New IOC president rejects the idea of direct payment for Olympians: “I do not believe in paying athletes”
Kirsty Coventry, president of the International Olympic Committee and former Zimbabwean swimmer with a total of seven Olympic medals, has reopened one of the most sensitive debates in world sport: should Olympians be paid directly for competing at the Olympic Games. In an interview with SportNationNZ, she stated that she “does not believe in paying athletes” at the Olympic Games, clearly indicating that under her leadership the IOC is not, for now, moving toward a model of direct compensation for appearances themselves or for medals.
The statement resonated because it comes from a president who was herself a top-level athlete for years, an Olympic champion and a member of bodies that dealt with the position of competitors within the Olympic system. Coventry was elected head of the IOC in March 2025 at the organisation’s 144th Session in Greece, and took office in June of the same year. According to the IOC announcement, she became the organisation’s tenth president, the first woman and the first African woman in that position.
The debate about paying Olympians is not new, but in recent years it has intensified because of the growth in revenue from television rights, sponsorships and commercial programmes connected with the Games. In its financial publications, the IOC stresses that, as a non-profit organisation, it returns most of its revenue to sport, national Olympic committees, international federations and development programmes. Critics, however, argue that such a model does not directly enough solve the financial problems of a large number of athletes, especially those who do not come from commercially strong sports or wealthy sporting systems.
An old question in a new Olympic cycle
Coventry’s statement comes at a time when the Olympic movement is preparing for the Los Angeles 2028 Games, and the question of money distribution is again gaining political and sporting weight. In principle, the IOC does not pay salaries to athletes for competing at the Olympic Games, nor does it award them cash prizes for medals won. The money Olympians receive mostly comes from other sources: national Olympic committees, state programmes, sponsorship contracts, clubs, scholarships, professional leagues or special support from sports federations.
Such a system was long justified by the idea that the Olympic Games are above all a competition of national teams and international sports federations, not a professional league with centralised contracts for athletes. But modern Olympic sport can no longer be viewed through the old image of amateurism. Many competitors train professionally throughout the year, travel to international competitions, pay for expert teams, equipment, medical care and preparations, and for some of them an Olympic appearance does not also mean financial security.
That is why the statement by the IOC president has a broader significance than a single interview. It shows that the top of the Olympic movement still approaches cautiously the idea that the organiser of the Games should directly pay athletes. At the same time, the IOC seeks to emphasise that support for athletes does not necessarily have to mean a direct salary, but can be implemented through scholarship programmes, financing preparations, support for national committees and investment in the development of sport.
The IOC highlights a model of indirect support
According to official IOC information, the organisation claims that every day it distributes the equivalent of 4.7 million US dollars to support athletes and sports organisations around the world. The IOC presents such distribution as the foundation of its financial model: revenue from the Olympic Games, above all from television rights and marketing programmes, is returned to the Olympic movement through international federations, national Olympic committees and development programmes.
A particularly important part of that system is Olympic Solidarity, a programme whose aim is to help national Olympic committees, athletes, coaches and sporting structures in countries with fewer resources. According to the Olympic Solidarity plan for the period from 2025 to 2028, a budget of 650 million US dollars has been approved for development and assistance, which the IOC describes as a ten percent increase compared with the previous four-year period. The programme includes scholarships for athletes preparing for the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, but also programmes for coaches, administrators and the development of sports systems.
From the IOC’s perspective, such support has an advantage because it is not directed only toward medal winners or the most visible names, but toward the broader Olympic ecosystem. This is especially important for countries where athletes depend on national federations, public funds and international support programmes. But this is precisely where the central criticism opens up: money passes through several levels of sporting institutions, while the athlete often does not receive direct, predictable and transparent compensation for the value created by competing at the Games.
Athletics has already broken through the boundary of Olympic tradition
The biggest shift in this debate occurred ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, when World Athletics announced that it would pay gold medal winners in athletics 50,000 US dollars each. According to the official World Athletics announcement, a prize fund of 2.4 million US dollars was set aside for that purpose, intended for winners in 48 athletics disciplines. The federation also announced its intention to extend the prize system to silver and bronze medals at the Los Angeles 2028 Games.
That decision was historic because athletics became the first sport to introduce cash prizes for Olympic medals from its own share of Olympic revenue. World Athletics president Sebastian Coe at the time presented the decision as recognition of the role of athletes in creating the value of the Olympic Games. The IOC, according to agency reports, was not consulted before the announcement, but the system of Olympic financing allows international federations to decide independently how they will use the funds they receive from Olympic revenue.
