Criticism of the IOC president after statement that she does not support paying Olympians
International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry has come under increased pressure after saying in an interview with New Zealand's Sport Nation that she does not believe in paying athletes at the Olympic Games. The statement opened one of the most sensitive debates in the contemporary Olympic movement: whether athletes, in addition to support through federations, scholarships and national programs, should also receive direct financial compensation for competing or winning a medal. According to Sport Nation, Coventry explained her position through her experience as an athlete from a smaller country and from a sport in which large earnings are not common, but she stressed that she still does not believe Olympians should be paid for competing at the Games. Reactions followed quickly, especially among former and current Olympians who warn that the costs of preparation, travel, expert teams and everyday life cannot be covered only by the symbolic status of an Olympic appearance. The debate gained additional weight because it is taking place at a time when Olympic sport is increasingly facing questions of commercial revenue, athletes' rights to their own image and name, and the growing gap between the most visible sports stars and competitors who finance their careers with the help of family, sponsors or their own work outside sport.
The statement that reopened the question of Olympic money
According to Sport Nation's report, during a visit to New Zealand Coventry spoke about the future of the Olympic Games and the plan for the Olympic movement to adapt to new circumstances. In that context, she said the Games need to evolve, but emphasized that direct payment of athletes is not the direction she supports. She stated that the International Olympic Committee must seek more ways to help athletes directly on their journey to the Olympic Games, during their performance and in the period after the end of their careers. As examples of such assistance, she mentioned talent identification, scholarships and the transition from a sporting career to a professional career after the competitive peak. According to Sport Nation, Coventry also recalled her own experience as a beneficiary of the Olympic Solidarity program, stressing that without such support she might not have achieved the same results.
After the criticism, according to Swimming World Magazine, Coventry tried to clarify that in the interview she had meant cash prizes for Olympic medals, not every type of support for athletes. In a post through the Athlete365 channel, she stated that at the moment of answering she did not repeat the expression "cash prizes" and described that as her own mistake. At the same time, she repeated the position that she does not believe in awarding Olympic money for medals because, according to her explanation, such a model would benefit a relatively small number of athletes. She added that she sees the IOC's role in more direct and broader support for a large number of competitors, from preparations for the Games to life after the end of their careers. In doing so, she tried to redirect the debate from the question of prizes for winners to the question of long-term funding for athletes, but the reactions of part of the Olympic community showed that the problem is not seen only as a misunderstanding over wording.
Athletes warn that Olympic status does not pay the bills
The criticism resonated particularly strongly among swimmers and track and field athletes, athletes who know well the difference between the global visibility of an Olympic appearance and real income during most of a career. Australian media reported the reaction of former Australian swimmer Leisel Jones, a four-time Olympian and multiple medal winner, who said that Olympic fame does not cover the cost of living. According to AdelaideNow, Jones warned that many athletes enter an Olympic cycle with debts and high private expenses, and that under conditions of rising prices it is increasingly difficult to recommend to young people that they invest years in an Olympic dream without clearer financial support. Her statement attracted attention because it comes from an athlete who herself achieved top results in a system that often relies on the personal sacrifice of competitors. Such reactions show that the debate is not only about top professionals with large sponsorship contracts, but also about a large number of athletes whose public recognition appears only briefly, during the Olympic cycle.
Swimming World Magazine also cited the reaction of Australian swimmer Cameron McEvoy, Olympic champion and world record holder in the 50-meter freestyle, who assessed that direct payments would be reasonable given the financial strength of the Olympic system. According to the same source, McEvoy proposed a model under which Olympians would receive compensation for competing, and medal winners additional amounts for gold, silver and bronze. Such a proposal is not an official model nor part of IOC policy, but it shows how some athletes think about the distribution of revenue from an event in which they themselves are the main content. In these comments, the argument appears increasingly often that the Olympic movement must distinguish general support for sport from direct recognition of the work of athletes who create the value of the largest global sporting event.
The IOC defends the model of solidarity and broader distribution of revenue
The International Olympic Committee has been explaining its financial model for years through the principle of solidarity. According to the IOC's official data, the organization is non-profit and directs more than 90 percent of its revenue back into the Olympic movement, including Games organizing committees, international federations, national Olympic committees and sport development programs. The IOC states that through such a system millions of US dollars are distributed daily to support athletes and sports organizations at different levels. For the cycle from 2025 to 2028, official IOC documents cite an Olympic Solidarity budget of 650 million US dollars, which is an increase compared with the previous four-year period. Coventry cites precisely that program as an example of a system that can help athletes from smaller countries and less commercialized sports.
The IOC's argument is based on the claim that direct payment for medals or appearances could change the balance within the Olympic movement. According to Sport Nation, Coventry warned that changing the entire model could lead to different priorities, a smaller number of sports or a smaller number of countries that would benefit from the Olympic system. That position starts from the idea that revenue should not be concentrated only on athletes who win medals, but should be directed toward broader infrastructure, qualification pathways, national federations and development programs. Critics, however, believe that these two goals do not have to be mutually exclusive. For them, the key question is why, alongside existing solidarity programs, a transparent form of direct compensation for athletes could not also be developed, especially when the IOC and its partners generate significant revenue from broadcasting rights, sponsorships and the global sale of the Olympic brand.
World Athletics has already broken Olympic tradition
The debate about direct payment of Olympians did not begin with Kirsty Coventry's statement. In 2024, World Athletics announced that it would pay Olympic champions in athletics at the Paris Games 50,000 US dollars each, with a total fund of 2.4 million dollars for 48 events. According to the official World Athletics announcement, the money was secured from the share of revenue that the federation receives from the IOC, and the plan is for the model to be expanded to silver and bronze medal winners at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games. That made athletics the first international federation to introduce a direct cash prize for winners at the Olympic level. World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said at the time that part of the revenue created by athletes should be returned to those who make the Games a global spectacle.
