Olympians Are Getting Paid!

IOC insists decision bearing any proximity to Coventry's comments is purely coincidental

thanks overlords!

On the 24th June 2026, the International Olympic Committee announced a $10,000 grant for all competing Olympians.

It'll be paid for by the ‘Fit for the Future Olympian Grant’ (FFTFOG), a snappily-titled funding initiative set up with $140,000,000 per Olympiad. If you’re brilliant at maths like me, you’ll know that means paydays for around 14,000 deserving athletes.

Sounds pretty good, right?

But, before Olympians start perusing Jet2Holidays or financing a second-hand Audi A3, a couple of key points:

• The grant is for Aa accredited athletes, that is, competing Olympians.

• It’ll start with Milano Cortina participants (sorry everyone pre-2026).

• It's only available for athletes who haven’t violated the Olympic charter which, upon a quick Google, essentially means: any 'demonstrating' is athletic and not political, you haven’t slurped Pepsi Max during Rule 40, and you haven’t taken drugs.

  
  

Outside of getting selected for the Olympics, relatively simple targets to hit.

Now, far be it from me to be cynical, but after witnessing President Kirsty Coventry’s recent viewpoint that ‘we shouldn’t be paying athletes at the Olympic Games’ - this $10k rabbit has been pulled with impeccable timing...

Many Olympians worldwide condemned her anti-pay sentiments. An international mass agreement not seen since nations signed the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. (Niche, winter-based references from your on-brand Winter Olympian author.)

Has the FFTFOG been accelerated (or conceived) because of that public lambasting? Who knows. All I know is, it’s happening. And that’s good.

Or, it’s a start.

I wrote a silly article on Coventry’s position and mentioned swimmer Cam McEvoy’s comment that a ‘$10k grant for every athlete would still amount to around 1.5% of the IOC’s total quadrennial revenue of $12 billion’. How prescient that’s turned out to be. That, or they just read his comment and thought, ‘yep that’ll do’. Money saved on consultancy Teams calls that month.

From the IOC’s standpoint: the Olympic model is one of solidarity, not entertainment. Which essentially means not paying athletes directly, but redirecting money back into sport globally through funding initiatives.

If prize money for medallists was available, the likely beneficiaries are those existing at the summit of Mount Olympus. Individuals whose economic situation is possibly different to the dreamchasers at base camp.

From our standpoint: that's IOC executives with their heads buried in the sandpit.

I don’t think any athlete took a ‘prize money’ position in totality. To quote a more grown up article from Kelly Sotherton:

'A stronger approach is not direct prize money, but protected athlete centred investment, with clearer transparency and accountability.’

Thankfully that seems to be what the IOC have done.

Athletes did not expect millions but it’s fair to expect something tangible given the intangibles we create. Nationwide togetherness, inspirational feelings engendered only after an underdog story, a victory, a country falling in love with sports hitherto deemed distant and obscure, (cough, bobsleigh and skeleton.)

And I know the pushback from uncharitable members of the public. Sofa-arseprint connoisseurs saying whilst sneeze-burping into their lager: 'it's an athlete’s choice to compete, so suck it up!’

Of course it's our choice! But those choices have enormous impact on the next generation, on business, economies, on international relations, public feeling, on things far beyond ourselves. The intangibles. The Olympic je ne sais quoi.

Those intangibles are sullied when certain athletes - in their words - feel economically driven to cheat or perhaps compete in the not-that-Enhanced Games.

Whatever the IOC’s previous investment and solidarity strategy, athletes were not feeling the difference in their pockets, despite our images and stories generating billions in revenue.

But enough shouting about all that, let’s move forward. As I mentioned above, this grant is a start. And I might tentatively posit it’s also the first offer on the table.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for greed.

A circa £7,500 grant will indeed go towards future training costs, or helping with planning retirement steps. My wife and I might not have to stack our belongings on e-scooters when we move house now.

It’s not fanciful to assume the IOC can afford more. The FFTFOG is a lovely precedent. It’s welcome. We’re grateful.

My hope is that it doesn’t end the conversation on distribution of Olympic wealth, and that this news also triggers a conversation about similar funding for Paralympians.

The surest route to success here is if the IOC works closely with recipient athletes, analyses the grant’s impact and ratchets it up over the coming years. After all, inflation waits for no pay rise.

Ultimately, whether the grant came from ‘oh poo I’ve made a boo-boo with my comments, we got $140mil down the back of the IOC staff room sofa to shut them up?’, or a genuine plan with impeccable timing, it doesn’t matter. The proverbial ball is rolling.

I’ll gladly apply next year because I will be financing the aforementioned Audi. The broken A/C condenser in my ancient BMW proved inconvenient during this summer’s heatwave.

As long as I remain politically Ed Sheeran, drink Coke Zero and don’t join the Enhancies, then 2027’s heatwave will be the one I no longer need to strap ice bags around my waist to drive (this happened).

Thank you IOC.