The idea that Olympic athletes shouldn’t receive a fair share of revenue because of moral and quasi-religious beliefs engrained more than a century ago is bizarre, argues Matt Readman.
The 33rd Summer Olympic Games will be the very first to include prize money after Lord Coe, the president of World Athletics, made the decision to award track and field athletes $50,000 for winning gold.
By modern sporting standards the size of the prize is not significant, but the giving of it certainly is. Make no mistake; this is the beginning, not the end, of the matter. It’s hard to see how other Olympic federations won’t be forced to follow suit and is probably why many have responded so angrily.
They are not the only ones who’ll line up against this move. You yourself might feel uneasy at the idea of Olympians being paid.
In sport there is an irrational belief that if you’re paid to compete it somehow matters less. I say irrational because we don’t hold those standards to other professions. Knowing a doctor is being paid doesn’t affect your trust in their attentiveness – in fact the opposite is probably true. So where does this righteousness come from with sport?
If you’re thinking it hails back to Ancient Greece and Mount Olympus then you’re mistaken (or at least partly). It’s true that in the Ancient Olympics athletes competed for honour and a laurel wreath but this was not the norm for other Games.
The term athlete literally comes from the Greek words “athlos”, meaning “contest”, and “athlon”, meaning “prize.” Not only did Greek athletes win trophies and wealth but some even had sponsors and agents.
The real reason for this belief lies much closer to home. In fact, it was on show the last time Paris hosted the Games 100 years ago.
Those who remember Hugh Hudson’s Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire may also be aware of both the strong Christian and class values surrounding the Olympics at this time. Famously, in 1924 sprinter Eric Liddell refused to run on the Sabbath, but the entire Olympic movement was then still heavily influenced by the “Muscular Christian” values of its founder Pierre de Coubertin.
The modern Games were a celebration of morality as much as physicality. A core principle of this moral code was the idea of the amateur athlete and a fierce stance against any form of professionalism.
But the concept of an amateur athlete is inherently paradoxical. As mentioned, athlete means to contest for a prize, whereas the etymology of “amateur” relates to a love of doing something.
What’s stranger still is that this amateur ethic lingers on today. After all, we don’t see many other Victorian values as relevant in 2024.
Not only is the amateur athlete contradictory and archaic but it also has strong religious connotations. The connection between piety and poverty is a specifically Christian trope, not one of pagan Ancient Greece.
The Olympics is not the only sporting event where the amateur athlete still exists or where money causes contention. College sports in the US and the Ryder Cup are two other famous examples where it’s argued that the absence of money makes the events more unique or special.
When athletes like Patrick Cantlay at the Ryder Cup question not being paid, they are pilloried and seen as somehow debasing the whole event. Yet if we remove the Victorian-tinted glasses, these are all straightforward examples of athlete exploitation.
Cantlay’s argument quite simply was that people are profiting hugely from his skill without any personal remuneration. His point is that if you want the event to be amateur, make the whole thing amateur: sell tickets at cost, have no corporate sponsors or broadcast deals.
World Athletics boss Seb Coe has sparked the debate about prize money for Olympic athletes
The same argument can be laid at the gates of the International Olympic Committee headquarters in Lausanne.
The IOC executive management team were reportedly paid $13.95m in 2022. Meanwhile, the Paris Olympics has a revenue target of €1.24bn. There have already been criticisms of high ticket prices from locals in Paris.
The idea that athletes shouldn’t receive a fair share of revenue because of moral and quasi-religious beliefs engrained more than a century ago is bizarre.
As a sports fan, I do get it. I even need to check myself because I do occasionally feel an instinctive resentment for athletes who quibble over prize money. But that just goes to show how deeply this code is engrained.
It’s time for the rational brain to take over. These are not the beliefs of a modern, diverse and multi-ethnic society. These are the values of dusty old men consigned to the pages of history. The Olympics will be better not worse for offering fair rewards; it’s time for them to pay up.
Matt Readman is chief strategy officer at sports creative agency Dark Horses.