Coventry’s statement can therefore also be read as a message that the IOC does not want to take on the role of a central payer to athletes, even if individual international federations decide to take a different path. This opens the possibility of an uneven system: athletes in some sports could receive direct awards from their federations, while athletes in other disciplines would remain dependent on national programmes, scholarships or private sponsors. Such development could deepen the differences between sports with large revenues and those that have less commercial strength.
Why the statement is especially sensitive
Kirsty Coventry is not merely an administrative official commenting on the position of athletes from the outside. As a Zimbabwean swimmer, she competed at five Olympic Games, from Sydney 2000 to Rio 2016, won two Olympic gold medals in the 200 metres backstroke and a total of seven Olympic medals. According to her IOC profile, she was also chair of the IOC Athletes’ Commission, which gives her views on financing competitors additional weight.
Precisely because of such a biography, part of the public expects from her a stronger emphasis on the direct rights of athletes. Her supporters, however, can argue that she knows the reality of the Olympic system well and is trying to preserve a model in which money is not concentrated only on the most successful and most visible individuals. The core of the current debate lies in that tension between individual compensation and systematic support.
The problem is also that Olympic sport brings together very different professional realities. Basketball players, tennis players, footballers or golfers often have income from professional competitions and sponsorships regardless of their Olympic appearance. On the other hand, athletes in shooting, rowing, wrestling, gymnastics, judo, swimming or athletics often depend on scholarships, public programmes, club contracts and occasional awards. A single rule on payment would therefore have very different effects, depending on the sport, country and market value of an individual competitor.
IOC finances under scrutiny
According to official IOC documents and announcements, the Olympic system generates revenue almost incomparable with most other sporting events. In reports on the 2021–2024 financial cycle, the IOC cited strong growth in commercial revenue, and the organisation regularly stresses that it returns around 90 percent of revenue to sport and the development of the Olympic movement. Such a claim is an important part of the defence of the existing model because the IOC does not present itself as an organisation that retains profit, but as a body that redistributes money.
Still, the question is not only how much money is returned to sport, but in what way and to whom exactly. When paying athletes is discussed, critics do not necessarily dispute development programmes, but seek a clearer mechanism by which athletes competing on the biggest stage would receive a direct share in the value they create. It is particularly emphasised that the Olympic Games would not have the same commercial appeal without the competitors, their stories, results and the risks they take during preparations and performances.
On the other hand, the IOC and national committees warn that direct payment of all Olympians could open a series of practical and political questions. Should every participant receive the same amount or should payment be based on results? Should awards be equal in all sports? How can it be avoided that wealthier sporting systems further strengthen their advantage? Who would control payments and tax consequences in different countries? Precisely because of such questions, the Olympic movement has so far given priority to scholarships and institutional distribution, rather than a central payment model.
Los Angeles 2028 could increase the pressure
The Los Angeles 2028 Games will be a particularly important test for this debate. The American sports market is accustomed to professional leagues, collective agreements, sponsorship revenue and the increasing commercialisation of athletes, including the ever more pronounced possibility of monetising personal name, image and popularity. In such an environment, the Olympic model without direct payment could be exposed to additional criticism.
World Athletics has already announced the expansion of cash prizes to silver and bronze medals in Los Angeles, which means that at least one major international federation will continue developing a different approach. If other federations join, the IOC will face the question of whether it should standardise the rules or allow each sport to go its own way. If, however, most federations do not join, the differences among athletes could become even more visible.
For Coventry, who is at the beginning of an eight-year mandate, this is one of the issues on which her ability to balance tradition, financial sustainability and the increasingly vocal demands of athletes will be measured. Her statement does not mean that the debate will end; on the contrary, it is more likely that it will open it further. In an Olympic movement that relies more and more on global media revenue and major sponsors, the question of who creates value and who benefits directly from it will remain one of the key questions until Los Angeles 2028 and beyond.
Sources:
- International Olympic Committee – official profile of Kirsty Coventry and information about her role in the IOC (link)
- International Olympic Committee – announcement on Kirsty Coventry’s election as IOC president in 2025 (link)
- International Olympic Committee – official information on funding and revenue distribution in the Olympic movement (link)
- Olympic Solidarity – development and assistance plan for the 2025–2028 period with programme budget (link)
- World Athletics – official announcement on the introduction of prize money for Olympic winners in athletics (link)
- Associated Press – report on the World Athletics decision and the context of Olympic prize money (link)