Calacus Monthly Hit & Miss – World Athletics and Sebastian Coe
Every month we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world from the last few weeks.
WORLD ATHLETICS & SEBASTIAN COE
The Olympic Games is considered to be the pinnacle of sporting achievement for most sports.
The opportunity, every four years, to represent your country and compete against the world’s best underlines the importance of Pierre de Coubertin’s vision for the modern Games.
De Coubertin was committed to Olympic athletes being amateurs, with professionalism considered a risk to sport’s integrity.
There have been reports that athletics and cycling events provided cash prizes as far back as 1900, with Britain’s Edgar Bredin receiving 250 francs for his victory in the 100m.
Conversely, in 1912, Jim Thorpe was stripped of his track and field medals for taking money for expenses when playing baseball.
It would be a further 60 years before the strict rules on amateurism were relaxed, due in no small part to athletes in the Communist Eastern bloc bypassing the rules through their state-controlled ‘employment’ while training for sport full-time.
By the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, when Team USA fielded NBA all stars that swept to gold in the basketball, any hint at amateurism was over.
Athletes could secure lucrative sponsorships and endorsement deals, with national governing bodies providing financial assistance where they could, with 60% of National Olympic Committees giving bonuses to their athletes too.
But unlike other sporting competitions, the Olympic Games remained free of prize money until World Athletics made their surprise announcement in early April.
Starting at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games this summer, gold medallists in 48 athletic events will walk away with US$50,000 in prize money, with the rewards being extended to podium medallists from Los Angeles 2028 onwards.
World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said: “The introduction of prize money for Olympic gold medallists is a pivotal moment for World Athletics and the sport of athletics as a whole, underscoring our commitment to empowering the athletes and recognising the critical role they play in the success of any Olympic Games.
“This is the continuation of a journey we started back in 2015, which sees all the money World Athletics receives from the International Olympic Committee for the Olympic Games go directly back into our sport.
“We started with the Olympic dividend payments to our Member Federations, which saw us distribute an extra US$5m a year on top of existing grants aimed at athletics growth projects, and we are now in a position to also fund gold medal performances for athletes in Paris, with a commitment to reward all three medallists at the LA28 Olympic Games.
“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.”
Sport is nothing without its athletes, so rewarding them financially, when some are not attracting huge sponsorships and endorsement deals, could be seen as a positive step.
But when making such a momentous announcement in the history of the Olympic Games, World Athletics made a basic error which they could and should have avoided: they had not discussed or even informed the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or other stakeholders ahead of making their statement.
“The one thing the International Olympic Committee has consistently recognised – and they’re right to – is the primacy of international federations to fashion their own futures,” explained Coe.
“I don’t believe this is remotely at variance with the concept that the International Olympic Committee often talks about, which is recognising the efforts that our competitors make.
“I am hoping the IOC would share in this principle, given their avowed commitment to make sure that revenues raised through the Olympic Movement find their way back onto the front line. I think they make the point that 80 or 90 per cent of that goes back.”
The IOC made a statement of its own, explaining how it spends the $7.6bn it made between 2017 and 2021 in revenues from the Olympic Games.
It has also provided training grants of up to $1500 through an IOC division called Solidarity, awarding over 1800 grants worldwide on an original budget of $32 million ahead of the Tokyo Games.
It said: “The IOC redistributes 90% of all its income, in particular to the National Olympic Committees and International Federations. This means that, every day, the equivalent of $4.2m goes to help athletes and sports organisations at all levels around the world. It is up to each IF and NOC to determine how to best serve their athletes and the global development of their sport.”
That is where some of the problems lie – track and field is one of the highlights of the Olympic Games, but if other sports cannot afford to match the prize money, it could create conflict between the haves and the have nots.
The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) voiced their concern about the process as well as the context of the announcement.
The stated: “ASOIF was neither informed nor consulted in advance of the announcement, which was made one day after the ASOIF General Assembly and during SportAccord. As a matter of principle, ASOIF respects and defends the autonomy of each and every member federation. However, when a decision of one IF has a direct impact on the collective interests of the Summer Olympic IFs, it is important and fair to discuss the matter at stake with the other federations in advance. This is precisely why ASOIF was created more than 40 years ago, with the mission to unite, promote and support its members, while advocating for their common interests and goals.
“ASOIF has historically taken a close interest in the general issue of athlete compensation, particularly within the context of Olympic Agenda 2020 and vis a vis the professional leagues since 2014.
“During the last days, ASOIF’s membership has expressed several concerns about World Athletics’ announcement. First, for many, this move undermines the values of Olympism and the uniqueness of the Games. One cannot and should not put a price on an Olympic gold medal and, in many cases, Olympic medallists indirectly benefit from commercial endorsements. This disregards the less privileged athletes lower down the final standings.
“Second, not all sports could or should replicate this move, even if they wanted to. Paying prize money in a multi-sport environment goes against the principle of solidarity, reinforces a different set of values across the sports and opens up many questions.
“If the Olympic Games are considered as the pinnacle of each sport, then the prize money should be comparable to, and commensurate with, the prizes given in the respective top competitions of each sport. This is technically and financially unfeasible.
“Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the owner and primary rights holder of the Olympic Games. IFs establish and enforce the competition rules at the Games.
“ASOIF fully agrees that athletes are at the centre of the Olympic Movement, and play a critical role in the success of any Olympic Games. However, it appears that World Athletics’ latest initiative opens rather than solves a number of complex issues.
“ASOIF will raise these concerns with World Athletics and will continue to promote dialogue amongst its members and the IOC. Unity and solidarity among ASOIF’s membership will remain crucial to ensure a healthy future of sports governance and the Olympic Movement at large.”
That was a fairly damning response to the news.
The Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOCA) released a statement following consultation with athlete representatives.
“Some athlete representatives expressed concerns about the fairness of the proposal, which would result in only gold medallists from one sport being rewarded for their achievements. Concerns were also raised on the issue of clean sport, as by increasing the incentive to win even more, athletes may be at risk of betting, manipulation or pressure to turn to doping," the organisation said.
"Athletes' representatives welcomed the idea of rewarding athletes for their efforts and achievements as elite athletes, but this should not be at the expense of the solidarity model that supports and develops athletes at all levels of sport."
Coe was Chair of the British Olympic Association until 2016, but its current chief executive, Andy Anson, criticised the announcement.
"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 sports, doesn't include the IOC, doesn't include the National Olympic Committees," Anson told Sky News.
"They create a problem because now other sports are clearly going to get some scrutiny or even pressure from athletes saying, 'Well what about us? How can this sport do it and not others?'.
"I don't think it's particularly appropriate or helpful for one sport just to announce that. We've got to look at it holistically and make sure that we don't create a two tier system.”
Head of World Rowing, Jean-Christophe Rolland, was concerned about the lack of consultation before World Athletics made their announcement and commented: “I fully respect the WA decision as long it concerns athletes from their sport but at the Olympic Games it is not about your sport but all sports.
"I would appreciate if we had the discussion between us. This decision impacts not only athletes. It has other implications."
There were some supporters when the news broke, though.
Team GB’s most decorated Olympic swimmer. Duncan Scott, is all in favour of payments for Olympic medals.
He said: “I definitely think it would be welcomed within swimming. It's taxing so much on the body in terms of 20-plus hours a week in the pool and so many gym sessions. It can be really tough being a swimmer in GB but Aquatics GB seem like they're wanting to move it in a positive direction."
Coe is a seasoned politician, having become a Lord after a spell as a Member of Parliament in Britain and helping London win the 2012 Olympic Games before his positions in sports administration.
Putting the athletes at the heart of his strategy appears admirable, and he explained that not all elite athletes are thriving, with their finances often “precarious.”
To make such an aggressive move, without collaborating with the IOC and other stakeholders, might appear naïve and foolhardy but equally could be a shot across the bows amid speculation that he wants to become the next IOC President.
Rather than adhering to the status quo, Coe has proved himself to be an alternative, positioning himself firmly against Russian athletes competing at the Olympic Games as neutrals.
And the prize money issue comes ahead of the Friendship Games, to be held in Russia in September, offering $100m in total prize money and run by Umar Kremlev, head of the International Boxing Association which has been excluded from running Olympic boxing due to governance issues.
The first Friendship Games is expected to attract up to 6,000 athletes from more than 70 nations amid the backdrop of its invasion of Ukraine and punishments for state-sponsored doping.
When launched, the IOC issued a powerful communique which it accused of being a “cynical attempt by the Russian Federation to politicize sport,” noting a “disrespect for the athletes and the integrity of sports competitions.
“The commission even sees the risk of athletes being forced by their governments into participating in such a fully politicized sports event, thereby being exploited as part of a political propaganda campaign.”
With such significant prize money available, despite a lack of sports governance recognition, the Friendship Games represent a real threat to the IOC.
Could the World Athletics announcement be the start of more serious discussions to award all Olympic victors a cash prize, even if it costs up to $100m each Games? And would that see off the threat the Friendship Games poses?
Or should competing for glory be reward enough when the value of winning Olympic gold is so immeasurable?
Coe thinks not and said: “This fits very much with a contemporary template that we should do everything we can to recognise the performance and primacy of athletes.
“As a president who was a double Olympic champion, the largest part of my life has been involved with the Olympic movement. The world has changed. I don’t believe this is at variance with any deeply held philosophical commitment to the Olympic movement which, as a sport, we clearly have.
“It is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes … are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is. And as we grow as a sport I want to increase that pot.
“I have to accept the world has changed. If you had asked me that question 30 or 40 years ago,” whether paying athletes for winning was in line with what Scott called the Olympic ‘ethos, I might have given you a different answer.”
The key learning here is to ensure collaboration and discussion with stakeholders to gain support and understanding.
By blindsiding the IOC, ASOIF and other governing bodies, World Athletics very much set its stall out as a renegade, making a rogue decision regardless of the wider consequences for other sports federations and their athletes.
Coupled with the Friendship Games, the developments threaten the IOC’s authority just ahead of Paris 2024, which will no doubt serve as a reminder of the excellence and inspiration the Olympic Games continue to provide.