Olympic Athletes Push Back After IOC President Says She Does Not Believe in Paying Competitors

Any Miah

In 2028, Los Angeles will host the Olympic Games for the third time, having previously hosted in 1932 and 1984. Despite decades of change, one thing remains the same: the International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not pay athletes and continues to endorse policies that restrict athletes from making money during the Games.

Now, comments made by IOC president Kirsty Coventry have triggered backlash not only from Olympians and athletes, but also from coaches, support teams, families, and others who help fund and support Olympic careers.

“I don’t believe in paying athletes,” Coventry told Sport Nation New Zealand last week. “I come from a small country, I came from a sport that doesn’t necessarily pay athletes very well, and I still don’t think we should be paying athletes at the Olympic Games.”

The current Olympic model sees athletes supported through national sporting organizations, sponsorships, grants, and often personal funding. The Olympic Games themselves do not directly pay athletes for competing or winning, although some national federations and governments independently provide medal bonuses.

Coventry defended the IOC’s long-standing solidarity model, arguing Olympic revenue is redistributed throughout the Olympic movement rather than directed toward athlete prize money.

“Well, they get beautiful venues. They get beautiful villages. They get a beautiful experience,” Coventry said. “And all of that comes from the money that we raise.”

According to the IOC, 90 per cent of Olympic revenue is redistributed into sport and athlete development through organizing committees, international federations, national Olympic committees, and Olympic Solidarity programs. Olympic Solidarity itself is designed to support athlete development and national Olympic committee programs around the world.

Coventry also warned that adopting a more direct payment structure could fundamentally change the Olympic model.

“Now, if the entire movement wants us to change, we would have not as many countries, we’d have not many sports,” she said. “I don’t think that’s the Olympic Games.”

But many former Olympians and athletes were quick to push back.

Former Olympic long jump champion Greg Rutherford shared a lengthy response on Instagram, describing the financial realities many athletes face even while competing at the highest level of sport.

“Let me tell you about the night before I became Olympic champion,” Rutherford wrote. “The night before I competed at the London 2012 Games, I went overdrawn on my bank account.”

Rutherford, who won Olympic gold in London in 2012 and bronze in Rio in 2016, said even athletes from well-funded sports often privately absorb major costs tied to training, coaching, physio, and international competition.

“That’s the reality of being an elite athlete that nobody talks about,” he wrote.

He also criticized the contrast between athlete financial struggles and the IOC’s commercial success, noting the organization generates billions in Olympic cycle revenues while maintaining restrictions around athlete commercialization during the Games.

Rutherford specifically pointed to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter, which historically restricted athletes from promoting personal sponsors during the Olympic Games in order to protect official Olympic sponsorship rights. While the IOC loosened some of those restrictions beginning with Tokyo 2020, athletes and non-Olympic sponsors still face limitations during the Games period.

“The people running the organisation get millions,” Rutherford wrote. “The people who ARE the organisation get told to enjoy the view.”

Financial disclosures from IOC filings show the organization generated billions in revenue during recent Olympic cycles. The IOC has also consistently defended its redistribution model, arguing the vast majority of its revenue flows back into sport worldwide.

The Host City Contract tied to Los Angeles 2028 also illustrates the scale of the Olympic revenue model, including hundreds of millions in broadcast and international program contributions connected to Olympic rights and sponsorships.

The debate around athlete compensation intensified further ahead of Paris 2024 when World Athletics announced Olympic prize money for athletics gold medalists, awarding $50,000 USD to each individual Olympic champion. The move marked the first time an international federation introduced direct Olympic prize money independent of the IOC.

Former Australian swimmer Leisel Jones, a nine-time Olympic medalist across four Olympic Games, also criticized Coventry’s comments.

“The glory is not worth it,” Jones said on Triple M Gold Breakfast. “The Olympic Games are not worth pursuing if you’re not going to pay athletes.”

Jones also pointed to rising costs faced by elite athletes and the increasingly difficult financial pathway toward Olympic sport.

“You will be in debt for a long time,” she said.

She later summarized her position in a post on Instagram: “I just want our athletes paid. They deserve support to do what they do at the highest level. Pay them!”

The debate has also expanded beyond athlete compensation itself into broader questions around Olympic economics and commercial priorities.

Toyota, previously the IOC’s largest Olympic sponsor through an agreement reportedly worth approximately $835 million USD, ended its Olympic partnership following Paris 2024. In a statement released on Toyota’s media channel, Toyota chair Akio Toyoda questioned whether the Olympics were still “truly focused on putting people first,” while reaffirming Toyota’s direct financial support for Olympic and Paralympic athletes worldwide. Toyoda said Toyota would continue supporting Team Toyota athletes globally even after ending its IOC partnership.

For now, Coventry remains firm that the IOC’s focus should stay on funding the broader Olympic movement rather than paying athletes directly for participation or performance at the Games.