The real answer here is that he is mad about people protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza. This $100M donation is being made with funds he had given to UPenn. He has taken it back, via lawyers, because they allowed the protests to go on. He is now just taking that original donation and moving it somewhere else. Not that I am against the Olympians getting paid, just some context.
I would have never guessed that a significant portion of western society would not only be ok with killing thousands of children but be outraged that anyone would protest it. I feel like I have more information about the world than ever and understand it less than ever.
Estimates for deaths we caused in Iraq range from the low hundreds of thousands to the millions, and that's going to be overwhelmingly civilians. [1] And given those are all very short time estimates (generally 2003-2007), and since many studies are from violent deaths only (excluding subsequent caused famine/disease/despair/etc) the millions is likely closer to the mark than not.
Compare that to the death toll in any comparable war, event, or behavior that we politicize against domestically. Now imagine yourself seeing these things from the outside. That's how the world looks to the 'real' rest of the world, and not the ~15% and declining percent of the world that people call the 'rest of the world', when they mean Europe, the Anglosphere, and a handful of occasional oddballs like Japan or South Korea.
And when you see this world through their eyes, you start to see an entirely different world, and it's the world that we are also starting to see now as all masks and pretexts have been coming off for years now. And in general I think that's a good thing. People can't form realistic and meaningful worldviews if they're stuck in a Marvel Comic Universe perspective of international relations.
Don't think anyone in the "global South", which have suffered from Western "civilizing missions" are surprised by this.
It's kind of funny to see "anti-interventions" podcasters go full empire mode and justify literally colonization today.
Hardly surprising, since most of these white nationalists love the British Empire's "oeuvre" in non-White countries (but somehow ignore the fact that their own country fought against its tyrannical rule).
it's hard to put numbers to words, but I doubt "a significant portion of western society [is] outraged that anyone would protest it" - likely, it's very small but influential and/or wealthy.
They're good at influencing opinions. Half of America voted for a person with dementia. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Having more information doesn't necessarily means that one is better informed.
I also read/watch as much original sources as time and energy allows, that often (not always) gives a very different image than what media represents. For example, what I have read in the documents produces by UN representative for signs of genocide showed very thin/constructed arguments. Haven't read all of it so maybe there are better arguments as well.
What people feel about things is almost an entirely a function of their information environment, rather than the facts of the events themselves. Almost nobody truly aware of the number of slaughtered and starved Palestinian children would be "okay" with it; the people defending it are more-or-less viewing these events in terms so different from that that those basic facts cannot reach their understanding at all.
I’d personally put myself in this camp. I think what Israel is doing is horrible. But the us-versus-them dynamic in the American Palestinian-activist community is exhausting. Furthermore, it is focused on personal showboating—messaging and rallying—versus helping anyone on the ground.
So I’m continuing to focus on Ukraine, my pet war, and northern Ethiopia, my pet FP issue. I’ve been able to materially aid folks there and—twice, on the margin—influence U.S. policy in their respects. I don’t have to deal with partners who want to convince me that each of my friends who doesn’t post daily on Instagram about Tigray is Hitler. Instead, they’re focused on the folks there.
I have opinions on Gaza. But I’m not taking a stand. And let’s be honest, that’s a fair characterization of 90% of folks who constantly go off on rants about Zionists or genocides but have never given a dollar to a humanitarian cause, called an elected or tried to travel to their region in question.
> Please explain the us–versus–them dynamic you referred to?
The tendency to tar and feather anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with one as a Zionist. (Which, in these circles, carries the same weight as being a bona fide racist.)
This memorably presented itself a few months ago when folks—potentially on the way to changing their minds—would be called Nazis for referring to the war as a war, as if a genocide within a war is somehow inconceivable.
Absolute morality rallies the base. It doesn’t usually convert moderates. And the situation in Gaza defies absolute morality.
If I ignore it, it is as if it never happened. Part of it is willful ignorance though. For Ross, he is deeply religious and views the security of Israel as that of the Jewish people (having a home to run away to if shit hits the fan). Children dying is a sacrifice he is willing to make. For the majority of America though, I believe they are a) either scared, because they saw a witch hunt orchestrated by people in power (like Ackman). If 3 female deans, many of them minorities, can get ousted at the whim of a billionaire, then the typical engineer or employee will be easily labeled antisemitic for defending those who are denied their rights to life and property, and will lose their job. Canary Mission and other groups are funded by successful billionaires like Ackman, Adelsons etc and harass students on campuses for protesting. They doxx them, blacklist them (no boss will hire someone on those letters, at the expense of being labeled an antisemite, and you are in it for a suprise once you notice how many of our tech companies and finance sectors are run by religious sociopaths). I know a few victims of those efforts. Interestingly, 90% of them are white middle class, and I think they are mostly women. Their courage is to be admired. Or b) people are okay with it, because Ghaza is so far away and because of Israel's blockade on the media covering ghaza (Israel has already killed more journalists last year than all other nations combined btw. I do not know of any democracy that does this).
Not that I'm anyone important, but at this point if I google someone and they show up on the Canary Mission website, I'm inclined to hold them in higher regard.
There's a lot of non-obvious information or hidden information out there if you have no context. I mean, at the very least I can tell that there are a lot of wealthy and powerful people in western society that are invested in maintaining the innocence and primacy of Israel.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair.
Where salary in that quote could be metaphorical, given there's other reasons like identity, beliefs, or politics.
I'm surprised that a significant portion of western society has any sympathy for the Palestinian side after October 7. Hamas started a war and used a bunch of heinous tactics -- kidnapping and murdering a bunch of random civilians, putting bases in hospitals, stealing food aid, and so on.
Israel tries to avoid casualties when they can. For example when Hamas launches rockets at Israeli civilian targets, they shoot the rockets down with the Iron Dome and shrug it off. In my view Israel would be perfectly within their rights to return rocket for rocket into Palestinian civilian targets. That the Israeli rockets would have far more devastating effect as they'd produced by a nation state with a proper MIC, not what terrorists or smugglers can jury-rig, and the defenders don't have their own Iron Dome, Palestine would by far get the worst of the exchange, is something Hamas should be thinking of before they go around launching rockets at other people's civilian territory.
That Israel doesn't return rocket for rocket in this way tells me Israel is fighting with a significantly higher amount of restraint and morality than their opponent, and I'm confused as to how many otherwise intelligent people seem to feel otherwise.
I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the middle, but in my view, almost all the moral responsibility for the bad stuff happening to Palestine falls on Hamas. Hamas is always going around deliberately committing atrocities, Israel is often trying to show restraint while still maintaining reasonable military effectiveness against an enemy who likes using human shields.
For the part of the history relevant to the topic, you have to go back to at least November 2, 1917 [1].
From the same page: "1901 the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman central government) gave Jews the same rights as Arabs to buy land in Palestine and the percentage of Jews in the population rose to 7% by 1914"
That does nothing to explain Israels handling of the West Bank or Jerusalem. Personally I dont care for both sides. Also any resources and attention on this conflict is pretty much wasted and could save so many more lives in other conflict zones that nobody cares about.
