Gold for Gold: World Athletics and Olympic Prize Money

Timeline

1. Feb 2020A Global Athlete survey of 491 elite athletes finds 58% do not consider themselves financially stable.
2. Apr 10, 2024World Athletics announces $50,000 for each Paris gold medallist, with silver and bronze to follow at LA28.
3. Apr 19, 2024ASOIF says it was not consulted and that prize money undermines Olympic values; World Athletics responds.
4. Apr 27, 2024The Association of National Olympic Committees says the decision threatens Olympic solidarity.
5. May 2024IBA announces its own prize money for Olympic boxing medallists; the IOC questions where the money comes from.
6. Aug 2024Athletics events run at the Paris Olympics.

The ethical issues

• Whether athletes deserve a direct share of the revenue their performances generate.
• Fairness between rich and poor sports, and between winners and other athletes.
• Whether a federation should act alone on an issue that affects the whole Olympic system.
• The legacy of amateurism in Olympic rules.
• Whether prize money could increase incentives to cheat.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Olympic champions in athletics	Direct reward for winning.
Athletes who do not win medals	Basic financial support to train and compete.
Other international federations	Their own budgets, development work and athletes' expectations.
National Olympic committees	Control over national medal bonuses and solidarity funding.
The IOC	The model of redistributing revenue through federations and committees.
World Athletics	Athlete support, its reputation and the sport's profile.

The case

For more than a century, Olympic champions have been rewarded with a medal, not a check, at least from the Games themselves. On April 10, 2024, World Athletics broke with that tradition. It announced that every gold medallist in its 48 events at the Paris Olympics would receive US$50,000, and that silver and bronze medallists would be paid at the 2028 Los Angeles Games.^[1] Athletes cheered. Other Olympic federations and national Olympic committees objected, saying the move threatened the solidarity that holds the Olympic system together. The dispute raised a basic question: who should benefit from the money the Games make?

Background

The IOC does not pay prize money. Because the modern Olympics began as an amateur event, it distributes its revenue instead through international federations and national Olympic committees, which fund competitions, development and athletes.^[2] The national committees’ association says the IOC redistributes more than 90% of its revenue to the Olympic Movement, which helps narrow the gap between richer and poorer countries and pays for athletes from all 206 national committees to take part.^[4] Some national committees pay their own medal bonuses; the British Olympic Association does not.^[2]

Many athletes, meanwhile, struggle financially. In a 2020 survey by the advocacy group Global Athlete, 58% of 491 elite athletes from 48 countries said they did not consider themselves financially stable, and 57% said the IOC should pay athletes to attend its events.^[6][7] One respondent wrote: “Paycheck depends on how I preform at a major championships once every 2-4 years.”^[6]

The rules and governance

World Athletics receives a share of IOC revenue every four years. It said that since 2015 it had put all of that money back into the sport, including an Olympic “dividend” to its member federations of an extra $5 million a year.^[1] For Paris, it ring-fenced $2.4 million of its IOC share for prize money. Payment would depend on the federation’s ratification process, including athletes clearing the usual anti-doping procedures. Relay teams would share one $50,000 award.^[1] No Olympic rule prevented the move, but it was a unilateral decision by one federation in a system built on shared revenue.

The announcement

World Athletics president Sebastian Coe called it “a pivotal moment” and “the continuation of a journey we started back in 2015.” He said: “While it is impossible to put a marketable value on winning an Olympic medal, or on the commitment and focus it takes to even represent your country at an Olympic Games, I think it is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes at the Olympic Games are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is.”^[1] The move was widely praised by former athletes.^[2]

The backlash

On April 19 the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), of which World Athletics is a member, said it had been “neither informed nor consulted.” It argued: “One cannot and should not put a price on an Olympic gold medal. … Not all sports could or should replicate this move, even if they wanted to. Paying prize money in a multi-sport environment goes against the principle of solidarity, reinforces a different set of values across the sports and opens up many questions.” It said the more commercially successful federations should invest Olympic revenue “as a priority into development and integrity matters.”^[2][3]

Others joined in. David Lappartient, president of cycling’s governing body, the UCI, said the decision went against the Olympic spirit. Andy Anson, head of the British Olympic Association, said he did not think it was “particularly appropriate or helpful” and warned of a two-tier Olympics.^[2] On April 27 the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC) said that while it supported recognizing athletes, the decision “threatens to undermine the principles of Olympic solidarity that sit at the heart of the Olympic Movement,” and that prize money should remain a national matter for committees and governments.^[4]

World Athletics responds

World Athletics replied that the award was about “recognising the critical role” athletes play. It said all the money it received every four years from the IOC, about $40 million, went back into the sport, and that 80% of all its income was returned to the sport.^[2]

Aftermath

In May the International Boxing Association (IBA), stripped of IOC recognition in 2023 after failing to meet reforms, said it would pay $100,000 to Olympic boxing champions, $50,000 for silver and $25,000 for bronze, even though it would not run the Olympic tournament. The IOC said: “As always with the IBA, it is unclear where the money is coming from.”^[5] World Athletics’ commitment to all three medallists at LA28 stood, with the format to be announced nearer the Games.^[1] This case does not report the final Paris payouts, which were subject to ratification.

