Progress Without Profit: The IOC benefits itself at the expense of athletes

I cheered as 17-year-old Alaskan swimmer Lydia Jacoby won gold, I laughed at the TikToks of Olympic rugby player Illona Maher and I admired gymnast Simone Biles, who bravely put her mental health first. 

This past summer, the Olympics provided me much-needed joy and triumph. Like most people, my love of the Olympics revolves around the athletes. However, athletes’ triumphant smiles as they cross the finish line and receive their glittering gold medals shouldn’t distract from their private struggles against the nonprofit behind the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee fails to protect and support its athletes. 

The IOC’s mission is “to promote Olympism around the world and lead the Olympic movement.” The nonprofit has an exclusive 15-member executive board that votes on legislation and regulations, but in total, there are 102 members in the organization, each representing different countries. Smaller nonprofits called National Olympic Committees exist underneath the IOC for different countries. NOCs, such as the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, prepare and select athletes for the Olympics. 

Unlike most nonprofits, the IOC does not receive donations or grants, instead relying primarily on broadcasting and licensing deals for money. NBC paid $7.7 billion for the broadcasting rights to show the Olympic Games through 2032, and the IOC is estimated to make $3 billion to $4 billion on the delayed 2020 Tokyo games.   

Although billions of dollars flow through the IOC, the organization invests little back into the athletes directly. Compared to professional leagues, in which athletes receive 50% of revenues, Olympic athletes receive less than 10%. Similarly, in 2016, the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee gave American athletes 8% of its revenues directly. The rest goes to what the IOC ambiguously refers to as “The Movement.” 

Despite allowing professional athletes to compete in the Games since 1986, the IOC treats athletes like amateurs who don’t train nor compete full-time. A lack of financial support made sense when participation in the Olympics was more akin to a hobby. However, the stakes have since risen and the pay should, too. 

Sanya Richards-Ross, a runner who won gold in the 2012 London Olympics, argues, “Everyone else — the IOC, the networks, and even the officials and support staff — is making money. The IOC doesn’t even award prize money for the gold medal.” Without support from the IOC, athletes must rely on the goodwill of friends, family and even strangers in order to compete. For example, the U.S. ski and snowboarding team needed a GoFundMe page to afford traveling to the Winter Games in South Korea. 

While I don’t expect the IOC to be able to pay all athletes a full-time salary for the four years leading up to their respective Games, my frustration lies with accounts of frivolous spending on the account of IOC members. Expendable money could be used for a better purpose.

For instance, Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College who researches the IOC, found that although the IOC does not give excessive salaries, it does give excessive perks. 

In Switzerland, where the IOC is based, nonprofits don’t have to publicly disclose their finances. However, a few figures have emerged. Although most IOC members are considered volunteers, executive board members receive $900 daily on Olympic business, including the days before and after meetings to cover travel days. Regular IOC members receive $450 a day for meetings and at the Olympics. Although technically a volunteer, the IOC President receives a yearly “allowance” of $251,000 and lives rent-free in a five-star hotel and spa in Switzerland. 

The excessive perks trickle down to NOCs as well. The USOPC pays for first-class flights for both executive board members and their spouses. A former employee showed receipts of a $300 dinner for two and a $150 bottle of wine on the nonprofit’s dime.  

Instead of a ridiculously high-priced dinner, this money should go directly as scholarships and stipends to the Olympic athletes working multiple jobs in order to support their dreams. Or, this reallocation of money could be as simple as actually offering prize money for winning medals. The licensing deals surrounding athletes’ performances provide funding for the IOC and NOCs in the first place. Yet, athletes don’t see most of the money the IOC makes off of them. 

Aside from a lack of monetary support, the IOC and NOCs also fail to support athletes or protect them from harm. In 2019, Congress found that, despite many opportunities to take action, the USOPC did not protect young gymnasts against the sexual abuse of team doctor Larry Nassar. USOPC showed year after year that protecting their young gymnasts was not a top priority. 

Additionally, Becca Meyers, a paralympic swimmer who is deaf and blind, recently pulled out of the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics because the USOPC denied her request to have a personal care assistant in Japan. This assistant would have been helping her with the bus system, finding facilities and eating at the dining hall, yet the USOPC claims a personal assistant is not “essential” and therefore defies coronavirus protocol.

This past summer, the Olympic Games was undoubtedly a highlight. However, I can’t ignore that both the IOC and USOPC continuously prioritize money and their own success over athletes’ well-being. While I will continue to celebrate athletes’ accomplishments, the nonprofits behind the Olympics don’t deserve praise until they start putting their athletes first.

Sophie Roppe is a senior writing about nonprofit organizations and social justice.