By Ed Warner
After World Athletics announced it would be paying its Olympic gold medallists, a fresh debate has opened up around money for our athletes and the draw of cash in sport for bodies. Ed Warner writes.
The British Olympic Association seats its gold medallists in the front of the plane carrying its team home from a long-haul Games. All other athletes in the cheap seats.
Two hours in Eurostar’s Business Premier Class may feel like less of a perk for winning this summer than BA’s Club World, but the gold arrival photo op — this time on the platform at St Pancras rather than aircraft steps — will still be part of the careful choreographing of public adoration of “our” winners as filtered through the media.
In recent days the BOA’s chief executive Andy Anson has spoken out against World Athletics’ controversial announcement of $50,000 payments for gold medallists at Paris 2024. Clearly, there’s special treatment and there’s special treatment.
I don’t think it’s particularly appropriate or helpful for one sport just to announce that… We’ve got to look at it holistically and make sure that we don’t create a two tier system
Cricket irony
It is an irony not lost on many in cricket that Anson has a side gig as chair of Lancashire County Cricket Club and is a leading player in the solidification of a two tier system. Just this week he is a representative of the eight counties slated to be gifted a franchise in The Hundred in talks to decide its spoils as the tournament opens up to outside investment. While the expected influx of private money should prove a lifeline to cash-strapped smaller counties, their ability to compete consistently with the likes of Lancashire may disappear as a result.
I’ve been told that there have been as many as 250 expressions of interest to invest in cricket competition The Hundred. How many are genuine and how many fishing expeditions will only be flushed out when the investment bankers get to work. But even if dimensionally exaggerated, there does seem the prospect of hundreds of millions of pounds flowing into the English game. And 51 per cent of each of the eight franchises will be owned by its host county.
The maths for the distribution of the monies received for the sale of a chunk of the remaining 49 per cent by the ECB ( England and Wales Cricket Board) is reportedly sliding around, but it’s hoped it will be resolved in this week’s discussions. It has been suggested that the eight franchise hosts are arguing that the project carries significant risk to them, so they need the same share of that residual minority as the other counties. How’s that for collegiate behaviour? The haves’ 51 per cent stakes should prove gold mines. Only risky if they royally stuff up the opportunity dropped into their laps.
Income compression
I’m in favour of payments for Olympic success as a means of assisting elite athletes in pursuing professional careers for our enjoyment. The top priced tickets for athletics at Paris 2024 cost €950. One $50,000 gold medal reward equates to just 49 of those seats.
I’m also in favour of governing bodies ensuring sufficient income compression between teams and athletes to enable meaningful competition and hence sporting jeopardy. Rugby is arguably losing this fight, as evidenced by the clubs that have gone bust and the effective absence of promotion to the Premiership. Football is bogged down in discussions about allocation of TV money from the Premier League to the EFL. Cricket has the opportunity now to prove more enlightened. Don’t hold your breath.
David Weir’s comments after finishing in the men’s wheelchair race at the London Marathon may not have cut through the weekend’s sporting noise to reach your ears. Not for the first time he railed against the lack of attention paid to Paralympians, while grateful to London for equalising able-bodied and wheelchair prize money for the first time this year.
I just feel like we’re forgotten in society… I’m sick and tired of trying to push and talk about it… We don’t get multimillion pound sponsorship deals… So this [prize money] is our earnings. This is what we live off
Money, money, money
Weir won $22,500 for his third place finish. All winners received $55,000. Total rewards for the best athletes will have varied widely based on (undisclosed) appearance fees and performance incentives. Weir was racing in a new chair costing up to £40,000 that has seen him set personal bests on the track this year at the age of 44. He says the effect has been “massive”. Only possible because people were prepared to invest in him. These numbers put the economics of life as an elite athlete outside of the most intense spotlights into perspective, and will hold true across many sports.
In last week’s column I suggested that World Athletics’ prize money initiative would in time lead to a change in the Olympic model. The initial response from other sports and Olympic federations has been one of outrage and indignation. But I’m not hearing any sportspeople complain, and theirs are the voices that should ultimately prevail.
A key role of sporting bodies is to ensure financially healthy competition structures that enable talent to excel and us to be entertained. Too often this is forgotten, administrators’ eyes lighting up at the prospect of cash — for themselves and the organisations they represent. Dangerous times right now across sport.
Talking of gold medals…
If you believe the analysts at Gracenote, the BOA will have far fewer winners to celebrate this summer. Their latest projection suggests a big home advantage spike for France and a jump in Dutch gold medallists, pushing GB down two places to fifth in the medal table. Details here.
Gracenote may be fielding a supercomputer versus my abacus, but I don’t buy it. I’m banking on a very busy St Pancras platform on 12 August.
And talking of tickets…
Another tranche of tickets for Paris went on sale last week. You could easily buy one for most sessions of most sports. Seemed strange with only 100 days to go.
Gizza job
If you’ve a “strong understanding of economic and financial regulation” as well as “a credible understanding of the business of football” and “experience of dealing with intense public scrutiny” then look no further. The search for the first chair of the intended Independent Football Regulator is underway. What the job spec doesn’t say is that you’ll need the hide of a rhino — to be first tested by a pre-appointment grilling from a showboating parliamentary select committee. Good luck!
I still think the IFR will prove costly and largely ineffective. But if you’re a believer, then all you need to know before crafting your supporting statement is here.
Getting bizzy
I confess I didn’t know what TCS stood for until I picked up my running number for the TCS London Marathon. Turns out it is Tata Consulting Services. Not a consumer-facing company. Rather, a business-to-business technology enterprise. Another indication of the shift in the direction of the sponsorship market away from billboard and shirt-front advertising that targets mass public awareness. More on this in the coming weeks. (Meanwhile, 3:21.13 including a negative split for me — just saying…).
Ed Warner is chair of GB Wheelchair Rugby and writes his sport column at sportinc.substack.com
