The Enhanced Games is built on a simple idea. Performance should be paid directly, not filtered through layers of committees and systems. But the Olympic Committee does not see it that way! IOC President Kirsty Coventry has made it clear she does not support paying athletes for competing at the Games. That stance has now become the centre of debate, especially as questions grow around how money moves inside Olympic sport itself.

Coventry, a two-time Olympic gold medallist, who reportedly earns around $350,000 a year along with a housing allowance, recently said: “I don’t believe in paying athletes….. I still don’t think we should be paying athletes at the Olympic Games.”

Instead, she pointed to support systems, saying athletes should be helped through their journey, not paid for participation. “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.”

But that message has landed in the middle of a growing financial contrast. According to the state of swimming analysis from the 2021 to 2024 Olympic cycle, IOC leadership earnings are around $55 million across senior executives, with top officials taking multi-million dollar packages.

For example, senior roles include: Christophe De Kepper earning about $6.2 million, Christophe Dubi around $4.3 million, Lana Haddad around $4.1 million, Kit McConnell around $3.1 million, and other senior directors earning between roughly $2.2 million and $2.4 million each.

That figure has triggered backlash online, where critics argue the system is sending mixed signals. One widely shared analysis put it bluntly: “Kirsty Coventry doesn’t believe athletes should be paid. Then again, she presides over a business that paid directors $55m ( $30m + for top 10) in the last Olympic cycle. That’s > any single Intl sports federation got from Olympic revenue share.”

That comparison has become central to the argument. Athletes are the ones who build the Olympic product. They train for years, often without a stable income, and compete on the biggest stage in sport. Yet they do not receive a direct share of Olympic broadcasting or sponsorship revenue, even though the IOC generates billions, estimated at over $7 billion per Olympic cycle (as per beinsports.com)

For the 2021-2024 Olympiad, approximately US$40 million was allocated to the major international federations (FIG, FIS, ISU, IIHF, World Aquatics and World Athletics). Throughout this entire system, however, there were no direct payments to the athletes from Olympic revenue itself.

Rather, the income of athletes relies on national funding, sponsorships and federation backing, which varies widely from nation to nation. While some athletes are well supported and are stable, others may find themselves having to seek financial assistance from personal sponsors or family members to continue training and competing at a high level.

Though there are some payments based on performance, but that’s limited and not consistent. For instance, the United States Olympic Committee pays about $37,500 for a gold medal. Federations also provide prize money in some sports; for example, World Athletics provided $50,000 for gold medals in the Olympic Games in 2024. But why IOC is not paying?

The IOC is organized differently. Revenue is shared among the different parts of the Olympic movement: national Olympic committees, international federations, organizing committees, and development programmes.

Nevertheless, the core debate remains unsolved. Sure, athletes generate the attention and stories, but leadership structures receive compensation within the same system. Despite their victory, Olympic athletes don’t earn money from the games themselves and this is something that still irks a lot of athletes.

Olympic athletes respond to growing pay controversy

Three-time Olympic medallist Roland Schoeman said: “The IOC loves the idea of ‘Olympic values’ as long as athletes are the only ones expected to sacrifice financially.” Keely Hodgkinson also reacted, writing simply: “Eeeeee this won’t age well.” Sally Pearson added a sharper comparison, saying: “You could have just crushed a few dreams there… imagine telling a rock star, you’re going on tour in front of thousands of people, but we’re not going to pay you.”

Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych also spoke about it, “It’s easy to talk about not needing to pay athletes when you are the “Golden Girl” of the bloody dictator Mugabe.”

Interestingly, the Enhanced Games have stoked the debate, attempting to frame itself as the opposite model of the IOC. It was much criticized on its release, but it still delivered a very clear message: pay athletes for performance. The event awarded $250,000 to first place, $1 million bonuses for world record holders, and even $20,000 prizes for those who finished last! Even the organizers upped the ante later to pay $10m to the first sprinter to beat Usain Bolt’s 9.58 in the 100m at the 2027 Games.

Although the project couldn’t live up to its early promise, the model is still being discussed for its financial viability, particularly by those in traditional sports who believe they are not being compensated enough. By comparison, the Olympic approach keeps on defending itself, with revenue reallocated.