Olympics’ Divisive Prize Money Policy

As France sweats under the collar regarding the hosting of the Paris Olympics opening ceremony in open air, there is already open censure for the “dubious cash prize policy” introduced by the World Athletics ahead of the Olympics.

The sudden announcement by the World Athletics of a 50,000 dollar cash incentive to those who win the Olympics gold medal at the track and field events in Paris was met with cautious endorsement, and much more with suspicion, from the International Olympics Committee (IOC) president, Thomas Bach.

It was not what Sebastian Coe, the chair of the World Athletics, was expecting when he made this announcement to break away from Olympics’ tradition and introduce the idea of monetary reward in the 48 events that are held under the banner of the IOC.

It seemed that by the time Coe finished this defence of the decision, the Paris Olympics had bigger concerns than security, which is saying something. French President Emmanuel Macron recently threw a spanner in the works, airing his concerns about France’s ability to tackle terrorism concerns ahead of the Olympics ceremony on the river Seine, suggesting there might be a moving of the ceremony indoors and in amore controlled location such as the Stade de France.

However, as far as the sporting bodies are concerned, the security is far from their mind, Coe and his moves taking front and centre as a change of venue for the Opening Ceremony is not the only plot twist at the Paris Olympics as it turns out.

Coe suggested that while the Olympics was about feeling privileged to compete at this level, the sports world had to keep up with the changing times and the need to support athletes to keep going without the additional financial duress. He suggested the additional cash prize for gold medal winners would only provide an additional incentive and also keep high performing athletes in the game for another four years, which means another Olympics event.

Where perhaps there was an applause expected for the supposed “endorsement for rewarding athletics”, particularly those who come with a gold medal around their neck, there are steelier concerns than whether Coe is going after Bach’s job in the future.

While suggesting that this move would ensure “more skin in the game”, where the cash prize was never an option, a practice since 1896 when the Olympics were first introduced, Coe maintained that he understood the IOC’s stand that sportspersons from around the world were in the Olympics for the opportunity to participate and not for the cash at the end.

But it is as easy to see the contradiction in Coe’s remarks, as it is to see why this practice is flawed to begin with. Coe admitted to not speaking to Bach about the move personally before raising it publicly, and also, that the World Athletics essentially had its hand in the cookie jar, meaning that the money would come at least in part from the IOC’s own kitty to reward athletes every four years.

Coe, himself is a gold medal winner in 1980 and 1984 in the 1500m and event knows what money can do but is limited perhaps in understanding what kind of money would be needed to make it a life saver for global sport or just the athletes alone in the track and field.

At the moment, it seems like a token gesture. And while it does separate (some call it, divide) World Athletics from the other sports bodies who will be represented in the Olympics village, one wonders if it creates a deeper wedge between the various sports disciplines instead of bringing them around to the idea to adding a monetary incentive, which seems almost blasphemous presently to many given how the Olympics has operated in his 128 year history.

Let us keep aside, for the moment, the conspiracy theory doing the rounds that Coe is looking to reinvent his own image and appear to be the pathbreaker as a potential contender to replace Bach for the top spot. Every sport and discipline has its own agenda and having sponsorships, individual or at national level, and also, rewards, incentives and programmes on the part of national boards are not new.

What the World Athletic has done with this public move so close to the Paris Olympics has taken the IOC by surprise by not giving them time to think. It has also affected how other sports bodies function, compelling them to maintain the status quo defiantly, or face the wrath of having sportspersons now competing even more obviously on an unequal level.

While Bach maintained that he would have liked to have seen inequality bridged, it would appear the sports fraternity could not be more divided as a whole.

Here is where the flaws in Coe’s plans are exposed. The prize money is only for the top spot on the podium. It reduces the incentive to even make it to the podium, if money were the criteria in the first place.

That being said, knowing the sweat and toil on the track is unmatched as is the amount of money put into training, medical faculty, travel, logistics, coaching and such, the cash prize is hardly an incentive to keep the sportsperson in the game.

How far would USD 50,000 go for a four-year cycle of working hard behind the scenes?

An even more important question to ask is, what does it do for athletes who are there to compete, knowing the top spot might not be theirs, but competing for being second best is still on the cards?

Given that the money does not even come close to compensating the gold medal winner for the four years of investment. And knowing that any help is welcome, wouldn’t that money be better spent at a collective, or grassroots level, so fewer athletes have to spend money from their pockets?

To have systems in place where greater opportunities that level the field such as access to training facilities, medical check posts, and logistical help might be more to the point? How many sports persons fall through the cracks because they lack the finances to make the final cut?

How many athletes are lost in the political tightrope or administrative bungles, not to mention corruption at board level that often disrupt their training? If this prize money decision, which doesn’t even seem fair to the entire podium for the track and field contingent, given that there is only so much for the top spot even, doesn’t resolve some of the deeper issues, then it seems like only a charade, given how close to the Olympics this move comes.