On Saturday, World Athletics announced a cash prize of $50,000 (approx Rs 41.6 lakh) for each gold medal winner at the Paris Olympics. Here’s why this development is deemed historic for the Summer Games.

When a track and field athlete stands atop the Olympic podium in Paris this summer, a gold medal will not be their sole reward. For the first time, they will also receive a monetary prize.

On Saturday, World Athletics unveiled a cash reward of $50,000 (approx Rs 41.6 lakh) for each gold medal winner at the Paris Olympics, commencing on July 26. Additionally, at the Los Angeles Games four years later, all three medalists will receive financial incentives alongside their medals, as announced by the global body.

With this decision, presided over by British track and field legend Sebastian Coe, World Athletics has partly dispelled a longstanding myth often romanticized about the Olympics – that athletes, unlike in other sports, are amateurs.

Shattering the amateur image
In sports like tennis, football, or cricket, athletes are compensated for playing matches and rewarded with substantial bonuses and cash prizes based on their performances. Olympic athletes, however, are held to a higher standard and expected to uphold the traditional ethos of competing for the ‘spirit’ of the Games. This concept was espoused by Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympics, who deemed amateurism as essential to the Olympic movement.

For half a century, this notion persisted. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) even penalized athletes caught receiving money. A notable example is that of the USA’s Jim Thorpe, a pentathlete and decathlete stripped of his gold medals in 1912 after it emerged he had received nominal payments from a baseball player two years prior to the Olympics.

Over time, the IOC gradually relaxed its stance on athletes not receiving compensation for their Olympic endeavors. The shift began in 1971 when allegations surfaced that the Soviets financially supported their athletes, and by the 1992 Olympics, the concept was largely abandoned after the USA fielded its ‘Dream Team’ – some of the world’s highest-paid athletes competing in a professional league.

Yet, to this day, Olympic athletes do not receive direct payment for participation or success at the Games, unless it’s from sponsors or their respective governments. This has been a contentious issue for some time.

How federations are funded
It has long been argued that while nearly everyone else involved in the Olympic movement profits, the primary actors – the athletes themselves – remain unpaid for their contributions. Even Olympic executives – from the IOC president to members and executive board officials – earn between $450 to $900 per day while on official business.

The IOC claims to redistribute 90 percent of its revenue back into sport. However, a report by Inside The Games suggested that only a fraction of this reaches athletes, with a significant portion distributed among international federations and other IOC operations.

International Federations are categorized into different groups based on their performance at the Games, with revenue allocated accordingly.

For instance, according to a 2019 report from the Olympic watchdog website Play The Game, athletics, gymnastics, and aquatics were in Group A and entitled to $40 million each from the IOC. The lowest category, Group E, included golf, modern pentathlon, and rugby, receiving $14.10 million each.

More than 50 percent of these federations rely on IOC funding to sustain basic operations, leaving minimal funds for athlete rewards.

Giving athletes their due
The majority of India’s athletes rely on government jobs for income to support their sporting careers.

Following the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) awarded Rs 75 lakh to gold medal winners, Rs 40 lakh to silver medalists, and Rs 25 lakh to bronze medalists.

Before the Tokyo Games, NBC reported that over half of the USA’s Olympic hopefuls – 59 percent – earned ‘less than $25,000 during the year of their respective Olympics,’ whether Winter or Summer Games.

Although most federations may not afford such payouts, given they lack the resources of bodies like World Athletics, this move signals a positive change.

As Neeraj Chopra remarked, “In athletics, there isn’t the kind of money that exists in tennis or football. World Athletics’ decision to introduce prize money for gold-winning athletes at the Paris Olympics is a step in the right direction. It’s a positive addition.”