★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ IOC AND ATHLETE PAY ≡
Given that she was a five-time swimming Olympian from 2000 to 2016 and Chair of the International Olympic Committee’s Athletes’ Commission from 2018 to 2021, IOC President Kirsty Coventry’s biggest fans should be other Olympic athletes.
But her comments to SportNationNZ commentator Alex Chapman in a 22 May post have created a firestorm, particularly:
“I don’t believe in paying athletes and I come from a small country. I came from a sport that doesn’t necessarily pay athletes very well and I still don’t believe we should be paying athletes at the Olympic Games.
“Now I do think we should find more ways to directly impact athletes and find ways to directly help them on their journey to become Olympians, while they’re Olympians and as they’re finding ways into their new career transition.”
Coventry posted a follow-up on the IOC Athlete365 Instagram page on 28 May, explaining:
“I have always said that I don’t believe in paying athletes prize money at the Olympic Games, as this would benefit only a very small number of athletes.
“I do believe our role as the IOC is to find ways to directly support a large number of athletes on their journey to becoming Olympians, at the Olympics and as they transition into life after sport.”
Multiple Olympic stars, including star swimmers Cam McEvoy (AUS) and South Africa’s Roland Schoeman both panned Coventry’s stance and demanded that Olympians be paid, including prize money.
Chapman pressed Coventry on Olympians not being paid and Coventry replied, “They get beautiful venues, they get beautiful villages, they get a beautiful experience and all of that comes from the money that we raise.”
What she’s saying in her own way, is that the IOC, with billions in revenue from television rights sales and sponsorships, spends most of its money to put on the Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games and the Youth Olympic Games.
A check of the IOC’s financial statements will show that’s true.
¶
To its credit, the IOC releases detailed annual financial statements, which offer a clear indication of where it spends the money it takes in. Because the one-year postponement of the Tokyo 2020 Games skews the numbers, let’s look at the eight-year period from 2017 to 2024.
● 2017: $661 million IOC revenue
● 2017: $449 million (67.9%) spent on Games support-Int’l Federations-National Olympic Committees-Olympic Solidarity (athletes, coaching, NOC support)
● 2018: $2.206 billion revenue ~ Winter Games
● 2018: $1.577 billion (71.5%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2019: $695 million revenue
● 2019: $405 million (58.3%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2020: $624 million revenue
● 2020: $425 million (68.1%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2021: $4.162 billion revenue ~ Olympic Games
● 2021: $2.895 billion (69.6%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2022: $2.363 billion revenue ~ Winter Games
● 2022: $1.702 billion (72.0%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2023: $902 million revenue
● 2023: $490 million (54.3%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 2024: $4.415 billion revenue ~ Olympic Games
● 2024: $2.976 billion (67.4%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
● 8-year totals: $11.842 billion revenue
● 8-year totals: $8.063 billion (68.1%) spent on Games-IF-NOC-Solidarity
So, to expand Coventry’s comment on venues and experiences, the IOC spent 68 cents of every dollars it took in to put on its Olympic Games, sending the money to organizing committees, International Federations (a majority of whom are deeply reliant for survival on the IOC’s payments), National Olympic Committees and on Olympic Solidarity, which paid $17.6 million to athletes via Olympic Scholarships in 2024 alone (see, the IOC does pay athletes!).
The remaining 31.9% of the IOC’s revenue go to smaller areas, such as promotion of the Olympic Movement (mostly the Olympic Channel and digital programming), special projects, grants, administration (averaging 9.1% of revenues over the eight years) and to reserves ($4.880 billion total at the end of 2024).
So, could Coventry take the IOC along the path she cleared, and pay – let’s call it an honorarium – a set fee to all Olympians, starting in 2028? Let’s run the numbers:
● About 10,500 athletes in the Olympic Games
● About 3,000 athletes in the Winter Games
● $10,000 x 13,500 athletes for Olympic appearance = $135 million
● $10,000 x 13,500 athletes for Olympics + 1 more year = $270 million
● $10,000 x 13,500 athletes for Olympics + 3 more years = $540 million
Can the IOC pay $135 million a year every year as honoraria to Olympians to (1) help with expenses and (2) help with a transition for retired athletes to go to the next step?
Such payments will pressure the IOC on its expenses in the non-Olympic years, but with NBC committed to $3 billion in broadcast rights fees for the 2034 Winter and 2036 Olympic Games, this is doable.
And it is the right time to do it. As our column back in July 2025 noted, the IOC can afford it and this expanded look at its finances shows that while 2/3rds of its revenue has to go to put on the Games, there is room to provide funding for those who make it to the Games, even for the year of the Games and for three years beyond.
In some countries, $10,000 is a lot of money. In others, not as much, but it still helps. And Coventry is the right one to do it, at least during her term in office. Beyond 2036, who knows, and as Coventry has noted, the IOC’s future health will be determined by how it navigates the brave new world of broadcasting and streaming.
¶
In my opinion, prize money is not the answer for the IOC. What today’s athletes forget is the history of the Games, going back to ancient Greece, where the city-states sent their champions to the Games and rewarded them, just as National Olympic Committees do today.
Athletes competing in Olympic Games do so once every four years. Why aren’t they earning big money from their world championships in the years in between? Much more attention should be paid to that than to the lack of prize money in the Olympics.
¶
Coventry has noted, quite correctly, the importance of staying relevant in today’s world. That means that people who do great things needs to be rewarded and an honorarium for Olympians will help maintain credibility for the Games and for the IOC. It’s just the way it is.
However, those who rail about how the big U.S. leagues – Major League Baseball, NFL, NBA and NHL – pay around half of their revenue to the athletes forget that compared to those operations, the IOC is a pauper.
A Wikipedia list of annual league revenues in 2025 showed the NFL at $19.88 billion – for one year – followed by MLB at $11.32 billion, then the NBA at $10.61 billion and the NHL at $5.88 billion. The IOC doesn’t touch any of those numbers.
So Coventry needs to be careful, but it is time to offer some money to those who get to the Olympic and Winter Games. That will mean, by the way, cutting some more sports, disciplines and events, for which future organizing committees will thank the IOC.
Rich Perelman
Editor
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 681-event International Sports Calendar for 2026 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