Please don’t be absurd.. or are you one of the people pretending that the October 7th attacks didn’t happen or that the victims somehow deserved it?
What Israel ended up doing in Gaza ended up being extremely horrible.
But what options did they really have? Not doing anything would have been the same(or worse) than the US ignoring 9/11… Hamas on the other hand had the option to stop the war at anytime they wanted, the chose not to.
They could've, like, stopped firing missiles at the people every day. When you fire missiles at people every day they will get angry and try to scrounge up something to fire back.
And there's just no excuse for the part where they shot children with sniper rifles, recorded themselves laughing about it and posted it on TikTok.
Not kick a dog for decades upon decades and act suprised when it bit back?
It's been a shitty situation all round, since the fall of Beersheba if not before, but its a difficult ask to want all to believe October 7th came out of nowhere.
If I had to pick a single thing differently (I have many) Isreal should have not only ”allowed in” (which they didn’t ) food and water but actively driven in huge amounts of it.
(1) If you are going to protest something, you need to show up with an answer to the question: “well, what should they have done?”
(2) That doesn’t matter to the situation at hand. The protests on college campuses got WAY out of hand and disrupted the purpose of the institution: teaching.
Western Palestine protestors want their countries to stop giving stuff to Israel. That's a very achievable goal. It would be good if the war stopped, but most of them recognize they only have influence over their own countries.
Hamas is an idea. Hamas is the idea that Israel must be destroyed. If you want people to stop thinking Israel is evil and must be destroyed, it would greatly help if Israel stopped killing their families. Usually, when you see someone kill your family and the people around you, you start thinking they are evil and must be destroyed. This is pretty basic human psychology.
To make people believe that Israel is a good thing instead, they could start by delivering lots of food and fresh water. Even more easily, they could start by letting in the food and fresh water that's lined up outside of the border.
> Perhaps not pursuing policies that create the conditions for Hamas to thrive in the first place?
That sounds pretty easy when you're not involved, but things on the ground are rarely that simple. Much of Israeli society is convinced (somewhat accurately) that the Palestinians hate them and want them dead, as much of Palestinian society is convinced of the same (again, somewhat accurately).
I don't know how you get both sides to climb down from this, or does it just end with genocide (of one side or the other). Like, I'm from Ireland and the north of the island was engulfed in violence for the first half of my life (not to a Gaza standard but bad). That only got resolved because a superpower (the US) intervened to help mediate (and help the side that considered themselves Irish).
I would imagine that I might have been very angry at this if I were a member of the other side (the side that considers themselves British), but ultimately it worked out pretty well (modulo Brexit and potential other landmines).
But it's not over, the groups are still really segregated and people just don't talk about it. The Israel Palestine situation is much, much worse and I honestly don't see any superpower being willing or able to mediate this situation.
So yeah, it would be great if everyone could just sing kumbaya, but I don't see how we get there from here.
Not what I was asking about. What should Israel have done in response to Oct 7th? What would be the downstream effects?
What should a country do when a neighbor invades and massacres entire towns, live-streaming the violent deaths and rapes for the world to see? What is the correct response to this?
You have clearly not thought through the game theory and repercussions of what you are suggesting.
Like many college protesters, you would do well to understand the complexity of the mechanics of the real world, and understand that reality ain’t rainbows and butterflies.
I have no clue how you drew the Vietnam war protest thing from what I wrote.
I think that a better response would have been much, much more targeted. Strategically, Israel have put themselves in a much worse position vis a vis the rest of the world (and importantly the US) by the indiscriminate leveling of Gaza. So it would have been much more like a police action than a war. Maybe take lessons (god I can't believe I'm saying this) from how the British responded to the nationalist terrorism/freedom fighters in Northern Ireland?
Targeted urban warfare is exactly what happened in Gaza, which had one of the LOWEST civilian death rates for urban warfare in this century. It was 1/4 that rate of the US army in fallujah for example.
Talk of “genocide” and “indiscriminate leveling of Gaza” indicates to me that you didn’t really understand the situation and probably get your news from propaganda sources - which, unfortunately, include nearly all media sources in this conflict.
Northern Ireland was a gang/rebel group in occupied territory. Hamas is the government of Gaza, and Israel had no boots on the ground on Oct 6th. The situations are not in any way comparable.
By the article it sounds like Ross Stevens wanted his money to go towards excellence. Perhaps he didn’t find that at today’s Penn. Taking him at his word, he seems to have found that with the US Olympians.
> “I do not believe that financial insecurity should stop our nation’s elite athletes from breaking through to new frontiers of excellence,” Stevens said upon the announcement of his gift.
So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
> Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. 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. Ever. And the other half will not be seen for at least two decades.
What Olympic athlete is not able to achieve as much because they don't have money decades down the road? Or because their heirs don't have enough money? I might be missing something, but how do these two incredibly-delayed payments help them train now? They can't use money they won't see for 20 or 30 years to hire coaches, buy equipment or pay for track time. They can't buy food or pay rent with money they will never see.
It allows them to "income smooth". They will know they're getting $100k down the road, so they can count on having that money to use for their kids' college or part of their nest egg. In the meantime, they can spend more freely.
As for the gift to their heirs, that also allows them to consume somewhat more freely, instead of purchasing (as much) life insurance. Most young people don't, but people who compete in dangerous sports probably do.
$100K in 20 years is worth about $37K today (20 year STRIPS pay about 5%). Nobody is making long term or short term financial plans based on this. It’s just a nice bonus to honor dedication to a sport.
Time is the issue. Time spent training for Olympics can't necessarily be used to generate an income. The whole premise of this donation is to afford them time, which it doesn't.
FWIW, most athletes are already used to being frugal as they juggle an often expensive training schedule with their personal finances. This is being framed as giving them money to focus on their sport/event during their competitive years.
Then they are likely fools in more than one way. They might be awesome athletes, and dropping out to pursue their sport might be absolutely the right thing for them to do. But a promise of $100k after age 45 is not the reason.
Not to be too pedantic, but this is not a term life insurance policy. It's a guaranteed benefit, so you should compare it to a "whole" life insurance policy (US terms). I see $500k benefit for $500+/mo, so I guess $100k benefit is $100/mo. Not amazing but not a joke either.
I agree that whole is a better comparison to the actual value.
I was responding to the freedom to spend the other poster had in their second paragraph, where I think it's reasonable to look at the insurance that would be better to actually buy.
> 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?
> 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.
Many, if not most, donations have limits / requirements on what the money can be spent on. That's why it's such a big deal when someone doesn't make such a demand and says the grant is "unrestricted."
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.
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.
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.
> 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"
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.
> This is a reward for achieving a place on the Olympic team.
Well, that makes it seem like this isn't a donation then at all, if you need to "achieve a place on the Olympic team"? I thought this was given for people to be able to better reach that, not as a "reward".
This is a "prize" it seems to me, not a "donation".
Sure, prize and award is the same, you're missing my point.
The title right now is "Ross Stevens Donates $100M to Pay Every US Olympian and Paralympian $200k", while after our conversation, it's pretty clear that this isn't a donation at all, it's a prize/reward for doing something specific. If you don't do that thing, you (and your family once you die) don't get the prize/reward.
Not only is the whole "once you die" part really strange way of trying to "reward" people, it isn't even a "donation" which the article seems to want you to believe.
My very rough lay understanding is that life insurance policies can be quite lucrative due to tax-free growth, and the main thing that holds back taking life insurance on arbitrary people as a general investment strategy is that you need to have some plausible reason why you're connected to someone's lifespan. I have to wonder if this whole thing isn't some giant tax dodge based on taking life insurance policies that pay a small amount to the athletes and the bulk back to whatever asset protection vehicle.
This has all the tell signs of a financial lie. I doubt this money will ever materialize. But of course he's immediately receiving the results of the publicity stunt.
It's called a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) and more than beng able to retain the initial investment at the end of a period of time, he would be able to take loans against the principal itself in the meantime (LALs).
However -
> The USPOC currently supports ~4500 athletes, or ~$22,222 each.
Machinations of the uber rich and the morality of them aside, they would've gotten nothing and now they're getting something.
Not if he controls the funds. Tax deductions are only afforded to contributions if they are charitable and am actual gift. If the contributor benefits, it is bit deductible, and control of donated funds is a benefit, as is the ability to direct funds to a particular person or persons.
If this individual pulled funding because of a political perspective, is it possible that these recipients lose their future funding if they speak about an issue or act in a particular way?
> So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
Yup, the biggest challenge faced by most olympic athletes, and those doing an Olympic campaign, is affording to train, travel, gear, etc, especially in more niche sports, bobsleigh, etc.
Guaranteed benefits can be monetized. The gift’s goal is to start building generational wealth. But nothing prevents me from lending one of these athletes $50k today if they give me an LPOA over that death benefit tomorrow (assuming this doesn’t breach any covenants).
$200k is not even remotely close to generational wealth, particularly when structured as $100k 20 years from now and another $100k 50-ish years from now. Those would be worth an estimated $55k and $22k in inflation-adjusted dollars.
It’s a totally different story if those are in a trust which is invested on behalf of the athletes, which pays out the invested value at time of disbursement. But I would be shocked if it were set up that way. Pleasantly shocked but shocked nonetheless.
An athlete who competes for a couple seasons would have the down payment for a house in each of those pay-outs. (And be able to, in all likelihood, borrow against it if they needed it earlier.)
Given how old most Olympic athletes are when they debut I'm sure that could be helpful if they don't incur any living expenses for another 2-3 decades afterwards
We have now moved the goalposts from starting to build generational wealth to maybe part of a down payment on a house in a low-demand area in their mid-forties, assuming they have enough income to still qualify for the loan on the property.
This is a great gift to the athletes, don’t get me wrong. There was just no need to oversell it.
> moved the goalposts from starting to build generational wealth to maybe part of a down payment on a house in a low-demand area in their mid-forties
On what planet are hundreds of thousands of dollars not generational wealth if played right? You’re talking about sums that are on par with the 401(k)s of retiring union workers.
It’s not riches. But it’s enough to pass along to your heirs. That’s generational wealth.
On the planet where inflation turns $100k into an effective $20k by the time you family sees it.
If your only metric for generational wealth is that the next generation of your family gets it, then sure, tautologically the second amount paid out to your surviving family qualifies. I don’t think most people would consider splitting $20k amongst your heirs to be generational wealth, and I don’t think retiring union workers are a classic generationally-wealthy example that comes to mind for most people.
And again, note that retiring union workers today might hand down a $100k 401(k) to their families. At the time of the athlete’s death ~50 years from now, that number will likely be closer to $500k.
Is there any guarantee he will actually pay out in 20 years? Is this money going into escrow, or is this just a promise that will be completely forgotten in a couple decades?
Wow. When I saw the headline, I thought this would be a generous donation so that Olympians wouldn't need to work day jobs to make ends meet, allowing them to focus on training. But... nope...
> But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
I suspect it's worse. It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
The money will go to people who somehow already managed to marshal enough resources to get to the Olympics. Good on you for supporting people after the fact, but by that point money problems have long before winnowed far too many qualified athletes out of the pipeline.
That kid from Moab would be an amazing swimmer. That kid from Punxsutawney shoots one hell of a bow. That kid from Tuscaloosa would have a smoking slapshot. None of them have a hope of clearing the initial monetary barriers.
The most effective time to apply resources is when the athletes are young, not done.
>It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
Potentially could also stop others from donating to athletes because they hear this and think "some rich guy already took care of them" not knowing the details.
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.
I don't think you should think of it as a paycheck.
Delaying a normal career to compete in the olympics will set your career and earning potential back by a few years. This money tries to balance it out a bit.
The stated goal is that the money will help people do better in the Olympics. I don't see how it will do that. It might be good to do, but it won't help people perform better.
> "The Olympic and Paralympic Games are the ultimate symbol of human excellence. I do not believe that financial insecurity should stop our nation's elite athletes from breaking through to new frontiers of excellence,” said Stevens.
And furthermore:
> By providing financial support for athletes so they can continue competing and by increasing that support for each Games in which they compete, the Stevens Awards will dramatically increase the likelihood that athletes will continue competing, and winning, for America.
I’ve been close to some people who tried to make a living as a professional athlete. This is a really special way to help passionate, hard-working people live out their dreams and potential.
> Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, [Billionaire financier Ross Stevens] will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
I wonder if this will adjust for inflation / earn interest at all. If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money. Assuming the same average inflation from the last 70 years (1956->2026).
> If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money
Did you inflate over 70 or 50 years?
My read of the original article [1] is it’s a defined benefit. That said, “athletes will receive $200,000 for each Olympics they compete in,” so an athlete who competes for four seasons could stand to get $400,000 when they turn 45 and potentially borrow against their death benefit.
I wonder what the "breakage" will be in 2096. How would your surviving family members know to cash in this benefit? You keep a certificate in your safe deposit box, next to the expired term life insurance papers, that says, be sure to contact so and so to collect some money after I die?
My guess is the figure is after interest, that way because of compounding interest, 100k ~20 years after debut and another 100k which occurs let’s assume 50 years later on average would be substantially less than it sounds on paper. And for me at least, a smaller amount in my 20’s that I could use for a house deposit or similar would be worth farm more than 100k in my 40s and another 100k on my death
This seems like some billionaire trying to inflate their donation amount by talking in terms of decades not now. I’m sure there’s conditions attached too (some reasonable but I’m sure some are just intentional land mines)
> Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.
The terms are atrocious. imo dude will move money into a his own charity which will hold onto it since no athlete qualify for the next 20 years. After a few years, he will quietly cancel the grant and use it elsewhere.
From what I can piece together from Wikipedia/news that is ~1000-1200 athletes in the most recent 4 year cycle (~600 for Summer Olympics, ~250 for Winter, and ~200-400 for Paralympics). That therefore requires ~$200-250M per 4 year cycle.
Granted, that's 20 to 60 years down the line...
Oh this explains it:
> Starting with the Olympic and Paralympic Games Milan-Cortina 2026, and going at least through the 2032 Games, every U.S. Olympian and Paralympian will receive $200,000 in financial benefits for each Games in which they compete:
nice sentiment, that it. Most of the financial challenges faced by athletes trying for the Olympics are immediate, affording to train, travel to compete, and gear. Especially in more niche sports, like bobsleigh, fencing, sailing, etc.
Kinda of a side note but a way I try to talk to people about how much a billion dollars is is "how many people can you hire each day at X dollars before you start losing money".
Here's the setup: you have a billion dollars invested in some account earning some interest, let's say 5% because that's like bond rates (lower than S&P500). Day 1 you generate interest and don't hire. All following weekdays you hire a new employee and day then daily at a yearly rate of Y, say $250k/yr. Most people are going to be surprised that you can basically go an entire year before your account has less than a billion dollars.
I do this because it's so much money the daily interest is not negligible. I mean 1000000000*0.05/365~=$137k. Is back of the envelope and estimating, but it gets the point across. (So you can hire people daily at $100k indefinitely...)
Anyways, googling suggests there's ~600 American Olympians that participated in 2024 and another ~250 paraolympians. So what, we need on the order of $10bn to solve this? I can think of a lot worse ways we currently spend that kind of money and about 15 Americans where this would be less than 10% their total wealth and 11 of those people made more than twice that just last year... I'm not saying anyone should but hey, Elon could solve issues like these without blinking an eye. Probably better PR than anything else he could do
$100K after they pass away? I am curious what those will be worth by then. This whole thing sounds like some tricky scheme. He can probably take these 100M from his profit, stuff it into some fund to avoid taxes and let the fund grow, meanwhile the real value of what he has to give will be shrinking as the years pass.
> Billionaire financier Ross Stevens is changing that. Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, he will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
> His entire donation to the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), announced last March, is $100 million—a record breaking gift to the organization.
I remember in the 1980's, some rich guy gave a commencement speech in which he said he would pay for college for the entire graduating class in some high school in NJ. He got great press from this. But then it turned out in the fine print that the kids had to max out student loans, and he would cover the difference for tuition, but not including room and board. :-)
There's a pretty stark contrast between an MLB player making $50M per year and a bobsledder who's promised $100K 20 years after reaching the pinnacle of their sport. Given the total amount of training that an Olympian puts in over their life, even if that $100K is adjusted for inflation it probably works out to less than minimum wage in many states. That's a pretty bad profession IMO.
Ill believe it when I see people with cash in hand. Otherwise I will continue to believe this is just another financial grift, like everything else billionaires do publicly with their money. If billionaires weren't the most greedy people in existence to start with, they wouldn't have ever become billionaires, they would have learned how meaningless endless greed is 900+ million dollars ago when everything they, their kids, their grand kids, and great grandkids could ever want was already paid for.
The real answer here is that he is mad about people protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza. This $100M donation is being made with funds he had given to UPenn. He has taken it back, via lawyers, because they allowed the protests to go on. He is now just taking that original donation and moving it somewhere else. Not that I am against the Olympians getting paid, just some context.
Sources: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/donor-pulls-100-mill... https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4348656-upenn-loses-1... https://www.timesnownews.com/world/who-is-ross-stevens-stone... (many more)
I would have never guessed that a significant portion of western society would not only be ok with killing thousands of children but be outraged that anyone would protest it. I feel like I have more information about the world than ever and understand it less than ever.
Estimates for deaths we caused in Iraq range from the low hundreds of thousands to the millions, and that's going to be overwhelmingly civilians. [1] And given those are all very short time estimates (generally 2003-2007), and since many studies are from violent deaths only (excluding subsequent caused famine/disease/despair/etc) the millions is likely closer to the mark than not.
Compare that to the death toll in any comparable war, event, or behavior that we politicize against domestically. Now imagine yourself seeing these things from the outside. That's how the world looks to the 'real' rest of the world, and not the ~15% and declining percent of the world that people call the 'rest of the world', when they mean Europe, the Anglosphere, and a handful of occasional oddballs like Japan or South Korea.
And when you see this world through their eyes, you start to see an entirely different world, and it's the world that we are also starting to see now as all masks and pretexts have been coming off for years now. And in general I think that's a good thing. People can't form realistic and meaningful worldviews if they're stuck in a Marvel Comic Universe perspective of international relations.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
> deaths we caused in Iraq
Doesn’t much change the horrible situation but overwhelming majority of them were indirect.
Not quite the same as carpet bombing a densely inhabited city.
Also well.. if you look at Sadam’s death toll in the 80s and 90s it isn’t really lower. Rather a low standard of course…
The disclaimers speak loudly what are you trying to say
> Estimates for deaths we caused in Iraq range from the low hundreds of thousands to the millions
How many do you estimate you caused ?
Don't think anyone in the "global South", which have suffered from Western "civilizing missions" are surprised by this.
It's kind of funny to see "anti-interventions" podcasters go full empire mode and justify literally colonization today.
Hardly surprising, since most of these white nationalists love the British Empire's "oeuvre" in non-White countries (but somehow ignore the fact that their own country fought against its tyrannical rule).
it's hard to put numbers to words, but I doubt "a significant portion of western society [is] outraged that anyone would protest it" - likely, it's very small but influential and/or wealthy.
They're good at influencing opinions. Half of America voted for a person with dementia. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
I think it's probably significant and at least as big as the crazification factor https://shebloggedbynight.com/2025/the-27-club-or-lizard-peo...
Of course we haven't actually defined what we mean by significant, so I suppose we will have to drop back to that old standby of 5%.
Having more information doesn't necessarily means that one is better informed.
I also read/watch as much original sources as time and energy allows, that often (not always) gives a very different image than what media represents. For example, what I have read in the documents produces by UN representative for signs of genocide showed very thin/constructed arguments. Haven't read all of it so maybe there are better arguments as well.
What people feel about things is almost an entirely a function of their information environment, rather than the facts of the events themselves. Almost nobody truly aware of the number of slaughtered and starved Palestinian children would be "okay" with it; the people defending it are more-or-less viewing these events in terms so different from that that those basic facts cannot reach their understanding at all.
> Almost nobody truly aware of the number of slaughtered and starved Palestinian children would be "okay" with it
A lot of people aren’t okay with it but also choose not to engage on it.
The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That
https://theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it...
Bad characterization.
