The President of the International Olympic Committee, Kirsty Coventry, has been censured by fellow Olympians over her recent comments saying athletes shouldn’t be paid prize money at the Games.

Coventry, who represented Zimbabwe at five Olympics and won seven medals, made the controversial comments last week while on her first visit to Oceania as IOC chief.

“I don’t believe in paying athletes,” Coventry told New Zealand based outlet Sport Nation.

“I come from a small country, I came from a sport that doesn’t necessarily pay athletes very well and I still don’t think we should be paying athletes at the Olympic Games.”

The IOC does not pay athletes a stipend or salary for competing at the Olympic Games.

Coventry emphasised in the same interview that the IOC needed “to find more ways to directly impact athletes, and find ways to help them on their journey to becoming Olympians and while they’re Olympians”.

She underlined the need for talent identification, and finding means to inspire athletes from smaller nations to make it to the largest sporting event in the world.

“That was very much my journey,” Coventry, 42, said. “I was an Olympic solidarity scholarship holder without that money. I’m not sure I would have been as successful, and so I’m so grateful for that.”

The multiple Olympic and World champion from Zimbabwe is considered the most decorated African Olympian. She returned to the global spotlight after becoming the first woman, and first African chief of the IOC, in 2025.

Under the current Olympic model, athletes are financed through national sporting federations, sponsorships, self-funding, or, in the case of Coventry, the Olympic Solidarity Scholarship.

Why was Coventry criticised?

Coventry’s remarks came just days after the ethically questionable Enhanced Games saw top athletes win $250,000 for every gold medal.

The Enhanced Games allow elite sprinters, swimmers and weightlifters to vie for world records, while taking banned performance-enhancing drugs.

Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev earned a $1m bonus for “breaking” a world record in the men’s 50m freestyle, though it will not make the official record books since global sporting authorities do not recognise the competitors’ results as legitimate.

Coventry’s comments drew sharp criticism from Olympic athletes, who left comments on an Instagram post by swimming news outlet SwimSwam.

Reigning Olympic champion and 50m freestyle record holder Cameron McEvoy said Coventry’s comments “could not have been stated at a more inopportune time”, ostensibly referring to the Enhanced Games. The inaugural experimental competition, albeit heavily criticised, stands as a more lucrative option for athletes looking to make money while continuing their sport.

Former World and European champion Filippo Magnini criticised competitions “where the values of sports are trampled on for the sake of show.

“But let us remember that athletes sacrifice their lives to pursue a dream, and once they retire, 90 percent do not have a future,” the Italian freestyle sprint champion commented.

He emphasised how athletes who put on the show are the backbone of competitions such as the Olympics. “Without athletes, you wouldn’t even be here.”

Former Olympic champion and Australian distance swimming great Grant Hackett called the decision “backwards”, while retired South African swimmer Roland Schoeman said: “The IOC loves the idea of ‘Olympic values’ as long as athletes are the only ones expected to sacrifice financially.”

‘This won’t age well’

Canadian gymnast Felix Dolci and retired British athlete Greg Rutherford also backed the swimmers, with the long jumper saying: “This won’t age well.”

American rapper Flava Flav also commented on the post: “This is why I had to step up.” The television personality became an unlikely sponsor and a financial blessing for several athletes, most notably the US women’s water polo team, whom he supported at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

He also teamed up with Alexis Ohanian, Reddit cofounder and husband of tennis icon Serena Williams, to financially aid US discus thrower Veronica Fraley after she lamented being unable to pay her rent.

Retired Olympic hurdler Sally Pearson reacted to Coventry’s remarks in a video on her Instagram account.

“The Olympians, the athletes that are out there on the stage performing and competing for everyone’s entertainment don’t get paid. The volunteers and the Olympians don’t get paid at the biggest sporting event in the world,” the former world and Olympic champion from Australia said.