That move opened a new chapter in relations between international federations and the IOC. On the one hand, World Athletics argues that sport must adapt to a time in which top competitors have ever greater preparation costs and an ever clearer commercial value. On the other hand, some Olympic officials and national committees warn that different rules by sport could create inequality among Olympians. An athlete in athletics who wins gold can receive an award from his or her international federation, while an athlete in another Olympic sport may receive nothing from his or her federation or state for the same competitive success. Precisely that difference is one of the reasons why a broader and clearer debate is increasingly being sought about what fair compensation means in the Olympic system.
Rights to the name, image and commercial value of athletes
A special layer of the debate concerns the use of competitors' names, images and sporting identities. According to Sport Nation, criticism of the IOC also includes the question of why athletes do not receive direct compensation when their image and sporting achievements are used to promote the Games and the Olympic brand. In American college sports, changes have been introduced in recent years that allow student athletes to earn from their own name, image and likeness, which has further strengthened expectations that international sport should also define its position more clearly toward the commercial rights of competitors. The Olympic model is not directly comparable with the American college system, but both cases show that traditional understandings of amateurism and representing institutions are increasingly difficult to maintain without a discussion of revenue. For athletes, the question of whether they can generate income during the shortest and most visible part of their careers that will allow them to continue training and live after the competitive period is particularly important.
The IOC and national Olympic committees often point out that through the Games athletes receive an exceptional platform, accommodation, organizational conditions, medical and logistical support, and global visibility that they would find difficult to achieve outside the Olympic framework. According to Sport Nation, Coventry spoke precisely about the fact that athletes receive Olympic villages, venues and an experience financed from the revenue collected by the IOC. Opponents of such an interpretation do not dispute the value of the Olympic experience, but warn that experience cannot be equated with income. Their argument is that an Olympic appearance can be the peak of a career, but also a financially risky project if an athlete has no stable income for years while having to pay for equipment, expert support, recovery, nutrition and travel. For that reason, the question of compensation is less and less reduced to "paying for medals", and increasingly to the sustainability of an entire career.
Coventry under pressure at the beginning of her presidential term
According to the IOC's official profile, Kirsty Coventry was elected as the organization's tenth president on March 20, 2025, at the session in Costa Navarino, Greece, and she succeeded Thomas Bach in the position. The IOC states that she is the first woman and the first African woman at the head of the Olympic movement, and her sporting biography includes seven Olympic medals for Zimbabwe. Precisely because of such sporting experience, some critics believe that her words resonated more strongly than they would have if they had come from an official without an Olympic career. From a former top athlete, many expected a more sensitive public appearance on the financial problems of competitors, even if she does not agree with direct prizes for medals. In her clarification, Coventry emphasized that as a former athlete she is committed to finding more ways to provide direct support to competitors, but for now she has not announced a concrete new model that would satisfy demands for more transparent compensation.
The pressure comes at a time when the IOC is simultaneously trying to preserve the global breadth of the Olympic program, reduce the costs of organizing the Games and maintain the appeal of the Olympic brand in competition with other sports and entertainment formats. According to Al Jazeera, some athletes warn that alternative competitions with large cash prizes can become attractive to those who feel financially neglected in the traditional system, although such projects carry serious sporting and ethical disputes. This does not mean that the Olympic model is immediately threatened, but it shows that the question of money is no longer a marginal topic. Athletes are increasingly openly demanding that they not be viewed only as representatives of national flags and Olympic values, but also as workers in a global sports industry whose work creates measurable economic value.
A debate that will continue toward Los Angeles 2028
Until the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games, the question of paying athletes will probably remain one of the main topics in relations between the IOC, international federations and athletes. World Athletics has already announced the expansion of its prize model to silver and bronze medals, while other sports and national committees do not yet have a unified approach. Some countries traditionally pay their own medal bonuses, some rely on scholarships and support, and some athletes depend on private sponsors or work outside sport. Such inconsistency means that Olympians with the same result can end up in completely different financial positions, depending on the sport, country, sponsorship market and rules of their federation. Precisely because of this, more and more voices are calling for the debate not to be reduced to the question of whether the "Olympic dream" should be paid for, but to how the revenue that turns that dream every four years into one of the most watched sporting events in the world should be distributed more fairly.
For the IOC, the challenge is to find a model that will not undermine solidarity programs, but will at the same time convincingly respond to the arguments of athletes who warn that broad distribution of revenue does not necessarily mean sufficient support for the individuals who compete at the Games. For athletes, the challenge is to align demands for direct compensation with the need to preserve the accessibility of Olympic sport for countries and disciplines that cannot survive solely on market revenue. Kirsty Coventry's statement has therefore become more than an isolated communication problem. It has opened the question of the credibility of the Olympic movement at a time when athletes are required to prepare at a professional level, while their financial security is often left to unevenly developed national systems and personal resourcefulness.
Sources:
- Sport Nation NZ – interview with Kirsty Coventry about paying athletes (link)
- IOC – official profile of Kirsty Coventry (link)
- IOC – official funding data (link)
- IOC – Olympic Solidarity budget 2025-2028 (link)
- World Athletics – prize money for Olympic gold in athletics (link)
- Swimming World Magazine – athletes' reactions and Coventry's clarification (link)
- Al Jazeera – overview of Olympians' criticism (link)
- AdelaideNow – reaction of Leisel Jones (link)