I’d personally put myself in this camp. I think what Israel is doing is horrible. But the us-versus-them dynamic in the American Palestinian-activist community is exhausting. Furthermore, it is focused on personal showboating—messaging and rallying—versus helping anyone on the ground.
So I’m continuing to focus on Ukraine, my pet war, and northern Ethiopia, my pet FP issue. I’ve been able to materially aid folks there and—twice, on the margin—influence U.S. policy in their respects. I don’t have to deal with partners who want to convince me that each of my friends who doesn’t post daily on Instagram about Tigray is Hitler. Instead, they’re focused on the folks there.
I have opinions on Gaza. But I’m not taking a stand. And let’s be honest, that’s a fair characterization of 90% of folks who constantly go off on rants about Zionists or genocides but have never given a dollar to a humanitarian cause, called an elected or tried to travel to their region in question.
Please explain the us–versus–them dynamic you referred to?
> Please explain the us–versus–them dynamic you referred to?
The tendency to tar and feather anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with one as a Zionist. (Which, in these circles, carries the same weight as being a bona fide racist.)
This memorably presented itself a few months ago when folks—potentially on the way to changing their minds—would be called Nazis for referring to the war as a war, as if a genocide within a war is somehow inconceivable.
Absolute morality rallies the base. It doesn’t usually convert moderates. And the situation in Gaza defies absolute morality.
If I ignore it, it is as if it never happened. Part of it is willful ignorance though. For Ross, he is deeply religious and views the security of Israel as that of the Jewish people (having a home to run away to if shit hits the fan). Children dying is a sacrifice he is willing to make. For the majority of America though, I believe they are a) either scared, because they saw a witch hunt orchestrated by people in power (like Ackman). If 3 female deans, many of them minorities, can get ousted at the whim of a billionaire, then the typical engineer or employee will be easily labeled antisemitic for defending those who are denied their rights to life and property, and will lose their job. Canary Mission and other groups are funded by successful billionaires like Ackman, Adelsons etc and harass students on campuses for protesting. They doxx them, blacklist them (no boss will hire someone on those letters, at the expense of being labeled an antisemite, and you are in it for a suprise once you notice how many of our tech companies and finance sectors are run by religious sociopaths). I know a few victims of those efforts. Interestingly, 90% of them are white middle class, and I think they are mostly women. Their courage is to be admired. Or b) people are okay with it, because Ghaza is so far away and because of Israel's blockade on the media covering ghaza (Israel has already killed more journalists last year than all other nations combined btw. I do not know of any democracy that does this).
Not that I'm anyone important, but at this point if I google someone and they show up on the Canary Mission website, I'm inclined to hold them in higher regard.
There's a lot of non-obvious information or hidden information out there if you have no context. I mean, at the very least I can tell that there are a lot of wealthy and powerful people in western society that are invested in maintaining the innocence and primacy of Israel.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair.
Where salary in that quote could be metaphorical, given there's other reasons like identity, beliefs, or politics.
I'm surprised that a significant portion of western society has any sympathy for the Palestinian side after October 7. Hamas started a war and used a bunch of heinous tactics -- kidnapping and murdering a bunch of random civilians, putting bases in hospitals, stealing food aid, and so on.
Israel tries to avoid casualties when they can. For example when Hamas launches rockets at Israeli civilian targets, they shoot the rockets down with the Iron Dome and shrug it off. In my view Israel would be perfectly within their rights to return rocket for rocket into Palestinian civilian targets. That the Israeli rockets would have far more devastating effect as they'd produced by a nation state with a proper MIC, not what terrorists or smugglers can jury-rig, and the defenders don't have their own Iron Dome, Palestine would by far get the worst of the exchange, is something Hamas should be thinking of before they go around launching rockets at other people's civilian territory.
That Israel doesn't return rocket for rocket in this way tells me Israel is fighting with a significantly higher amount of restraint and morality than their opponent, and I'm confused as to how many otherwise intelligent people seem to feel otherwise.
I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the middle, but in my view, almost all the moral responsibility for the bad stuff happening to Palestine falls on Hamas. Hamas is always going around deliberately committing atrocities, Israel is often trying to show restraint while still maintaining reasonable military effectiveness against an enemy who likes using human shields.
"Israel tries to avoid casualties when they can."
Provably false: 2018 Great March of return. Peaceful protest against the occupatioon and for the Palestinian right to return.
People got show down by snipers who also (until this day) shot at kids and medics.
Edit: Also the "mowing the lawn" doctrine
Was there any Israeli history before October 7 that might explain any of that?
History did not begin October 7th, 2023. We are capable of looking at prior events to see that the story is not so clear cut.
When are you thinking history began? 1948?
For the part of the history relevant to the topic, you have to go back to at least November 2, 1917 [1].
From the same page: "1901 the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman central government) gave Jews the same rights as Arabs to buy land in Palestine and the percentage of Jews in the population rose to 7% by 1914"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
That does nothing to explain Israels handling of the West Bank or Jerusalem. Personally I dont care for both sides. Also any resources and attention on this conflict is pretty much wasted and could save so many more lives in other conflict zones that nobody cares about.
>Israel is fighting with a significantly higher amount of restraint and morality than their opponent
Gaza would not be starving were this the case, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.
Gaza isn't starving. Civilian deaths in this conflict are remarkably low.
Please don’t be absurd.. or are you one of the people pretending that the October 7th attacks didn’t happen or that the victims somehow deserved it?
What Israel ended up doing in Gaza ended up being extremely horrible.
But what options did they really have? Not doing anything would have been the same(or worse) than the US ignoring 9/11… Hamas on the other hand had the option to stop the war at anytime they wanted, the chose not to.
They could've, like, stopped firing missiles at the people every day. When you fire missiles at people every day they will get angry and try to scrounge up something to fire back.
And there's just no excuse for the part where they shot children with sniper rifles, recorded themselves laughing about it and posted it on TikTok.
Not kill children is the start , then not kill the innocent and then move to the civilized world conduct. Fairly low bar to meet.
> But what options did they really have?
Not kick a dog for decades upon decades and act suprised when it bit back?
It's been a shitty situation all round, since the fall of Beersheba if not before, but its a difficult ask to want all to believe October 7th came out of nowhere.
If I had to pick a single thing differently (I have many) Isreal should have not only ”allowed in” (which they didn’t ) food and water but actively driven in huge amounts of it.
(1) If you are going to protest something, you need to show up with an answer to the question: “well, what should they have done?”
(2) That doesn’t matter to the situation at hand. The protests on college campuses got WAY out of hand and disrupted the purpose of the institution: teaching.
Western Palestine protestors want their countries to stop giving stuff to Israel. That's a very achievable goal. It would be good if the war stopped, but most of them recognize they only have influence over their own countries.
(1) The answer is simple: Stop the genocide in Gaza by any means necessary. The US has the power to do that with its proxy Israel.
(2) Reading that I wonder if you also supported violent dismissals of Vietnam war protests
> by any means necessary
Not that carpet bombing a densely populated city wasn’t extremely horrible were there any better was to destroy or at least massively weaken Hamas?
