Would the Olympic athletes run faster or jump higher if paid? Would they train more intensively for a cash reward? There is a suggestion Britain should pay its medal winners money, with £20,000 for a gold.

Some countries do reward their sports stars materially. Iraq and Russia reportedly provided its medal-winners with flats; Malaysia reputedly gave its silver medallist £50,000 plus £6,000-a-year for life.

If that isn’t against the Olympic spirit it is certainly against the tradition of the British amateur. Until now we have expected winners to be content with their medal, the honour – and often a place on the official honours list.

Yet things have changed. The UK didn’t send a team to Beijing to take part: the squad was sent there to win and did so spectacularly. We targeted the budget and the training to bring success.

Advertising group M&C Saatchi reckons the victors can build on their success to build fortunes. Cyclist Chris Hoy can make £1m, it says. The experience of Beijing suggests Team GB will supply the next generation of sports administrators and media commentators. Two inspirational after-dinner speeches could earn a gold-medallist as much as the sum mooted for success at future Games.

And with the 2012 Games on home ground, the scope for athletes living off their laurels should be high.

The only drawback to fortune is that with a tally of 47 medals, including 19 golds, there will be intense competition on the speeches circuit and for selling Christmas books.

But there is quite enough financial motivation to win medals without additional payment from the taxpayers who, together with Lottery ticket buyers, have invested heavily to improve the athletes’ chances of winning.

The question on the running track is the same one that ought to apply in the boardroom or on the shopfloor: should remuneration be an incentive to perform rather than a reward for success?  Surely athletes do not need greater inducement to succeed and surely the reward would not produce greater success.

Share this: