Commercialization and the Olympics: A step too far?

As Paris and the world prepare for the 2024 Olympics, attention turns to issues of security, of course, but also to ethical issues. There are several matters of ethical interest that arise in relation to sport, some of which concern, at bottom, issues of fair play (such as use of performance-enhancing drugs, enhancement, issues of gender and transgender eligibility policies), while others are political (e.g., exclusion of national branding from certain athletes who can compete only as neutral athletes, issues of disability and able-bodiedness), but this year the topic which has emerged central stage is that of commercialization. Commercialization has long been an issue in relation to influence in sport—for example, in the ownership of Premier League football clubs in the United Kingdom, but the question for the 2024 Olympics is that of providing prize money to (some) athletes.

Lord Sebastian Coe has defended the decision of World Athletics to give gold medal-winning athletes $50,000 in 48 events. Under the plan, prize money would be extended to silver medal-winners at the 2028 games in Los Angeles. Coe argues that the world has changed and that it is important to create a sport that is financially viable for its competitors. He says that if he thought athletes were competing only for the money, he might take a different view1 but he does not believe that to be the case. This last point suggests that he does actually attach some value to nonfinancial motivation, long associated with the ethos of the Olympics.

Against Coe's view, however, there are both arguments of principle and arguments about implementation. Some have argued that “the idea of rewarding competitors with pots of cash runs counter to the spirit of everything the Olympics supposedly stands for.”2 Iqbal describes the essence of the Olympics as a competition in which amateurs compete for glory. Pierre de Coubertin, the co-founder of the modern Olympics, was committed to the ideals of fair play and amateurism and the idea that the important thing was not to win but to take part. He also saw the Olympic sporting event as a contributor to international understanding and world peace.3 According to Eddie Pells, writing in The Independent, however, the announcement by World Athletics was “the latest step in a century's worth of unraveling the myth of amateurism at the Olympics.”4 Norman Baker, likewise, has written of the “gradual decline, though not extinction” of amateurism in the late 20th century5 (p. 1). Athletes would not be able to reach today's levels of excellence, or to travel to compete, without significant financial investment: the question concerns how rather than whether they should be financially supported and rewarded.

In addition to issues concerning the purported Olympic ethos, there are others of a more practical/process kind. One is that World Athletics has taken this decision without wider consultation with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Another is that this decision only applies to athletics: other sports, such as rowing, cannot afford to do the same, at least not in the present context. The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) has argued that “Paying prize money in a multi-sport environment goes against the principle of solidarity.”6

Another issue concerns the wider consequences. Iqbal foresees pressure for increase, over time, in the amounts offered to winners, arguing that it would be preferable to finance athletes in other ways, perhaps through national schemes, as already happens in different countries.

No doubt there will continue to be discussions about the details of the implementation of the World Athletics plan and how the consequences may not only be unintended (and possibly unforeseeable) but also undesirable; the deeper issues also require further debate, however. These include: To what extent should solidarity be expected between athletes in different sports and why? What might this actually mean? Is the Olympic ideal of amateurism really “shamateurism” in today's world, as Pells suggests, or does there remain something of value to be lost here? In this context, it may be worth revisiting the ideas of virtue and excellence that were celebrated in ancient Greek athletics. According to Heather Reid, “the Olympic blend of athletics and religion initiated a new attitude toward knowledge and community service”7 (p. 23). Whatever the merits of this claim, there is an important question concerning what we, as spectators, do and should expect sport apart from entertainment and feelings of amazement and awe at the achievements of athletes: for some, commerce and ethics are necessarily in opposition, but perhaps there is room for a more nuanced assessment. No doubt the debate will continue through the Paris 2024 games.