Wrong incentive

Money talks, as we all well know, but can it spell the difference between a gold medal and fourth place at the Olympics?
We’re not talking about money for training here. Obviously, it takes funding to train athletes to compete at a world-class level. Rather, it’s the money many athletes from various countries around the world receive for winning a medal—upwards of $100,000 for a gold in some cases.
Call it the “incentive” factor.
But do athletes need these kind of incentives? After all, shouldn’t they be trying their best to win a gold medal in the first place. Or, in fact, do they need that financial windfall staring them in the face to shave that extra 2/100ths off their time, or make a dive that much more perfect?
Evidently, the satisfaction of attaining a personal best, or the pride of representing one’s country on the international stage, no longer is reward enough.
There’s no question Canada has had a disappointing medal haul at the 28th Olympiad in Greece so far (two gold, four silver, and a bronze as of press time today). The swim team is in disarray, favourite Perdita Felicien shocked everyone by muffing the first hurdle in the 100-m final yesterday, and our rowers—with just one medal—didn’t meet pre-Games expectations.
Most of the finger-pointing, of course, swirls around money.
While the way Ottawa funds our amateur athletes clearly needs revamping, paying them for winning medals isn’t the way to go. Sure, there is a precedent (our women’s hockey team apparently got $20,000 each for winning gold at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City two years ago) and many athletes often turn their medals into cash afterwards thanks to endorsement deals.
But to get a direct financial reward for a medal taints the spirit of the Games—and may even encourage the “cheating” (through doping) that pervades the Olympics these days.
Our athletes should continue to go for the gold for their country first, not their bank accounts.