For that matter Hamas could have stopped the Israeli atrocities any time they wanted, they chose not to.
Hamas is an idea. Hamas is the idea that Israel must be destroyed. If you want people to stop thinking Israel is evil and must be destroyed, it would greatly help if Israel stopped killing their families. Usually, when you see someone kill your family and the people around you, you start thinking they are evil and must be destroyed. This is pretty basic human psychology.
To make people believe that Israel is a good thing instead, they could start by delivering lots of food and fresh water. Even more easily, they could start by letting in the food and fresh water that's lined up outside of the border.
> were there any better was to destroy or at least massively weaken Hamas?
Perhaps not pursuing policies that create the conditions for Hamas to thrive in the first place?
Also avoiding literally supporting Hamas would help weaken Hamas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
> Perhaps not pursuing policies that create the conditions for Hamas to thrive in the first place?
That sounds pretty easy when you're not involved, but things on the ground are rarely that simple. Much of Israeli society is convinced (somewhat accurately) that the Palestinians hate them and want them dead, as much of Palestinian society is convinced of the same (again, somewhat accurately).
I don't know how you get both sides to climb down from this, or does it just end with genocide (of one side or the other). Like, I'm from Ireland and the north of the island was engulfed in violence for the first half of my life (not to a Gaza standard but bad). That only got resolved because a superpower (the US) intervened to help mediate (and help the side that considered themselves Irish).
I would imagine that I might have been very angry at this if I were a member of the other side (the side that considers themselves British), but ultimately it worked out pretty well (modulo Brexit and potential other landmines).
But it's not over, the groups are still really segregated and people just don't talk about it. The Israel Palestine situation is much, much worse and I honestly don't see any superpower being willing or able to mediate this situation.
So yeah, it would be great if everyone could just sing kumbaya, but I don't see how we get there from here.
Benjamin Netanyahu literally made Hamas rise to power, on purpose, because he needed Gaza to look evil and they were getting too peaceful.
Not what I was asking about. What should Israel have done in response to Oct 7th? What would be the downstream effects?
What should a country do when a neighbor invades and massacres entire towns, live-streaming the violent deaths and rapes for the world to see? What is the correct response to this?
You have clearly not thought through the game theory and repercussions of what you are suggesting.
Like many college protesters, you would do well to understand the complexity of the mechanics of the real world, and understand that reality ain’t rainbows and butterflies.
I have no clue how you drew the Vietnam war protest thing from what I wrote.
What should Palestine have done in response to Oct 6th?
Maybe you should be asking what it should have done on September 13, 2000.
First, genocide is not necessary response. Second, Israel hard right was working on that and moving toward genocide for years.
So I guess no one is actually going to try and answer the question?
I think that a better response would have been much, much more targeted. Strategically, Israel have put themselves in a much worse position vis a vis the rest of the world (and importantly the US) by the indiscriminate leveling of Gaza. So it would have been much more like a police action than a war. Maybe take lessons (god I can't believe I'm saying this) from how the British responded to the nationalist terrorism/freedom fighters in Northern Ireland?
Targeted urban warfare is exactly what happened in Gaza, which had one of the LOWEST civilian death rates for urban warfare in this century. It was 1/4 that rate of the US army in fallujah for example.
Talk of “genocide” and “indiscriminate leveling of Gaza” indicates to me that you didn’t really understand the situation and probably get your news from propaganda sources - which, unfortunately, include nearly all media sources in this conflict.
Northern Ireland was a gang/rebel group in occupied territory. Hamas is the government of Gaza, and Israel had no boots on the ground on Oct 6th. The situations are not in any way comparable.
> which had one of the LOWEST civilian death rates for urban warfare in this century
Can you provide some evidence for this statement?
EDIT: removed everything except this statement, as I feel it will lead to less productive conversation.
> real answer here is that he is mad about people protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza
This sounds more like a proximate cause than a “real answer.”
Answer to what question?
This answer is correct.
By the article it sounds like Ross Stevens wanted his money to go towards excellence. Perhaps he didn’t find that at today’s Penn. Taking him at his word, he seems to have found that with the US Olympians.
> “I do not believe that financial insecurity should stop our nation’s elite athletes from breaking through to new frontiers of excellence,” Stevens said upon the announcement of his gift.
So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
> Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. 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. Ever. And the other half will not be seen for at least two decades.
What Olympic athlete is not able to achieve as much because they don't have money decades down the road? Or because their heirs don't have enough money? I might be missing something, but how do these two incredibly-delayed payments help them train now? They can't use money they won't see for 20 or 30 years to hire coaches, buy equipment or pay for track time. They can't buy food or pay rent with money they will never see.
It allows them to "income smooth". They will know they're getting $100k down the road, so they can count on having that money to use for their kids' college or part of their nest egg. In the meantime, they can spend more freely.
As for the gift to their heirs, that also allows them to consume somewhat more freely, instead of purchasing (as much) life insurance. Most young people don't, but people who compete in dangerous sports probably do.
$100K in 20 years is worth about $37K today (20 year STRIPS pay about 5%). Nobody is making long term or short term financial plans based on this. It’s just a nice bonus to honor dedication to a sport.
I would expect that $100K is hedged against inflation though.
I wouldn't bet on a billionaire making sure he's giving even more money away than he promises.
> In the meantime, they can spend more freely
In the meantime, they need income not advice on frugality.
Cash is fungible. Money not spent on kids is money you can spend now.
Time is the issue. Time spent training for Olympics can't necessarily be used to generate an income. The whole premise of this donation is to afford them time, which it doesn't.
FWIW, most athletes are already used to being frugal as they juggle an often expensive training schedule with their personal finances. This is being framed as giving them money to focus on their sport/event during their competitive years.
This is a privileged viewpoint that is only true when you actually have cash to spend now.
Do you think a 21-year old fencer will be more competitive because of this money? A 17-year old swimmer? A 16-year old gymnast?
If that money is what makes them feel comfortable e.g. dropping out of college to focus on their sport, absolutely.
Then they are likely fools in more than one way. They might be awesome athletes, and dropping out to pursue their sport might be absolutely the right thing for them to do. But a promise of $100k after age 45 is not the reason.
Not in the amount promised unless they have non positive financial acumen
That's like $75 a year of term life insurance for a young healthy person.
Not to be too pedantic, but this is not a term life insurance policy. It's a guaranteed benefit, so you should compare it to a "whole" life insurance policy (US terms). I see $500k benefit for $500+/mo, so I guess $100k benefit is $100/mo. Not amazing but not a joke either.
I agree that whole is a better comparison to the actual value.
I was responding to the freedom to spend the other poster had in their second paragraph, where I think it's reasonable to look at the insurance that would be better to actually buy.
You make it sound like the word of an eccentric billionaire is as good as a US treasury bond.
lol, what?
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Why even question it? Its a donation that no one ever had to make.
