Talk to anyone who was in Tokyo and what they experienced was very different to what was shared with the World.
One of the clearest things to come out of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games is that as much as people want to spin it that this is not all about the athletes, it is all about money. Not money for the host nation, but money for the International Olympic Committee and its member federations.
Japan has already resigned itself that it is going to lose billions of dollars hosting these Games. It will take the country years to pay off the debt. Yet the IOC will walk away with a profit, not as much as they would have hoped, but they will have earned enough to ensure their existence through to Paris in 2024 where the coffers will be topped up again.
What will be interesting to see is how much of that money will filter down to the International Sporting Federations; once again it is unlikely to be anywhere near the levels of support that these Olympic sports have received in the past. Some have already received an advance on that funding, others it is understood were given loans from the IOC to tide them over until after Tokyo. They will now have t pay those loans back. According to those who follow such things there are a number of sports that find themselves in a very poor financial position at this point in time, and without the usual injection of money from the IOC could in fact be forced to make some very hard decisions as to whether they can continue in the way they are accustomed.
An executive from NBC, who have paid USD$7.7Billion for the television rights up until 2032 was quoted as saying prior to the Games started that they believed these Games would be the most profitable yet. No doubt they were basing this on the fact that with no crowds permitted more people would tune in and watch. At that point in time they had sold USD$1.2Billion in advertising. Yet with Simone Biles withdrawing from many of the gymnastics events and much of their marketing being built around her, along with the US Women’s national Football team failing to make the final, and not proving as popular as the television executives thought, it is believed that viewing figures were no where near what was predicted.
Despite this the IOC was believed to stand to make USD$3 billion to USD$4 billion on television rights for the delayed 2020 Olympics.
It is regrettable how sport has become a business and as a business the shift is all about profits and money.
It would not be as bad if that money was spread around and that the athletes across the board were the recipients of the lion’s share of that money. The truth is only a very very small percentage of the Athletes that we all saw winning medals in Tokyo will reap a financial reward that will set them up for the rest of their lives. The Olympic Gold medal is no longer the road to riches that it was. The opportunity to cash in on that success is short, as the world today is fast moving and within a month our focus has switched.
In some cases the sports themselves are to blame for this situation. Take Swimming as an example, in Tokyo there were 37 swimming events, 18 for each gender and one mixed event. There were 215 medals handed out in the Swimming, because today alternate swimmers can swim in the heats of the relays to those who swim in the final, yet all receive a medal.
If you compare that to Tokyo in 1964 there were seven individual men’s events as opposed to 15 in 2020, and both Games saw three relay events, however the same four swimmers swam the heats and the final. In the Women’s events there were six individual events compared with 15 in 2020 and only two relay events compared to three in 2020. Again the same swimmers were required to compete in the heats and the final. There were 99 medals on offer in 1964 at the Swimming event, less than half of those up for grabs in 2020. Is that why the medal’s lustre wears off much quicker today, because there are more of them to be won? Is that why the Champions of yesteryear still live long in our memories?
Then you look at the ‘new’ Olympic sports, some of which have returned to the fold, such as golf, tennis and rugby. Why have they wanted to be a part of the Olympic movement again after having been away for so long? Money, they want a slice of the funding pie that comes with being an Olympic sport, they also want the exposure as that exposure will help they possibly grow the appeal of their sport to people that they have been unable to reach.
There were around 11,000 athletes competing at the 2020 Olympic Games, and around 4,000 athletes are currently taking part in the Paralympics. How many of them will be set up for life following their success at the Games?
The truth is most of these athletes would not be driven by money. They are driven by a passion instilled as a child to compete at an Olympic Games, to compete against the best in the World, and be the best that they can be. Some will admit that they crave fame and adoration, but to most it is more about the sport. Yet the people who are missing out on the financial bonanza are the athletes themselves.
