Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)
Olympic athletes turning to OnlyFans and crowdfunding to finance their training highlight how little of the Olympics’ vast revenues reach the competitors themselves. Commenters contrast the IOC’s lucrative media deals and executive pay with the precarious finances of most athletes, especially in less popular sports, and debate whether public funding, prize restructuring, or leaving it to the market is the right remedy. The thread also widens into questions about the value of elite sport, comparisons with underfunded healthcare and arts, and the ethics and stigma of sex work as a fallback income stream.
Olympic athlete funding and economics
- Many see Olympic athletes as underpaid “intense hobbyists” despite being world‑class; funding is especially poor in non‑“tier 1” TV sports.
- Commenters highlight the IOC’s massive revenues and high executive pay versus minimal direct support for most athletes.
- Some argue this is “system working as designed”: niche events (e.g., javelin, racewalking, fencing) draw limited commercial interest, so low pay is expected.
- Others counter that the Olympics clearly generate billions via broadcast and sponsorship, so the issue is distribution, not demand.
OnlyFans, sex work, and morality
- Several posters see no issue with athletes using OnlyFans or similar platforms, framing it as entrepreneurship and direct monetization of image.
- Others view OnlyFans as “online prostitution,” harmful to youth, or indicative of low self‑worth, and are uneasy that elite sport funnels people into sex work.
- A recurring theme: it’s socially accepted when media corporations sexualize athletes (e.g., magazines), but controversial when athletes do it directly.
Value of sport vs “useful” work
- One camp argues athletes should accept that sport is risky, low‑ROI entertainment and choose more economically useful careers (e.g., factory work, nursing).
- Opposing voices stress that elite sport is part of human flourishing: it inspires, builds community, and offers role models, even if not economically efficient.
- Some compare disdain for athletes to dismissing artists or open‑source developers; they warn that the same “profit only” logic could be used against programmers and startups.
Inequality within and across sports
- Big team sports (football/soccer, basketball, volleyball in some regions) capture most money and attention; niche Olympic sports struggle for sponsorship.
- Even within lucrative sports (e.g., UFC, pro leagues), lower‑tier athletes often barely cover training and travel; for many, visibility mainly feeds coaching or gym businesses.
Broader system critiques: capitalism, welfare, and platforms
- Multiple comments zoom out to criticize “late capitalism,” platformization, and value extraction by intermediaries (IOC, sponsors, media, platforms).
- Analogies are drawn to GoFundMe for healthcare and to debates over socialized medicine and UBI: society will crowdfund or tip individuals but resists systemic fixes.
- Some accept competition and market outcomes as appropriate; others argue public funds should better support Olympians as a source of national pride and inspiration.