“You only get this money if you submit yourself to Christ and living a conservative lifestyle”
Still not worth questioning?
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)
Many, if not most, donations have limits / requirements on what the money can be spent on. That's why it's such a big deal when someone doesn't make such a demand and says the grant is "unrestricted."
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.
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.
Yes, I've heard of all of those things, but never used in a way to motive the person who is currently alive.
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.
> 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"
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.
> This is a reward for achieving a place on the Olympic team.
Well, that makes it seem like this isn't a donation then at all, if you need to "achieve a place on the Olympic team"? I thought this was given for people to be able to better reach that, not as a "reward".
This is a "prize" it seems to me, not a "donation".
It really seems like you're intentionally trying to strain definition of words. What is a prize if not a reward?
Sure, prize and award is the same, you're missing my point.
The title right now is "Ross Stevens Donates $100M to Pay Every US Olympian and Paralympian $200k", while after our conversation, it's pretty clear that this isn't a donation at all, it's a prize/reward for doing something specific. If you don't do that thing, you (and your family once you die) don't get the prize/reward.
Not only is the whole "once you die" part really strange way of trying to "reward" people, it isn't even a "donation" which the article seems to want you to believe.
Amateur status hasn’t been relevant to the Olympics in quite a while.
My very rough lay understanding is that life insurance policies can be quite lucrative due to tax-free growth, and the main thing that holds back taking life insurance on arbitrary people as a general investment strategy is that you need to have some plausible reason why you're connected to someone's lifespan. I have to wonder if this whole thing isn't some giant tax dodge based on taking life insurance policies that pay a small amount to the athletes and the bulk back to whatever asset protection vehicle.
This has all the tell signs of a financial lie. I doubt this money will ever materialize. But of course he's immediately receiving the results of the publicity stunt.
Real answer are probably tax benefits for Ross.
He can now report a $100M donation, let it grow for 20 years, pay the actual donation, and pocket the remainder tax free.
It's called a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) and more than beng able to retain the initial investment at the end of a period of time, he would be able to take loans against the principal itself in the meantime (LALs).
However -
> The USPOC currently supports ~4500 athletes, or ~$22,222 each.
Machinations of the uber rich and the morality of them aside, they would've gotten nothing and now they're getting something.
But if he retains the money while its growing wouldn't that result in capital gains?
You can't claim a donation while still holding onto the money?
He'll donate to a trust/non-profit he controls that will direct the investment. That allows him to take the tax benefit today and keep the money
But once its in a non-profit you can't just take it back out for personal use can you?
Not if he controls the funds. Tax deductions are only afforded to contributions if they are charitable and am actual gift. If the contributor benefits, it is bit deductible, and control of donated funds is a benefit, as is the ability to direct funds to a particular person or persons.
Billionaires can financial engineer their way around those types of rules quite easily
If this individual pulled funding because of a political perspective, is it possible that these recipients lose their future funding if they speak about an issue or act in a particular way?
> So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
Yup, the biggest challenge faced by most olympic athletes, and those doing an Olympic campaign, is affording to train, travel, gear, etc, especially in more niche sports, bobsleigh, etc.
This has some real "Scott's Tots" energy to it.
> half of it will never be seen by the athlete
Guaranteed benefits can be monetized. The gift’s goal is to start building generational wealth. But nothing prevents me from lending one of these athletes $50k today if they give me an LPOA over that death benefit tomorrow (assuming this doesn’t breach any covenants).
$200k is not even remotely close to generational wealth, particularly when structured as $100k 20 years from now and another $100k 50-ish years from now. Those would be worth an estimated $55k and $22k in inflation-adjusted dollars.
It’s a totally different story if those are in a trust which is invested on behalf of the athletes, which pays out the invested value at time of disbursement. But I would be shocked if it were set up that way. Pleasantly shocked but shocked nonetheless.
An athlete who competes for a couple seasons would have the down payment for a house in each of those pay-outs. (And be able to, in all likelihood, borrow against it if they needed it earlier.)
Given how old most Olympic athletes are when they debut I'm sure that could be helpful if they don't incur any living expenses for another 2-3 decades afterwards
We have now moved the goalposts from starting to build generational wealth to maybe part of a down payment on a house in a low-demand area in their mid-forties, assuming they have enough income to still qualify for the loan on the property.
This is a great gift to the athletes, don’t get me wrong. There was just no need to oversell it.
> moved the goalposts from starting to build generational wealth to maybe part of a down payment on a house in a low-demand area in their mid-forties
On what planet are hundreds of thousands of dollars not generational wealth if played right? You’re talking about sums that are on par with the 401(k)s of retiring union workers.
It’s not riches. But it’s enough to pass along to your heirs. That’s generational wealth.
On the planet where inflation turns $100k into an effective $20k by the time you family sees it.
If your only metric for generational wealth is that the next generation of your family gets it, then sure, tautologically the second amount paid out to your surviving family qualifies. I don’t think most people would consider splitting $20k amongst your heirs to be generational wealth, and I don’t think retiring union workers are a classic generationally-wealthy example that comes to mind for most people.
And again, note that retiring union workers today might hand down a $100k 401(k) to their families. At the time of the athlete’s death ~50 years from now, that number will likely be closer to $500k.
Is there any guarantee he will actually pay out in 20 years? Is this money going into escrow, or is this just a promise that will be completely forgotten in a couple decades?
Ask Michael Scott how this works out.
Wow. When I saw the headline, I thought this would be a generous donation so that Olympians wouldn't need to work day jobs to make ends meet, allowing them to focus on training. But... nope...
> But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
I suspect it's worse. It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
The money will go to people who somehow already managed to marshal enough resources to get to the Olympics. Good on you for supporting people after the fact, but by that point money problems have long before winnowed far too many qualified athletes out of the pipeline.
That kid from Moab would be an amazing swimmer. That kid from Punxsutawney shoots one hell of a bow. That kid from Tuscaloosa would have a smoking slapshot. None of them have a hope of clearing the initial monetary barriers.
The most effective time to apply resources is when the athletes are young, not done.
>It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
Potentially could also stop others from donating to athletes because they hear this and think "some rich guy already took care of them" not knowing the details.
I might be missing something, but how do these two incredibly-delayed payments help them train now?
They call J.G. Wentworth?
/Worst earworm since 1-877-KARS-4-KIDS
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.
People absolutely do give up their athletic career to start a normal career for better financial security.
How many of these normal careers pay a single paycheck of $100k that can't be cashed for twenty years? That's what this offer is.
I don't think you should think of it as a paycheck.
Delaying a normal career to compete in the olympics will set your career and earning potential back by a few years. This money tries to balance it out a bit.
The stated goal is that the money will help people do better in the Olympics. I don't see how it will do that. It might be good to do, but it won't help people perform better.
> The stated goal is that the money will help people do better in the Olympics.
Are you sure? It's not contingent on metals or anything.
https://www.usopc.org/news/2025/march/04/united-states-olymp...