The core dilemma

Athletes generate the spectacle that earns the Olympics its revenue, yet many cannot support themselves, and the Games pay them nothing directly. World Athletics found a way to return some money to the athletes who win. But it acted alone, rewarded only the winners, and set an example that poorer sports cannot follow. Should a federation that can pay its champions do so, or should it protect a system built on sharing?

Competing values

• Reward vs. solidarity: paying those who produce the spectacle against sharing revenue across sports and countries.
• Excellence vs. need: rewarding champions against supporting the many who struggle to train.
• Autonomy vs. consultation: a federation’s right to use its money against its duties to peers.
• Olympic ideal vs. professional reality: the amateur tradition against the commercial Games.

Strongest arguments

For prize money. The Olympics earn enormous revenue from athletes’ performances, and the amateur ideal has long been a myth. Paying champions recognizes the labor behind the spectacle, gives athletes a direct share and sets a precedent that others may follow. World Athletics used its own IOC share, protected other spending, and tied payments to anti-doping clearance.

Against. Prize money for a few winners does little for most athletes, who need steady support. It creates inequality among sports, since only richer federations can afford it, and it pressures others to follow or look stingy. Acting without consultation weakened trust in a system meant to share resources, and some argued that money could raise incentives to cheat.

For a different design. One could accept that athletes deserve a share of Olympic revenue but argue that it should be paid more widely, such as stipends for all qualifiers, pension or insurance support, or funding through national committees, and agreed collectively.

Applying the frameworks

Justice and fairness

Distributive justice asks how benefits should be shared. The case pits a desert principle (reward those who win) against a need principle (support those who struggle) and a solidarity principle (help weaker sports and countries). Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether one would be a champion, a fourth-place finisher or an athlete from a small federation, one might prefer broad support over a winner’s bonus, while still wanting athletes to receive a fair share.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian would weigh the benefits to a few dozen champions and the symbolic value to all athletes against the costs to solidarity, the pressure on other federations and possible risks to integrity. If prize money spurs broader reforms that help many athletes, the long-term balance could be positive; if it widens gaps between sports, it could be negative.

Rights

A rights lens focuses on athletes as workers with a claim to share in the value they create, and with a voice in decisions about them. The Global Athlete survey shows how few athletes feel fairly paid or represented. This lens supports World Athletics’ direction, while asking why athletes were not part of the decision and why their rights depend on a federation’s choice.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You lead an international federation with surplus Olympic revenue. Stakeholders include your athletes, both winners and others, member federations, other sports, national committees, the IOC and fans. The codes in play are the Olympic Charter, your federation’s rules and anti-doping regulations.
2. Gather facts. How much revenue do you receive and how is it spent now? What do athletes say they need? How would other federations and national committees be affected? Watch for bias: a bold announcement can be good publicity, which may cloud judgment about its effects.
3. Test options. Pay gold medallists; pay all medallists; fund broad athlete support such as stipends or insurance; or push for a collective scheme through the IOC. Run each through fairness, consequences and athletes’ rights.
4. Check codes and law. Confirm the plan fits Olympic rules and your own regulations, and build in integrity safeguards such as anti-doping clearance.
5. Decide and document. Explain your reasoning and the trade-offs. Consult athletes, peers and national committees before announcing, even if not required.
6. Communicate and follow up. Publish the amounts, conditions and sources of funds, report whether the money was paid, and measure whether athletes’ financial situation improves.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled

• World Athletics announced on April 10, 2024, that Paris gold medallists would receive $50,000, funded from $2.4 million of its IOC revenue share, with LA28 payments to silver and bronze medallists.
• ASOIF said it was not informed or consulted, and ANOC said the move threatened Olympic solidarity.
• The IBA announced its own prize money for Olympic boxing medallists, and the IOC questioned its source of funds.

Contested

• Whether prize money honors athletes or undermines Olympic values.
• Whether paying only winners is the best use of federation revenue.
• Whether other federations will or should follow.

Why this case matters

The Olympic prize money debate is about the myth of amateurism and who owns the value of the Games. It shows that a step forward for some athletes can look like a threat to others in a shared system, and that how a decision is made, including whether peers and athletes are consulted, matters along with what it decides.

Key terms

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Myth of amateurism

The critique that athletes generate large revenues without the pay or labor protections other workers have. Tested by justice, consent and dignity.

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Veil of ignorance

Rawls’s test for fair rules: design the policy as if you did not know which position you would end up in.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should Olympic athletes receive a direct share of the revenue the Games generate? Who should pay it?
2. Is paying only gold medallists fair to athletes who finish fourth, or those who cannot afford to train?
3. ASOIF said it was 'neither informed nor consulted.' Did World Athletics owe its peers consultation before acting?
4. Does prize money change the meaning of an Olympic medal?
5. If you were designing support for Olympic athletes behind a veil of ignorance, what would it look like?

Sources

1. World Athletics introduces prize money for Olympic gold medallists — World Athletics
2. 2024 Olympic Games: Federations critical of World Athletics prize money — BBC Sport
3. ASOIF statement on World Athletics' decision to award prize money at the Olympics — ASOIF
4. ANOC Statement on World Athletics' decision to award prize money at the Olympic Games — ANOC
5. Prize money on offer for boxing Olympic medallists — BBC Sport
6. Survey finds Olympic, elite athletes struggling financially — Associated Press (The Seattle Times)
7. Global Athlete Survey Results: Athlete Rights, Welfare and Representation — Global Athlete