Kirsty Coventry has quickly taken a position in one of the most sensitive debates within the Olympic movement: whether athletes should be paid directly for participating in or winning at the Olympic Games. And her answer was clear: “No.” Staying true to her profile of being direct on the most sensitive issues, she did not avoid the question and was emphatic in making clear what the commitment of each international federation should be.
The president of the International Olympic Committee defended the continuation of the Olympic solidarity model in remarks reported by the New Zealand outlet ‘Sport Nation’, rejecting the introduction of direct payments to athletes. “I don’t believe in paying athletes,” said the Zimbabwean official, also relying on her own experience as an athlete coming from a small country and from a sport without major salaries.
The model that the Olympic movement wants to protect
Coventry does not deny the financial difficulties faced by many athletes. But she does argue that the answer should not come through direct prize money, but rather through strengthening scholarships, development programmes, preparation support or assistance during professional transition. Something more organic and natural, not linked to one specific objective that could depend on a last-minute injury, a sudden dip in form or bad luck.
The president recalled that she herself benefited from an Olympic Solidarity scholarship and that this support was key to her career. That idea summarises the historic philosophy of the IOC: redistributing revenue towards federations, national Olympic committees and development programmes, instead of distributing money directly based on results. However, the problem for the Olympic movement is that international sport is beginning to move in another direction.
World Athletics on the opposite side
World Athletics broke a historic barrier when it announced prize money for Olympic athletics champions at Paris 2024 Olympic Games, with its president, Sebastian Coe, leading this idea (incidentally, Coventry’s rival in the recent IOC elections). And in tennis, pressure is also growing for players to receive a larger percentage of the revenue generated by major tournaments. Here, these two ways of understanding modern Olympism collide: Coe’s vision and Coventry’s, who does not want any direct payment to completely transform the Olympic Games.
Speaking precisely about financial matters, the official warned at the recent IOC Executive Board meeting that a profound change could reduce the number of sports, participating countries and opportunities for smaller structures… so this model of paying for medals also seems incompatible with the ‘Fit for the Future’ philosophy that she outlined a few days ago.
Another question is what athletes themselves think about these decisions, which surely cannot be separated from personal circumstances. What is at stake is not simply a cheque worth a few dollars, but which Olympic values the IOC wants to express and how it wants to do so. Because once you open an economic tap like this, it seems very difficult – and unpopular – to close it again.
Last related articles