Your link includes this quote from Stevens:
> "The Olympic and Paralympic Games are the ultimate symbol of human excellence. I do not believe that financial insecurity should stop our nation's elite athletes from breaking through to new frontiers of excellence,” said Stevens.
And furthermore:
> By providing financial support for athletes so they can continue competing and by increasing that support for each Games in which they compete, the Stevens Awards will dramatically increase the likelihood that athletes will continue competing, and winning, for America.
And now that they're getting $100k in a few decades they still will
I’ve been close to some people who tried to make a living as a professional athlete. This is a really special way to help passionate, hard-working people live out their dreams and potential.
> Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, [Billionaire financier Ross Stevens] will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
I wonder if this will adjust for inflation / earn interest at all. If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money. Assuming the same average inflation from the last 70 years (1956->2026).
> If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money
Did you inflate over 70 or 50 years?
My read of the original article [1] is it’s a defined benefit. That said, “athletes will receive $200,000 for each Olympics they compete in,” so an athlete who competes for four seasons could stand to get $400,000 when they turn 45 and potentially borrow against their death benefit.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/sports/olympics/team-usa-milan-cortina-e...
I wonder what the "breakage" will be in 2096. How would your surviving family members know to cash in this benefit? You keep a certificate in your safe deposit box, next to the expired term life insurance papers, that says, be sure to contact so and so to collect some money after I die?
> How would your surviving family members know to cash in this benefit?
Same way all benefits and assets are passed down. One part trustee’s work. Four parts the beneficiaries’.
My guess is the figure is after interest, that way because of compounding interest, 100k ~20 years after debut and another 100k which occurs let’s assume 50 years later on average would be substantially less than it sounds on paper. And for me at least, a smaller amount in my 20’s that I could use for a house deposit or similar would be worth farm more than 100k in my 40s and another 100k on my death
This seems like some billionaire trying to inflate their donation amount by talking in terms of decades not now. I’m sure there’s conditions attached too (some reasonable but I’m sure some are just intentional land mines)
> seems like some billionaire trying to inflate their donation amount
My reading is Ross made a $100mm donation to the USOPC.
> I’m sure some are just intentional land mines
You’re sure based on zero evidence.
Weird aggresssion. You trust billionaires?
> Weird aggresssion
It’s aggressive to call out baseless conclusions being represented as sureties?
You need to touch grass lol
> Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.
The terms are atrocious. imo dude will move money into a his own charity which will hold onto it since no athlete qualify for the next 20 years. After a few years, he will quietly cancel the grant and use it elsewhere.
From what I can piece together from Wikipedia/news that is ~1000-1200 athletes in the most recent 4 year cycle (~600 for Summer Olympics, ~250 for Winter, and ~200-400 for Paralympics). That therefore requires ~$200-250M per 4 year cycle.
Granted, that's 20 to 60 years down the line...
Oh this explains it:
> Starting with the Olympic and Paralympic Games Milan-Cortina 2026, and going at least through the 2032 Games, every U.S. Olympian and Paralympian will receive $200,000 in financial benefits for each Games in which they compete:
What actually guarantees that this money doesn't evaporate? Who's managing it? Who's collecting the interest on the money?
nice sentiment, that it. Most of the financial challenges faced by athletes trying for the Olympics are immediate, affording to train, travel to compete, and gear. Especially in more niche sports, like bobsleigh, fencing, sailing, etc.
Kinda of a side note but a way I try to talk to people about how much a billion dollars is is "how many people can you hire each day at X dollars before you start losing money".
Here's the setup: you have a billion dollars invested in some account earning some interest, let's say 5% because that's like bond rates (lower than S&P500). Day 1 you generate interest and don't hire. All following weekdays you hire a new employee and day then daily at a yearly rate of Y, say $250k/yr. Most people are going to be surprised that you can basically go an entire year before your account has less than a billion dollars.
I do this because it's so much money the daily interest is not negligible. I mean 1000000000*0.05/365~=$137k. Is back of the envelope and estimating, but it gets the point across. (So you can hire people daily at $100k indefinitely...)
Anyways, googling suggests there's ~600 American Olympians that participated in 2024 and another ~250 paraolympians. So what, we need on the order of $10bn to solve this? I can think of a lot worse ways we currently spend that kind of money and about 15 Americans where this would be less than 10% their total wealth and 11 of those people made more than twice that just last year... I'm not saying anyone should but hey, Elon could solve issues like these without blinking an eye. Probably better PR than anything else he could do
Your illustration is really long winded.
If you invested a billion dollars at a conservative 5% interest rate, you could employ 200 people at 250k a year on the interest alone.
Maybe, but if you just jump to the answer people don't really get it.
You'd need to account for inflation right?
Just use a real rate of return and it still works.
However, 5% real return is not likely from bonds alone.
True, but also very few billionaires are getting only 5% back a year... The estimate was supposed to be conservative on purpose
$100K after they pass away? I am curious what those will be worth by then. This whole thing sounds like some tricky scheme. He can probably take these 100M from his profit, stuff it into some fund to avoid taxes and let the fund grow, meanwhile the real value of what he has to give will be shrinking as the years pass.
So happy he included Paralympians. That’s the good part.
> Billionaire financier Ross Stevens is changing that. Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, he will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
> His entire donation to the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), announced last March, is $100 million—a record breaking gift to the organization.
Just...lol.
Totally outrageous.
"I want to give a ton of money to olympians but... they are too young and dumb to get it now and also they should get half of it after they die."
Unreal paternalism.
Check the fine print
I remember in the 1980's, some rich guy gave a commencement speech in which he said he would pay for college for the entire graduating class in some high school in NJ. He got great press from this. But then it turned out in the fine print that the kids had to max out student loans, and he would cover the difference for tuition, but not including room and board. :-)
I thought the Olympics were supposed to be for amateur athletes
There's a pretty stark contrast between an MLB player making $50M per year and a bobsledder who's promised $100K 20 years after reaching the pinnacle of their sport. Given the total amount of training that an Olympian puts in over their life, even if that $100K is adjusted for inflation it probably works out to less than minimum wage in many states. That's a pretty bad profession IMO.
* yes, but payment after the fact doesn't count.
* "amateaur" meaning independantly wealthy, or supported by patron or state.
It's rare to see a kid from the lowest demographics on the gymnast team unless they've been scouted and picked up by a state or national institute.
Similarly horse racing is about the fastest horse with a certified pedigree.
It's about the bloodline, the trainers, the owners, and not about a Waler that can run four miles into a machine gun nest.
Ill believe it when I see people with cash in hand. Otherwise I will continue to believe this is just another financial grift, like everything else billionaires do publicly with their money. If billionaires weren't the most greedy people in existence to start with, they wouldn't have ever become billionaires, they would have learned how meaningless endless greed is 900+ million dollars ago when everything they, their kids, their grand kids, and great grandkids could ever want was already paid for.
Npv the fine print