If sport is a business, in a business when the company does well all the staff usually share in that success and receive a bonus. They are rewarded for their part in that success. Yet in sport and especially the Olympic Games the rewards are minimal in most cases.
To try and put this in context in a survey carried out before the Pandemic which spoke to elite athletes from 48 countries, more than half were reported as being financially unstable. The Pandemic made many competitors’ financial situation far worse as many competitions, which then translate into money were canceled.
In Australia and many other countries including the USA, which may surprise many, athletes are generally left to their own devices in terms of funding training and travel for most of their careers. Once they reach the top some may receive a stipend or a scholarship that, while helpful, is not enough for most of them to live on. So they have to find other jobs or rely on the support of their family and friends. Many a family has re-mortgaged their house to support a child with Olympic medal aspirations.
The truth is lucrative sponsorship deals are far from abundant. The companies want exposure if they are going to pay you to wear their gear. If you are in a sport that rarely gets television coverage or exposure then they are not interested. Now the myth surrounding influencers on social media has been blown out of the water and how people were buying followers many sponsors are shying away from that form of exposure. The key issue here is they want a return on their investment. They will only manage this with a handful of top athletes.
Of course this sponsorship if you do manage to attract it is great away from the Olympic Games, but not so good come the Games. Rule 40, which came into place in 1991 just before the Olympics embraced professional athletes in Barcelona in 1992, states that only official Olympic sponsors and partners logos can be seen at the Olympic Games. National teams that may have a naming rights sponsor cannot wear any branded gear during the Olympic Games. Once again the IOC is cashing in on the athletes, they are taking the money from these major corporations and putting it in the bank. The company benefits from being associated with the athletes and their success, but the athletes miss out. Not only that they are prohibited from cashing in on their Olympic qualification by having sponsorship from non-Olympic brands, but they are not give a slice of the money that their efforts have been in a key part in bringing in.
In Tokyo the conditions around Rule 40 were relaxed, but were still extremely restrictive for those athletes looking to do the right thing by those companies that supported them. It is understood that athletes were permitted to post seven thank-you messages in which they could reference their personal sponsors during the Games. Their personal sponsors it turn were allowed to congratulate them once. The language they were both allowed to use was limited. It had to be generic and at no time were they allowed to use any Olympic or Paralympic intellectual property, meaning no Olympic rings or “Tokyo 2020.”
Historically the IOC has learned from its mistakes, such as not having wrapped up the television rights for the Games when television came to the fore in 1960. They soon corrected that mistake. Also in 1960 when the Olympic Games were supposed to be amateur German sprinter Armin Hary cashed in on his success in the 100m. Both Dassler brothers, Adi Dassler of Adidas and Rudolf of Puma had been fighting for Hary to use their running shoes. He normally wore Adidas, but in the final he raced in Puma to win the gold medal. This was revealed years later to have been “partly motivated by a thick brown envelope.” However Hary cunningly wore Adidas on the podium when he received his gold medal. Hary admitted after the event and later in life that he was trying to be paid by both companies!
As the Olympic Games became a battleground for promoting Communism or life in the West, the state-sponsored Athlete came to the fore. Many countries gave their promising athletes jobs in the Armed forces, the Police or the Civil service, jobs which they rarely were asked to attend. Instead they were free to train and prepare for events such as the Olympic Games. In other nations the were dedicated sports programs which athletes who had been hand-picked were placed into. Their food and board were paid for, and they lived and breathed their chosen sport every single day. In many cases their families would be given a better place to live based on the athletes performances. This of course put added pressure on the athlete, as if they became injured and could not compete their family risked losing their home.
Now many nations have adopted a similar program to try and win medals at the Olympic Games. In many countries athletes are training full time as part of these programs, and to the outside world they are professional athletes, but this could not be further from the truth.
