IOC athlete grant: Why $10,000 payout may not stretch Olympic finances | Business

The International Olympic Committee’s decision to pay Olympians for the first time marks a major break from Olympic tradition, but the financial burden on the Lausanne-based body may be modest when compared with its Olympic-year revenue, expenditure and reserves.

The IOC announced that every eligible Olympian will receive a $10,000 grant, starting with athletes who competed at the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games. The payment will be made under the “Fit for the Future Olympian Grant” programme and will apply to athletes who have not violated anti-doping rules, the IOC’s code of ethics or other IOC rules.

The IOC expects about 14,000 athletes to be eligible in every Olympic cycle, putting the overall cost of the programme at about $140 million per four-year cycle. The money will come from the IOC and be distributed through National Olympic Committees.

“This is not prize money. This is about recognising the journey and the commitment it takes to become an Olympian,” IOC member Pau Gasol said. “And it is about recognising that every Olympian is part of our Olympic community, and honouring those who have come before us and paved the way, so that current and future generations of Olympians can benefit.”

IOC President Kirsty Coventry said the issue had been discussed for many years and added that she was “extremely proud” that the organisation was now able to take the step.

Why is the IOC paying athletes now?

For decades, Olympic athletes have not been paid by the IOC for participating in the Games. Medal winners have often received rewards from national governments, sports federations or sponsors, but the IOC itself has not offered universal cash support to all participants.

The new grant changes that structure. It does not reward performance and is not linked to medals. Instead, it recognises the cost of reaching the Olympic stage, particularly for athletes from low-income countries or from sports that do not attract major sponsorship money.

The decision also comes at a time when athletes have become more vocal about the financial pressures of elite sport. Training, travel, equipment, coaching, nutrition and medical support can make an Olympic campaign expensive, while many athletes remain outside the commercial spotlight.

The grant will not be available to Paralympians because the International Paralympic Committee is a separate organisation. However, the IOC and IPC work together, and the IPC receives funding from the IOC.

How much will the first payout cost?

The first round of payments will cover athletes from the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics. Winter Games participation is much smaller than Summer Games participation. If about 2,900 athletes are covered, the immediate cost would be around $29 million.

That figure is not insignificant in athlete-support terms, but it is small when set against the IOC’s broader finances. The expected first payout would be less than 1 per cent of the IOC’s revenue in an Olympic year such as 2024, when the Paris Games took place.

The full Olympic-cycle cost of $140 million is also modest when compared with the IOC’s multiyear revenue base. The IOC’s commercial revenue for the 2021-24 cycle was about $7.7 billion. On that base, the athlete grant would amount to around 1.8 per cent of cycle revenue.

What do IOC revenue and expenditure show?

The IOC’s finances are heavily shaped by the Olympic calendar. Its revenue rises sharply in Olympic years because broadcast rights, sponsorship and other Games-related income are recognised around the Games.

In 2024, the year of the Paris Olympics, the IOC reported revenue of more than $4.4 billion. Its Games delivery and Olympic Movement support costs were about $3.3 billion, while administrative expenditure was about $196 million. The year produced a large surplus, helped by Olympic-year revenue and investment income.

By contrast, non-Olympic years usually look weaker. In 2025, IOC revenue was reported at about $650 million, while operating expenses were close to $981 million. This resulted in an operating deficit, although investment income helped reduce the overall loss.

This uneven pattern is important. Judging the $10,000 grant only against a non-Olympic year would make the programme look heavier. But the IOC operates on a four-year Olympic cycle, and its major commercial income is also structured over that cycle.

Will the $10,000 grant burden IOC finances?

The grant is unlikely to become a serious burden on IOC finances in its current form. The estimated $29 million first payout for Winter Olympians would be small compared with Olympic-year revenue. The $140 million four-year cost would also be limited compared with the IOC’s multibillion-dollar commercial revenue cycle.

The IOC says it distributes about 90 per cent of Olympic revenue back into sport and athlete development. It also says it distributes the equivalent of about $4.7 million every day to athletes and sporting organisations across the world. In that context, the new grant is more a reallocation within the Olympic system than a threat to the organisation’s financial stability.

However, the decision could create long-term expectations. Once athletes receive a universal grant, pressure may grow for the IOC to raise the amount in future cycles, include more categories of athletes, or provide additional support in areas such as health insurance, training expenses and post-career transition.

There may also be questions about whether $10,000 is enough to materially change the lives of athletes in high-cost sports or countries. For some athletes, particularly those from smaller sporting systems, it could be a valuable support. For established stars in commercially successful sports, it may be largely symbolic.

Why is the decision still significant?

The financial cost may be manageable, but the policy shift is substantial. The IOC has historically defended a model in which money is redistributed through Games organisers, International Federations, National Olympic Committees and Olympic Solidarity programmes, rather than being paid directly to athletes.

The new grant moves the Olympic system closer to direct athlete compensation, even though the IOC has framed it as support rather than prize money. It also comes after other bodies began experimenting with athlete payments. World Athletics, for instance, announced prize money for Olympic gold medallists at the Paris Games, increasing pressure on the wider Olympic movement to revisit athlete compensation.