You ask a just question and shouldn't be downvoted.

A friend of mine is an ex-pro tennis player. She's nearing 60 years old now. She's been n 1 in her country and n 2 worldwide in doubles.

And it's not easy for athletes once they age: when they're still young, they make money doing their sport. Then they find other things, often related, to do: for example she trained a world number one for years.

But later on, it gets more difficult: she became a tennis teacher. And the country's sport federation gives her money for quite a few years... But not until 65 years old.

It's precisely later in life that many pro athletes do need money.

Only those at the very, very, very top do make a really good living. For the others, it's hard.

So $100K at 45 is welcome.

P.S: also if you're 100% guaranteed to get $100 K a 45, I'm sure there are way to use that as collateral for borrowing before you're 45. But that may defeat the idea of giving it when they turn 45.

Is your argument that, if she knew she was going to get $100,000 in 2010, she would have been number 1 in the world in doubles in 1990? That's how I understand the stated goal of this gift.