“Can you imagine telling a rockstar ‘you’re going to go on a tour and perform in front of thousands of people but we’re not going to pay you’; do you reckon they would go?”

Pearson, 39, further explained in a comment how stringent rules prevent athletes from earning money in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Calls for creating athletes’ union

The IOC can use athletes’ name, image and likeness (NIL) to promote or celebrate the Olympics, while athletes receive nothing in return.

In 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association changed NIL rules to allow student-athletes to financially benefit from NIL usage. When asked whether the IOC would adopt a similar stance, Coventry — who swam for Auburn University in Alabama in the US — denied moving to a similar model.

“Well, they get beautiful venues. They get beautiful villages. They get a beautiful experience. And all of that comes from the money that we raise,” Coventry went on to say in the same interview.

Famed Paralympic champion Hunter Woodhall called Coventry’s comments “embarrassing”, while retired British long jumper Rutherford said “the quicker an athlete union can be formed, the better”.

Rutherford detailed his own financial struggles in the sport, but acknowledged that he was from “one of the best sports in the Olympics” that allowed him to earn a decent wage compared to other sports.

“A lot of money I did make went back into the sport to try and win again,” he said, explaining the gamble athletes take with investing thousands of dollars in their training, nutrition and competitions.

World Athletics became the first governing body to award athletes $50,000 in prize money for an Olympic gold medal. Rutherford drew comparisons between World Athletics President Sebastian Coe — a former Olympic champion — drawing on his own experience as an athlete to change the financial system, while his counterpart Coventry stood firm on not paying athletes.

“I’m not saying every athlete should become a millionaire. I’m asking for an organisation that makes $12 billion, charges nations billions to host it, pays its executive millions, blocks athletes from earning, and owns footage of their greatest moments to have a long, hard look at itself,” Rutherford said.

The IOC generated $12.4b during the 2021-2024 cycle, mostly from global broadcast rights, according to its financial report. Nearly 74 percent of that was redistributed back into international sport.

While the IOC has not officially detailed what Coventry makes as president, it is speculated to be $350,000 annually, after it was disclosed last year that Coventry’s predecessor, Thomas Bach, was paid that amount for the final two years of his tenure.

Coventry’s past controversies

Coventry received backlash from athletes and human rights groups alike when the IOC reinstated gender verification tests for the 2028 Los Angeles Games. The global governing body said that only “biological females” will be allowed to compete in women’s events, preventing transgender women from competing.

South African runner and two-time Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya expressed her disappointment that the IOC’s decision was made under newly-appointed Coventry.

“For me personally, for her being a woman coming from Africa, knowing how African women or women in the Global South are affected by that, of course it causes harm,” Semenya said in Cape Town on the sidelines of a sporting competition.

Coventry was also the centre of attention in Zimbabwe after the 2008 Beijing Olympics where she smashed the world record in the 200m backstroke to win gold. She accepted a cash prize of $100,000 from then President Robert Mugabe on live television, when many Zimbabweans were struggling with hyperinflation.

She’s also been at the centre of political controversy during her tenure as sports minister which began in 2018.

The United States has carried out strikes near Bandar Abbas, the second attack in less than a week on Iran’s strategically important port city, escalating tensions around the Strait of Hormuz despite a fragile ceasefire that has been in place between Washington and Tehran since April 8.

Reuters and The Associated Press, quoting unnamed US officials, reported that US forces shot down four Iranian drones and struck a ground control station for drones on Wednesday in Bandar Abbas.

The strikes followed explosions in Bandar Abbas on Tuesday. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Washington of violating the ceasefire through “aggressive acts” in Hormozgan province, where the port city is located.

The semiofficial Iranian news agency Tasnim also reported that Iranian forces had fired on an “American airbase” in the region in response to a US attack near Bandar Abbas.

