> Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.

> So half of it will never be seen by the athlete

This can't be right, right? I never heard of people "receiving a donation" that you get the promise of now, but will be given to your family once you die, sounds a bit macabre. And as you mention, also pointless, how would that make them "break through new frontiers of excellence" when they may not be able to afford rent while being alive?

▲

falcor84 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> will be given to your family once you die, sounds a bit macabre.

To me it sounds more than a bit macabre - depending on the familial relations, it would seem like a motive for them to commit suicide in order to provide for their children or for their children to murder them. I can already imagine the memoires being adapted into Netflix shows.

	▲	smileysteve 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Many companies provide a life insurance benefit equal to 50%-150% of annual salary. If your sport has any mortality or long term risk (concussions, cardiac events) then this could be seen as a nice extra insurance policy.

▲

mindslight an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My very rough lay understanding is that life insurance policies can be quite lucrative (maybe because of the tax advantages?), and the main thing that holds back life insurance on arbitrary people from being a general investment strategy is that you need to have some plausible reason why you're interested in someone's lifespan. I have to wonder if this whole thing isn't some giant tax dodge based on taking out small life insurance policies that pay out to the athletes, and much larger ones that pay out to the asset protection strategy of his choice.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have you never heard of a trust before? They have all sorts of stipulations depending on what the person creating the trust wants. It's very common for a kid to only get access to their trust when they turn 18 with more access granted at other milestones. It also sounds like a free life insurance policy. Those also only pay out when someone dies.

This doesn't sound macabre at all to me. Sounds more like loophole finding to avoid directly paying the athletes to allow them to keep their amateur status to me.

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I've heard of all of those things, but never used in a way to motive the person who is currently alive.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A trust that says you don't get access to the rest unless you graduate college isn't meant as motivation? Allowing extra payout for a house only if married? People have put all sorts of limitations on trusts specifically as motivation.

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> A trust that says you don't get access to the rest unless you graduate college isn't meant as motivation?

No, a trust that is setup to give your family money when you die, in order to serve as motivation for you to "break through new frontiers of excellence"

	▲	dylan604 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This isn't motivation though. This is a reward for achieving a place on the Olympic team. If this does not continue as a thing past the upcoming Olympics, athletes will still train in hopes of qualifying for the next team. They won't be doing it because this might be available to them. If they qualify, this will just be a bonus.

▲

ojbyrne 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Amateur status hasn’t been relevant to the Olympics in quite a while.

▲

pooloo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why even question it? Its a donation that no one ever had to make.

▲

Carrok 4 hours ago | parent [-]

“You only get this money if you submit yourself to Christ and living a conservative lifestyle”

Still not worth questioning?

▲

irishcoffee 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That isn’t a donation.

Also, $donator is making, as far as I know, zero demands. These people would be competing if they had to pay. Actually, most of them do have to pay.

Your analogy is comparing apples-to-sqrt(-1)

	▲	lovich 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If there are stipulations for receiving the money then it is a demand. If you think the above example isn’t a donation then I don’t see the logic behind seeing this as a donation. And to be clear, I view it as a donation that is still probably net good, but it’s not a selfless donation. The timeline as well also means it can be clawed back at some point in time. I’d probably rate it a 2/10 for “goodness” where anything greater than 0 is still good.