For example in the USA the Olympic Program is run by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee. This is a private entity that was established in 1978. It funds itself through sponsorships and a cut of broadcast rights. Then each individual sport is overseen by a national governing body, like USA Track & Field or USA Field Hockey, which have to fundraise in their own right to support their sport. The interesting aspect about this structure was that it was created as a backlash against the Eastern Bloc countries where athletes were to all intents and purposes full time athletes. The USA felt that the private sector should be responsible for the development of its athletes.
In Australia a similar set up exists with Sport Australia and the Australian Olympic Committee giving the various sports funding.
The fact is in many countries around the world whether athletes are part of a national program or not, they are putting off their careers and their moneymaking until after their Olympic dream is met or not. Yet with so much money being made by those at the top is that right in this day and age? After all it is the athletes that we are tuning in to watch, they are the sole focus, without them there are no Olympic Games.
What is interesting is to look at the rewards that athletes are receiving in various countries around the world for winning a medal. In the USA the The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee’s “Operation Gold” will hand out USD$37,500 to gold medalists, USD$22,500 to silver medalists, and USD$15,000 to bronze in both the Olympics and, this year for the first time, the Paralympics. In Australia athletes are rewarded with AUD$20,000 for gold, AUD$15,000 for silver and AUD$10,000 for bronze, and unbelievably the Paralympians will receive nothing. This is the same in a number of countries. So much for equality. Also in Australia it is believed that while an individual may receive this sum in total, a relay team or a sporting team must share the amount!
To some this is hard to comprehend. Especially for some Hockey fans when following the Australian men’s silver medal they see each individual in the Indian men’s Hockey team that won bronze personally receiving in excess of USD$200,000. Yet this is the way of the modern day Olympic Games. The countries that win very few medals substantially reward their athletes. For example Singapore offered SGD$1million to any athlete who won gold.
One question that needs to be asked is did any of the CEO’s of these sporting organisations receive a bonus for their athletes success, and if so how much? As it would appear grossly unfair on the athletes that a salaried person should receive a bonus larger than theirs when they are the ones who have done the work.
Everyone remembers the scene in the movie “Jerry Maguire” in which Cuba Gooding’s character, American Footballer Rod Tidwell, tells Jerry Maguire to “Show him the money.” Frequently when athletes have asked this question in recent years they have been told that much of their sport’s budget goes toward the programs and activities that support them as athletes. Things such as training sites, media promotion, and high-performance programs. Everything that will give them the best chance of winning. That comes at a cost and there is no more money for the athletes.
So how can athletes get what they deserve? In this space it has been suggested that they need to get an agent. Yet we have seen in other sports how that is fine if you get an agent that is good, but it can destroy your life and your career if you end up with a bad one.
Another suggestion is that there needs to be an entity created along the lines of a union that negotiates on behalf of all the athletes. While that unity could be extremely powerful there would be a number of hurdles to negotiate here, as many athletes in many countries may find that they are no longer selected if they joined such an organisation.
There are others who believe that the onus must fall back on the commercial partners of the IOC, that they must take the lead. In other words they must demand that a figure of say 40% – 50% of their investment must be distributed amongst the athletes. The athletes themselves as a group can put pressure on these companies by asking their fans to boycott them unless they support the athletes. They would be surprised how many people would support such a move. Many of FIFA’s sponsors found that out very quickly.
However one of the big questions being asked is why is it left to national Governments to reward athletes when the IOC are set to make such large profits? Surely it is time that the IOC was the one who started to pay the athletes for appearing at their event? After all the host city picks up all the other bills such as the accommodation, meals and even making the medals. Is it not time that the IOC dipped into its own pocket and started rewarding the athletes that we all tune in to watch? As without them there are no Olympic or Paralympic Games.
If the athletes are the piper to whose tune we all dance the question that needs to be asked is who is going to pay the piper? Certainly those calling the tune are not paying them. So ultimately in the near future if that piper is going to continually not be paid they are going to be left with no other option than to pack away their pipe and walk away, and find an alternative that does pay the bills.
