the other 10 percent for its own operating expenses. So you can't view the IOC as a business and the Olympic Games as a business model.
First, let's look at how impractical it would be for the IOC to pay every athlete. There will be approximately 11,000 athletes in Tokyo. If they were all to receive a stipend for simply making their country's Olympic team, it would cost the IOC tens of millions. Even if every athlete was to receive $5,000--a relatively modest amount--that would be a $55 million expense (and $55 million less to go to the National Federations, many of which rely on the IOC for most of their funding).
For the sake of argument, I'm going to use that $5,000 figure as my example. While $5,000 would make a huge difference for a lot of Olympic athletes, it's nothing for the likes of Katie Ledecky or Simone Biles. (By comparison, first-round losers at the Australian Open earned $90,000.) Likewise, a good number of Olympians are still technically amateurs, which means they can't accept any endorsements or prize money. (An exception would likely be made in the case of Olympic bonuses, but even then, some legal wrangling would be necessary.) And what about the athletes from countries that don't have a free-market system? Or those who are already funded by their NOC?
That's the thing about the Olympics that we, as Americans, sometimes either forget or fail to understand. We're used to being part of a free market and even take it for granted. It's not like that in other countries. And you're talking about 205 different nations, all of which have different financial situations and ideologies. So, you can't just assume that something that would be good for the American and German athletes would benefit athletes from smaller nations like Gabon and Palau the same way.
There's also the fact that many countries--including the United States--already provide financial incentives for their Olympians. These incentives vary by nation. The U.S. has a medal bonus that will pay $37,500 for a gold, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. Others only award their gold medalists, sometimes handsomely. Others, still, directly compensate all of their Olympic athletes. But that's up to the individual NOCs. Not the IOC itself.
It should also be noted that Olympic athletes do receive plenty of perks by simply qualifying for the Games. Their travel, training and housing expenses are all taken care of, and the Olympic Village is all-inclusive. They'll be able to find any service they need/want, and it's all covered. Not to mention the fact that they'll have earned the right to call themselves "Olympians," which is an honor that only comes around every four years and everyone spends their entire career working towards.
The word "Olympian" carries a lot of weight. And it should. The smart athletes know how to leverage it. It can lead to new sponsorships, endorsement deals, speaking engagements, and numerous other opportunities. The potential financial windfall from those is endless. And it's far greater than any lump-sum payment they could possibly receive for making the Olympic team.
Now let's go back to that. Everyone knows that the IOC tiers Summer Olympic sports based on factors such as worldwide TV audience and in-stadium attendance, among other things. The higher the tier, the more money that International Federation receives. It should come as no surprise that the the only three sports in Tier 1 are track & field, gymnastics and aquatics (which covers swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming).
And here I go back to my NCAA argument. People who want NCAA athletes to get paid are really only talking about football and men's basketball. But those same rules would apply to the non-revenue sports, so, "fair" or not, the women's golfers and men's tennis players would be in line to receive the same stipend.
If the IOC started giving Olympians financial compensation simply for making the Games, how would they do it? Would athletes in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports receive more because they're the ones that people are watching on TV and in the stadiums? Or does everyone, regardless of sport, get the same? And if you do it that way, how do you justify giving the same amount of money to the fencers and modern pentathletes as the swimmers and gymnasts who are bringing in most of the revenue? Either way, somebody's not gonna be happy!
Simply put, providing direct compensation to every athlete would fundamentally change the Olympics. The world has changed dramatically in the 125 years since Pierre de Coubertin revived the Games, but one constant has remained. The Olympics bring together the very best athletes from all corners of the globe. That's part of what makes the Olympics so special. You only have 11,000 athletes from 205 countries in 34 different sports together in the same place at the same time in front of a worldwide viewing audience once every four years.
Making their nation's Olympic team is the greatest thrill in an athlete's life. It's something that can never be taken away from them, and something that they'll benefit from for the rest of their lives. That should be enough of a reward.
No comments:
Post a Comment