Olympic world divided over decision to pay medalists in athletics and boxing as Paris 2024 draws near
For the first time in 128 years, the Olympic Games is putting a price on gold.
World Athletics president Sebastian Coe announced in April 2024 that the governing body had taken the historic decision to pay gold medalists at Paris 2024.
Starting this year, $50,000 will be awarded to every Athletics event gold medal-winner - the equivalent of just under £40,000.
When the change was announced, Coe said in a statement: “While it is impossible to put a marketable value on winning an Olympic medal, or on the commitment and focus it takes to even represent your country at an Olympic Games, I think it is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes at the Olympic Games are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is.”
Only the gold medal-winners will be paid in Paris, although a commitment has been made to pay silver and bronze winners too in the 2028 Los Angeles edition of the games.
The move was followed by an announcement in late May from the International Boxing Association (IBA), who confirmed they were following suit by also paying all Olympic medalists in the boxing events.
Read More in Paris 2024
The plot thickens once you realise the IBA have been banned from running the boxing competition at Paris 2024, with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) taking over instead.
In a scathing statement in response to the IBA's words, the IOC replied: "As always with the IBA, it is unclear where the money is coming from. This total lack of financial transparency was exactly one of the reasons why the IOC withdrew its recognition of the IBA."
But that conflict aside, the question of 'cash for gold' is continuing to prove decisive with athletes, national committees and governing bodies all having taking their stance in the debate.
But is this move simply a divisive change that threatens to create an elite tier of athletes, defined by monetary reward?
Or is it instead the start of a greater movement which will ultimately see every Olympic medalist made financially worth their weight in gold?
48 out of 2000: the perils of athletic elitism
Most read in Athletics
When it comes to governing bodies of other sports and national Olympic committees, it is fair to say that the response to World Athletics' announcement has not been one of outspoken support.
Regardless of their dispute with the IBA, even the IOC themselves do not seem to be behind the concept of paying gold medalists.
As the overseeing Olympic organisers, they allocate a share of their broadcast revenue from the Games to the governing body of each sport, which that organisation is entitled to spend in any way they so choose.
As such, Executive Director of the IOC Christophe Dubi refused to be drawn on the issue, explaining that World Athletics were within their rights to make this choice, whatever they may feel about it.
"Listen, decision made," he told talkSPORT. "We distribute the money as the IOC for the best use by sports organisations, national Olympic committees, international federations.
"Of course, for organisers, this is how about a third of the Olympics is being financed. And then the usage is the independent decisions of those bodies."
But IOC President Thomas Bach has been far more forthcoming with his opinion, explaining his opposition to the move in full.
He told BBC Sport: "This proposal by World Athletics would benefit 48 athletes from about 2,000 participants in athletics in the Olympic Games and tens of thousands across the globe who are striving to participate in the Olympic Games.
"The role of international federations as we see it, and all the other international federations are seeing it, is to develop their sport worldwide."
This danger of a creation of an elite band of athletes, set apart by the money they will earn in an Olympic event which already has a tendency to outshine so many other lesser-known events is a legitimate one.
Not to mention, other sporting governing bodies will have nowhere near the financial capabilities of World Athletics.
It is costing them a total of $2.4million or £1.9m to fund the payments to medallists: it is not hard to understand why sports like fencing, shooting or archery, to name just a few, might not have the same levels of money available to them.
Bach's concerns have been echoed by British Olympic Association CEO Andy Anson, who told Sky Sports that this had the potential to be a seriously divisive move in more than one way.
He said: “I think what wasn’t great about the announcement last week is when one sport goes off and does something on their own, doesn’t include the other sports, the IOC or the National Olympic committees."
“They create a problem because now other sports are clearly going to get some scrutiny or even pressure from athletes saying: ‘Well what about our sport, how can this sport do it and not us?’ It’s a debate we can have but we need to have it at the right time, and the right place, and together.”
'Athletes out there are pretty much bankrupting themselves'
There is another side to all this, of course.
Because whatever the authorities may believe, the consensus from the athletes themselves seems clear.
What is more, there is a strong argument to say that their voices are the crucial ones in this debate. - after all, there is no Olympic Games without the athletes.
British swimmer and Tokyo 2020 gold-medalist Matt Richards was adamant about the need for change, as he explained to talkSPORT the threat that the Olympics as a competition could well be under.
"I do think it's something that needs to be addressed, " he said. "There are things coming out now with events like the Enhanced Games coming up offering stupid money to athletes to go and become drugs cheats basically, and go and swim events like that.
"To protect the sport and to protect the Olympics and to protect everything that is great about what we do, the governing bodies like World Aquatics and the IOC are going to have to start putting some money up to the athletes to keep them from straying over to things like that because there are athletes out there who are pretty much bankrupting themselves to try and stay in the sport and keep that dream of going to the Olympics alive.
"It feels wrong when the Olympics produces so much revenue and so much money, essentially as a business, that none of that is then distributed back to the athletes."
Likewise, Lindsey Vonn is a former alpine ski racer who won three Olympic medals, including gold at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.
She hailed the move by World Athletics and told talkSPORT she hoped the move would be just the start of greater changes.
"I understand that each Olympic committee has their own financial restrictions and not everyone has the capability of giving their athletes that kind of money," she said.
But when asked whether she was paid for winning her gold medal, Vonn said: "I think it was about $12,000 - something like that. It was a nominal amount. If you look at other professional athletes in the United States especially, NBA players are getting $15m a year.
"You know, I think $50,000 for an Olympic gold medal - which I think to a large degree is even more impactful than an NBA Championship - it's just not the same. You're not getting awarded what you should be.
"There are a lot of athletes that I know that have to work second jobs to support themselves while they're training for the Olympics. So these numbers, while maybe nominal for some are also really important for others and I think it's a starting point that should be looked into to continue to grow."
'Why not reward people?': what difference will it make?
Athletes do not compete primarily for financial reward - that much is clear.
As team GB's middle-distance runner Jemma Reekie told talkSPORT: "For me, I've never really done the sport for money. I've always just enjoyed the sport, I've tried to get medals - things like that. So I've never really been focused on the money."
That is not to say that increased financial reward would not make a huge difference to the lives and careers of so many athletes.
"But of course, it would help us massively as athletes," Reekie explained. "We can then do more and I think it will help people race for longer - and things like that. So I think it would be good for the sport."
She went on: "There's a lot of things that we would love to be able to do like more camps and more physio to make you a better athlete. With nutritionists and stuff like that, it's hard to do but they're all little things that we can do to get better.
"For me, if I was able to earn money like that I would take it to then make myself better as an athlete again. So it will make us better going forwards as well."
For her Team GB teammate, middle and long-distance runner Eilish McColgan, the principle of the matter was also an important point.
"I don't think it's going to change the lives of the Olympic gold medalists,," she told talkSPORT. "Because a lot of them probably already have shoe contracts and sponsors that will have bonuses in there for winning Olympic gold.
Read More on talkSPORT
"But I mean, other sports, there's so much more money within other sports whether it's football, tennis. The prize money that you get for making it through the first round of Wimbledon compared to somebody winning Olympic gold - it's not even comparable.
"By all means, if the money is there - the Olympic committee have the money there as well - why not reward people for their incredible achievements?"