Paris Olympics to feature prize money for track and field gold medalists, paid by athletics governing body

That's great news!

Of course 50k is peanuts but it's a nice gesture by World Athletics. Giving back to their champions when they don't have to. It's cool that they're the first to do this.

Congratulations to Cole Hocker on being $50k richer.

About freakin time.

The whole "money corrupts the purity of sport" BS that the IOC has been whining about for years is just an excuse for them to pocket all the cash. But we already knew this.

Some of the asian countries have much bigger prizes for olympic medals. Singapore was already mentioned.

Thailand: 12 million baht for a gold, 7.2 million baht for a silver and 4.8 million baht for a bronze. That's about 300,000 GBP/USD for a gold. And obviously that money goes a lot further there because the cost of living is much less.

Possibly it's higher because fewer athletes are winning medals. If as many Thais were winning olympic gold as europeans or americans are, their athletic federation wouldn't be able to afford it.

It is about time but I think that's partly because money has long ago corrupted the sport.

Fairytales aren't real

Might it be enough incentive to coax a few more athletes to double who may have been undecided? Or not, because those few athletes capable of double gold like SML and Jacob are already set financially.

I doubt 50k matters to anyone good enough to double…

I think I would rather payouts for top 3 or making a final. But they really need to up around like 100k/event.

Here is our article:

letsrun.com

World Athletics Introduces Prize Money for Gold Medalists at 2024 Olympics

LetsRun.com

Gold medalists in Paris will get $50,000 each, making track & field the first sport to offer prize money in the 128-year history of the Olympics. *MB: Paris Olympics to feature prize money for track and field gold medalists,...

Link:www.letsrun.com/news/2024/04/world-ath...

Nice step by World Athletics. What I would really like to see in this vein would be a reworked USATF development system with tiers of support based on specific marks or places in U20/NCAA rankings/champs - if you hit x time/place, you know you will receive x from USATF to spend on athletic development. Would make it a little easier for kids / sub-elites with little name recognition who could blossom into our next homegrown talent to stay in the sport, relying less completely on the arbitrary decisions of Instagram-number focused sponsors for if they can train post college or not. Just as important in my mind this could help produce a solid under-layer of good-not-great talent that reproduces interest in the sport a little like the '70s-'80s. A solid layer of national level talent is the environment that world talent consistently arises from - your local sub-elite group on a country-wide scale is the environment for a nation's track dominance.

This would require a good bit of initial investment from the governing body, but eventually the increased interest drives sponsorship interest up and thereby cashflow into the overseeing organization and it becomes a self-sustaining cycle.

I did a quick search and did not find the answer: does USATF kick in money in addition to USOPC $? Other NGBs do.

If you couldn't find the answer, there's your answer.

Most countries will still incentivise elite athletes to take part of the Olympics. It's very much an easy way for politicians and other decision makers to showcase national glory to the masses.

An additional 50k incentive straight from the international olympic committee is not peanuts. It's a lot of money in most parts of the world, where sportsmen are not professionals (i.e. they have full time jobs and/or available sponsorship is not so generous...)

Even Singapore is a bad example, because although the country is cash rich and a market economy, elite sportsmen are few (directly due to the climate, IMO) and not sponsored to a level comparable to the US.

Singapore only has one Olympic gold medalist, FYI. Joseph Schooling, a swimmer. And his gold medal in Rio was nothing short of a miracle, considering he beat Michael Phelps, Chad le Clos and Laszlo Cseh (all more famous / established champions, who all got silver this time). A performance never to be repeated. He just retired from swimming, btw.

It sounds a bit nitpicking but if WA is struggling to pile in the revenue to build the sport's popularity, it could be argued that for most T+F GOLD medallists a $50k extra sum will be a small % of what they will earn for at least the following year and the money could be better spent elsewhere. But I realise you cant draw distinction between say Men's 100m and women's hammer on this particular matter. I'd be surprised if a T+G gold winner from anywhere in Europe, North America, Oceania, UAE or Japan didnt earn $500k in the following year from within and without the sport. Coe mentioned that the gold medal money might, amongst other benefits, enable them to add sophistication to their training. Hmm,

I agree, it's like the rich getting richer.

Great, more motivation to dope

$50k to only the winners isn't that much but it is something. It's good to see some of the $ associated with the Olympics directly going to the athletes.

Some other sports could offer that and more if they wanted to. The winner of the Masters Golf Tournament this year will get over $3 million. 47th place will receive more than $50k.

Other Olympic sports (archery, luge) might not be in any position to even consider handing out money to Olympic winners.

Prize money for Olympic events will always be limited due to exclusive sponsorship contract restrictions. The Olympics are not like road or even some other track races where corporate sponsors could financially support the event.

You can imagine the prize money that could be offered to the medalists of the adidas Olympic men's 100 meter, or the Puma Olympic women's 200 meter.

Ohtani makes $70,000,000 per year, Yamamoto makes $26,000,00 per year.

$50,000 is around 1% of that.

it should be double that.