If You Can Ban the Bag, You Have To Replace It
Sebastian Coe, president of World Athletics (WA), was asked about the Enhanced Games. His response?
“Well it’s bollocks, isn’t it?”
Then he got personal. He called potential participants “moronic,” and he made the enforcement threat crystal clear: anyone “moronic enough” to take part will get banned “for a long time.”
I don't think WA realizes if they block someone’s earning option, they don’t get to pretend it has nothing to do with money. They don’t get to posture like this is all values and zero economics.
If they can police where athletes compete, they also own the obligation to replace any income it blocks.
Why a “Moronic” Event Can Still Recruit Pros
Every time the Enhanced Games comes up, people ask the same question: "Why would any serious athlete even consider this?"
A lot of pro track and field athletes aren’t pros in the way most people mean it. They’re not salaried, and there’s no guaranteed paycheck. They’re piecing together a living from sponsor deals, prize money, occasional appearance fees, and whatever support they can get from a federation, IF they get any at all. (WA openly admits its member federations aren’t equal.)
Now add the Enhanced Games: a big check and a storyline designed to hijack attention.
This event can recruit because the current system (World Athletics) leaves enough athletes financially exposed that a high-profile payday, even a controversial one, can look rational.
If pro track and field was truly financially stable outside Olympic years, the Enhanced Games would be a punchline. People would laugh, roll their eyes, and move on.........but here we are.
World Athletics Doesn’t Ignore Pay. They Just Don’t Explain It
In its World Plan for Athletics 2022–2030 (yea, I read every word of that deck), it lists as a KPI that more elite athletes should be able to “make a living” from the sport as their primary occupation. Cool.
In its Strategy for Growth 2020–2023 (yup, read that too), WA goes even further and spells out the intention to increase athlete earning potential. The wording is plain and simple: work with athletes and their managers to “review, shape and increase earning opportunities for athletes at all levels of the sport".
So, WA agrees this is a real issue. They want more athletes to earn more and stay in the sport long-term.
The problem is the documents don’t explain how that happens for most pros. Tbh, their plans sound like a whole bunch of “help athletes earn more” and not much of “here’s how it happens.”
Just saying.
What World Athletics Has Built, and What It Hasn’t
WA has made real moves on visibility and prize money. The problem is those moves still don’t add up to a professional system.
What They're Doing Right
WA’s plans put a lot of weight on one idea: if more people can watch the sport, more money can flow through it.
It says it wants Diamond League and Continental Tour coverage and timing “maximised,” with a specific target that those events should be available to view in every country with a member federation. They also call out growing the Continental Tour so every region has a “top level” product.
In Pioneering Change (yup, another deck I read), they claim a “step change” in athlete prize money and describe expanding the World Indoor Tour and Continental Tour meetings from just over 20 events to almost 300 by the end of 2023.
On prize money specifically, WA points to direct increases. They say fines tied to Russia’s federation were used to increase World Championships prize money by $1 million USD for Oregon 2022, and they say that increase is now part of the hosting agreement for future championships. They also say more than $24 million USD was allocated to athletes across World Championship events over the four-year period they’re summarizing.
Credit where it’s due. More events and more visibility help. More prize money helps.
Where the Plan Gets Fuzzy
Now the gap.
WA says, in the same strategy set, that it'll “further increase prize money” and “deliver partnership opportunities to help elite athletes build professional career pathways and increase revenue.”
That sounds great but where is the actual operating model for “professional career pathways”?
WA’s plans get specific about broadcasts, event growth, and content access. They get less specific about the parts that would make “pro” mean stable for more than a small handful of stars: predictable earnings, clear standards for appearance fees, and year-round earning windows that don’t depend on one championship peak.
The Olympic Money Cycle Is the Whole Problem
This is the part that makes the whole thing make sense: the sport has “big money years” and “scrape by years.”
World Athletics’ own documents describe income that spikes and dips across the four-year Olympic cycle. Some years the money is flowing. Other years it’s not.
So when WA tells athletes “don’t take that payday,” it lands differently. A one-time check looks rational when your entire industry only reliably swells every four years.
WA can’t keep acting like athlete income is a personal problem when the sport’s cash flow is uneven by design.
Authority Without Obligation
When Sebastian Coe talks about the Enhanced Games, he doesn’t say “we discourage it.” He says athletes who participate will get banned for a long time.
That’s not a suggestion. That’s control.
Lettuce look at how the sport actually pays people 🥬💰
Most track athletes aren’t salaried by anyone
There’s no league paycheck
No guaranteed minimum
No standard contract the sport enforces across the whole professional class
You can be world-class, training full time, competing globally, and still be one injury, one non-renewal, or one bad season away from financial free fall.
WA is willing to punish athletes like they’re employees, while the sport pays most athletes like they’re freelancers. The audacity.
So, President Coe: Where’s the Replacement Plan?
World Athletics can ban athletes for where they compete.
They also claim, in its own plans, that athlete livelihood matters. It literally puts “more athletes able to make a living” on the KPI list.
Those two things can't live in different worlds.
So here are the questions that need answers. Clear ones.
What does a financially viable pro track and field career look like outside Olympic years? Not for the top 10. Not for the medal favorites. For the actual pro class.
Who is this plan for, specifically? Top 20? Top 50? Top 200? Every athlete who meets WA’s definition of elite? Be specific.
What does “make a living” mean in WA’s KPI language? What income threshold counts? What percentage of elites hit it today?
What is owned by World Athletics, and what is being outsourced? Which parts of athlete viability are WA-operated, and which parts are left to shoe brands, meet promoters, agents, and national federations?
What replaces the income you're willing to block? WA says it wants to “increase earning opportunities for athletes at all levels.” What is the mechanism, not the intention?
What is the timeline? Bans are immediate. What is the date when the replacement becomes real.
If the answer is “we don’t have one,” then say that. If the answer is “it’s not our job,” then please stop having the audacity to police where pros compete.
Pick One: Control or Responsibility
This whole situation keeps getting framed like a morality play.
It’s not.
It’s a governance problem with a money trail.
If World Athletics can ban athletes for participating in the Enhanced Games, what is their plan to make professional track financially viable without the Olympics?
World Athletics can police legitimacy, or it can pretend athlete livelihood isn’t its problem.
It can’t do both.