Back in the day, participation in the Olympics was limited to amateurs. Why? According to IOC President (1952-1972) Avery Brundage, “to prevent the Games from being used by individuals, organizations or nations for ulterior motives”.
The word “amateur” is derived from the Latin term “amator”, which means “lover”. One might argue that love of sport, for many, has evolved to love of money. Some believe that love of money is the root of all evil. Has it become an Olympic evil?
The not-for-profit, entirely privately-funded IOC generates substantial revenue, primarily through the sale of broadcast rights (61%) and sponsorships (30%).
For the 4-year period ending with the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, the IOC brought in $7.6 billion dollars. It reinvests 90% of its income into sports and athlete development around the World; however, the amount athletes receive is not reported and said to represent a very small amount. Why isn’t it reported?
We all know that without athletes, there would be no Olympic Games.
The nagging question is: if there were no big stars at the Olympics, would you attend or tune-into the show, and/or buy licensed merchandise?
Is it fair for the likes of athletes such as LeBron James (a self-made billionaire) to have an opportunity to further enhance his brand as an Olympic competitor, while many other athletes live below the poverty line?
Why, at the very least, does the IOC not provide any show money or prize money to Olympic athletes?
In its 2023 Annual Report, the IOC boasted that it “maintained a healthy and strong financial position”, with current assets standing at USD 4.5 billion and non-current assets at USD 2.0 billion. Cash and other financial assets totalled USD 5.9 billion, with liabilities of USD 2.7 billion. Yes, the IOC has to fulfil its role all of the time, not just once every 4 years when the Olympics are held, but … does so much of this money truly need to be socked away for a rainy day?
If you ask Thomas Bach, President of the IOC, his rebuttal will be that the IOC supports international sports federations, and it is each Country’s responsibility to develop its own athletes and facilities.
The Olympics are global, prestigious and vast. A marketer’s dream. An athlete’s dream. No question about it. Is making an Olympic Team or winning an Olympic medal enough, when the athlete’s performance directly contributes to the IOC’s ability to generate revenue?
The IOC has already secured $7.3 billion for 2025-28 and $6.2 billion in deals for 2029-2032.
As reported in 2022, top IOC compensation went to the Director General of the IOC, Christophe De Kepper, who received $1.6 million.
De Kepper reports to the President of the IOC, German lawyer Thomas Bach, whose term will end in 2025. Bach, is a volunteer, not an IOC employee; his indemnity amounted to almost $400,000 in 2021.
The IOC publishes the compensation its Board Members receive, including a per diem of $900, $7,000 annually to cover admin. support each, and reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses.
In 2023, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio for S&P 500 companies was 268-to-1. Let’s have a bit of fun and apply these figures to Olympic athletes. That would put athletes at $5,970 ($1.6 million paid to De Kepper divided by 268 CEO-to-worker pay ratio). There were 10,714 athletes at the Paris Olympics. $5,970 x 10,714 would amount to $63,962,580 – less than 1% of the multi-billion dollar IOC kitty. Let’s say that, in our financial model, no compensation would be offered to athletes whose earnings are above the poverty line, resulting in a larger pool for those most financially disadvantaged. Going one step further, how about if the IOC kicked back a % of income earned from broadcasting/merch? Now we’re talkin’ …
The world has changed. The IOC’s financial model also needs to change. The numbers have become too large to turn an eye away from the ridiculous imbalance between the value athletes deliver and the overflowing coffers of the IOC.
A 2020 survey of almost 500 elite athletes across 48 countries by Global Athlete found that 58% of athletes did not consider themselves to be financially stable. And only 11% said that IOC compensation is adequate. Is this situation right?
“Money is respect.” (Brittany Brown, U.S. Olympic athlete)
“95% of us are living paycheck by paycheck.” (Kaleigh Gilchrist, U.S. Olympic athlete)
“Most Olympians need a 2nd or 3rd job to support chasing the dream … When you're training for the Olympics, that's your mission. You don't want to have to worry about: How am I going to pay for rent? How do I afford my groceries this month? How do I pay for my car? How do I pay for my phone? You want to just focus on your mission." (Maggie Steffens, U.S. Olympic athlete)
I don’t buy the self-serving argument below:
"Imagine if the IOC were to organize the Olympic Games on a for-profit business model. The event would be limited to those sports that generate the most significant revenues, and it would not involve athletes representing teams from 206 NOCs. It would not be Olympic Games as we know them. Yet, it is precisely the tremendous range of sports and the global provenance of the athletes that distinguish the Olympic Games from other events and make them so successful. The Olympic Games are the only event that brings the entire world together in peaceful competition.”
What do you think? Is there a middle ground? Should the status quo be changed?
Now that you’ve read today’s blog, why not take what you’ve learned and play today’s matching quiz on your Quizefy app? Many of the answers can be found right here. We publish an on-trend, hint-filled blog at www.quizefy.com every Tuesday, along with a matching quiz in your Quizefy app. We think they’re a great combination and a great way to Strut Your Smart.