When I read that International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Kirsty Coventry does not believe athletes should be paid at the Olympic Games, I pulled the same expression Adrian Wildschutt and Adam Lipschitz gave Sihle Mapukata when the veteran runner surged past the elite field in the opening stages of the Sanlam Cape Town Marathon.

Those were the two stories that grabbed my attention this week.

But it was Coventry’s comments that truly struck a nerve.

Speaking to New Zealand outlet Sport Nation, Coventry said she comes from a small country and from a sport that does not necessarily pay athletes, and still believes Olympians should not be compensated for competing at the Games.

According to Coventry, the focus should rather be on finding more ways to support athletes on their journey to becoming Olympians.

I understand her point.

The IOC distributes billions in revenue to the Olympic movement, organising committees, international federations, national Olympic committees and development programmes. Coventry herself benefited from the Olympic Solidarity Scholarship Programme and admitted she is not sure she would have achieved the same success without it.

But what about the athletes who are not on scholarships? What about those who receive little to no support from their federations? What about athletes who spend from their own pockets to prepare for the biggest sporting event on earth?

Most importantly, what about the athletes whose names, images and performances are used to market the Olympics and turn it into the global spectacle it has become?

Surely they deserve direct compensation too.

We have talented athletes in our own community who have openly spoken about their Olympic dreams. Two years ago, badminton pair Amy Ackerman and Deidrè Laurens travelled across the world in pursuit of qualification points for the Paris Olympic Games.

Also Read: The Corner Flag: Winning is being better today than you were yesterday

Though they ultimately fell short, their sacrifice and determination showed just how much becoming Olympians meant to them.

Youngsters such as Chelsea van Dyk, Dominique Broughton and Siyanda Madlabane have also made it clear that the Olympics remains the ultimate goal.

But after hearing the IOC president’s comments this week, I could not help but wonder whether future generations of athletes will still view the Games in the same light.

Being an Olympian is a prestigious honour. Winning an Olympic medal can change an athlete’s life forever. But prestige alone does not pay rent, buy groceries or secure an athlete’s future after retirement.
And this is where the IOC should be worried.

While traditional sporting bodies continue debating whether athletes deserve financial reward, the controversial Enhanced Games are dangling massive prize money in front of competitors who are in their prime.

In South Africa, we have already lost 200m record holder Clarence Munyai to the controversial event, which allows athletes to compete without anti-doping restrictions.

While the promise of ‘record-breaking’ performances may attract some athletes to the Enhanced Games, I believe it is ultimately the money doing the talking.

If mainstream sport does not evolve and better compensate athletes, some competitors will inevitably be tempted by opportunities that prioritise financial reward over ethics and athlete welfare.

That may be uncomfortable to admit, but it is the reality.

Also Read: The Corner Flag: A note to Northerns FC’s first team