The International Olympic Committee generated around $7.7 billion in revenue across the 2021-2024 Olympic cycle. Not a cent of it, according to its own president, should go directly to the athletes who made it possible. Kirsty Coventry said the quiet part loud, and the Enhanced Games, fresh off handing out $25 million to 42 athletes, was listening. And unfortunately for her, she picked the wrong week to say it.

Appointed nearly a year ago, the IOC president has already made more than a few changes. But what won’t change is athlete payments, as Coventry holds firm on the matter.

“I don’t believe in paying athletes. I come from a small country, I came from a sport that doesn’t necessarily pay athletes very well, and I still don’t think we should be paying athletes at the Olympic Games.” Coventry told Sport Nation NZ.

“Now I do think we should find more ways to directly impact athletes..to find ways to directly help them on their journey to becoming Olympians, while they are Olympians, and as they are finding ways into their new career transition.”

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) currently adopts a solidarity model and thus doesn’t hand out direct payments for either participation or winning. Thus, the IOC redistributes the revenue it earns during and outside an Olympic cycle to various channels. Those include federations, organising committees, development programs, and more.

This means that none of the reported $7.7 billion they earned between 2021 and 2024 goes directly to the athletes. However, all of that changed in 2024, when World Athletics announced it would hand out $50,000 to gold medalists. This included each member of the winning relay team as well, which has only intensified the debate.

Now, with the recently concluded Enhanced Games handing out over $25 million to 42 athletes, the conversation has changed. And the Zimbabwean official’s latest comments offered Maximilian Martin a chance to take advantage, and he did, hitting out at Coventry. The Enhanced Games CEO had a lot to say, even calling the IOC president’s statement “crazy”.

“So, I just landed back in New York from Las Vegas, where we hosted the first Enhanced Games, and while I was on the plane, I saw Kirsty Coventry coming out and saying she doesn’t believe in paying athletes,” Martin said in an Instagram story posted by Enhanced Games.

“I mean, bad enough you don’t pay athletes in the first place while you make billions in sponsorship, billions in media rights sales, but then doubling down on it with a statement like this just after we hosted the first Enhanced Games, where forty-two athletes earned twenty-five million dollars. That’s just crazy.”

The $25 million structure allotted $250,000 to event winners, with an additional million-dollar bonus for breaking a world record. After the event, the payout included $1.5 million to world record-breaker Kristian Gkolomeev, $500,000 to Cody Miller, $ 375,000 to Hunter Armstrong, and more. For Armstrong, that was more than ten times what he earned after winning an Olympic gold. This doesn’t come as a surprise, as from the billions earned during every Olympics, only 0.5% goes to athletes directly, as per a Global Athlete report from 2020.

Martin wasn’t the only one unhappy at Coventry’s comments. German Olympian Marius Kusch hit out at Coventry as well via his Instagram story. 

“The Olympics generate billions,” Kusch wrote on his Instagram page. “The president doesn’t believe in paying athletes. Someone’s getting paid, just not the athletes.”

33-year-old Kusch also competed at the Enhanced Games and won $250,000 after winning the men’s 100m butterfly race. Yet, there’s a bigger controversy regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL).

Kirsty Coventry touches on the IOC’s NIL controversy

In a landmark 2021 decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston changed college athletics in the United States completely. The introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) allowed student-athletes to profit from their fame for the first time in history. It led to an influx of teenage millionaires, but the same doesn’t apply to the IOC and their athletes.

Unlike the NCAA, the IOC does not compensate athletes when it uses their NIL rights. Instead, the IOC can use whatever they want to promote and celebrate the Olympics, with the athlete never compensated for the NIL use. It has seen many call for the organisation to change their tune, although Kirsty Coventry revealed that it won’t be happening any time soon.

“Well, they get beautiful venues,” Coventry said. “They get beautiful villages. They get a beautiful experience. And all of that comes from the money that we raise.”

She then pointed to how the IOC uses that money in the Solidarity model, and if they do change it could force a complete restructure of the Games.

“So again, what I challenge athletes, international federations, that are always asking for more money, national Olympic committees, the solidarity model is very particular.

“Now, if the entire movement wants us to change, we would have not as many countries, we’d have not many sports, we’d be very particular on what that would look like. I don’t think that’s the Olympic Games and I don’t think the Olympic movement thinks that’s the Olympic Games.” 

Coventry believes the solidarity model is the Olympic Games. A growing number of athletes, and at least one rival organisation handing out millions, are starting to disagree. Only time will tell what changes the debate eventually forces.