The escalation came after US President Donald Trump said during a cabinet meeting in Washington, DC, on Wednesday that “nobody’s going to control” the Strait of Hormuz as he spoke about ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

Bandar Abbas, home to key Iranian naval forces, occupies one of the most strategically sensitive positions in the Gulf. Its location on the Strait of Hormuz has made it central to both Iran’s military position and the wider confrontation with the US. Here is what we know:

Where is Bandar Abbas?

Bandar Abbas lies on Iran’s southern coast, on the northern side of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea.

The city, which had a population of more than 526,000 people at the time of Iran’s 2016 census, sits roughly 60km to 70km (35 to 45 miles) north of the strait’s narrowest point.

Its position gives Iran oversight of one of the world’s most important shipping lanes. About one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies transit through the Strait of Hormuz during peacetime.

Since the ceasefire was announced on April 8, Iran has continued to control shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while US forces have imposed a blockade on Iranian ports.

What is the military significance of Bandar Abbas?

Bandar Abbas is the headquarters of both Iran’s conventional navy and the naval arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The conventional navy has used it as its base since 1977 when Iran moved much of its fleet from Khorramshahr at the western edge of Iran’s Gulf coastline, to Bandar Abbas, transforming the city into the country’s main southern naval command centre.

According to the Middle East Institute, the IRGC navy later relocated its headquarters from Tehran to Bandar Abbas to improve operational control along the Strait of Hormuz.

Although Trump and Israeli officials claimed Iran’s naval capabilities have been heavily damaged in their recent attacks, Tehran still maintains a fleet of fast attack boats operated by the IRGC navy.

The vessels are designed for “swarm” tactics and are being used against commercial ships that do not have authorisation from Iran to sail through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. They were used recently against two Indian ships and two foreign container vessels, the Panama-flagged MSC Francesca and the Liberian-flagged Epaminondas, which Iran said had not been given approval to transit the waterway.

Why is Bandar Abbas important to Iran’s economy?

The Strait of Hormuz is not just a military chokepoint but also an economic lifeline.

Analysts estimated that more than 90 percent of Iranian crude shipments transit through the strait.

That makes Bandar Abbas and nearby Gulf infrastructure critical to government revenues, including the trade networks that help Iran circumvent sanctions, particularly by exporting oil to China.

Why are the US attacks significant?

Samir Puri, a visiting lecturer in war studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the ceasefire has not yet formally collapsed despite these latest exchanges of fire.

He described those incidents as “limited” compared with strikes carried out before April 8. These attacks can be characterised as “tit-for-tat military-to-military engagements rather than attacks on infrastructure or widespread destruction en masse”, he said.

“What the US military is attempting to do is explore whether it can physically deny the IRGC and Iran the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“Iran, of course, wants to show it cannot be denied that capability.”

What does this mean for peace negotiations?

Diplomatic and military operations are unfolding simultaneously as Iran and the US have exchanged a volley of proposals and counterproposals for peace since the ceasefire began.

“This is unfolding on parallel tracks. There is a military track and a negotiating track all unfolding at the same time,” Puri said. These limited strikes are, therefore, ultimately being launched as part of the negotiations, he said.

“The negotiators can only present the leverage they have from the field of battle. Is the US going to put itself into a position in which it can say to Iranian negotiators that they do not control the Strait of Hormuz? Because if you try to amass forces around Bandar Abbas and launch attacks from that coastal area, we can strike back.

“But Iran will not want to be pushed into that position and will want to say it retains the ability to strike shipping and US bases hosted by Gulf allies and partners. So that’s the duality that’s unfolding right now.”

Puri said both Washington and Tehran still appeared to have incentives to continue mediation but the two sides are approaching negotiations with very different objectives.

“Trump and the US administration want to impose a victor’s peace on Iran. Iran’s reading of the same script that they’re being handed is very different, and Iran probably wants to stretch out these negotiations for as long as possible without conceding.”

“So again, you end up in a situation that wars elsewhere have seen – negotiations without an endpoint or even the promise of an endpoint but still an incentive for both parties to participate, for now.”