I'm not sure the IOC should be responsible for any potential competitors vs actual competitors. Even if it's only limited to those actually competing in the games, and only given out after competing, then that's a lump sum of $200k which they weren't getting before.
As for the stipends given out by USOC for Team USA, those are specifically for the US, and there appears to be no information on how much of that stipend originates from the IOC as compared to sponsorships obtained by from the USOC directly. Even then, most countries do not pay stipends that come even close to $20k US dollars. In many places, if the athletes got a full $200k for participating in the games, it would set them up for a very long time (if not for life).
As for the cost of sports coaches, training locales, etc, there's a whole 50% of revenue left over specifically to help pay for those costs (on top of local OC's). As noted in the article, professional US-based organizations, such as the NFL, generally share 50% of the revenue with athletes. Those organizations also have many of the same types of costs, but still are able to maintain an approximate 50/50 ratio.
More to the point, "have you even looked at the economics?". Yes. The conclusion that I have is that there is huge gulf between, (and using the USOC specifically here), USOC's claimed 90% spending and the article's "6 percent in cash payments" to athletes. So it's not clear cut that direct benefits to athlete's couldn't be raised, and substantially.
If you deign to consider the possibility that providing the infrastructure and training to 10,200 people in dozens of sports in 200 countries on a 1bn annual budget might actually result in a higher level of overheads per competitor than training ~100 footballers at a single club with a $2bn annual budget, it becomes a bit more obvious why athletes get a smaller share of the pie in cash payments than participants in high profile team sports, even without the whole amateur ethos.
Funnily enough, a good friend of my brother's did spend 6-8 years of his life dedicating himself to getting ready for his first Olympics, going into debt in order to do so. Upon gaining a bronze medal he used the sponsorship windfall to cancel his debts and buy a house. I suspect if I suggested to him that the British Olympic team should have cut back on facilities or charged him for training and pushed him deeper into debt in order to ensure there was a moderate-sized lump sum waiting for him in the year he finally started being able to get money from commercial sources, I'd get a very weird look.
I'm not sure the IOC should be responsible for any potential competitors vs actual competitors. Even if it's only limited to those actually competing in the games, and only given out after competing, then that's a lump sum of $200k which they weren't getting before.
As for the stipends given out by USOC for Team USA, those are specifically for the US, and there appears to be no information on how much of that stipend originates from the IOC as compared to sponsorships obtained by from the USOC directly. Even then, most countries do not pay stipends that come even close to $20k US dollars. In many places, if the athletes got a full $200k for participating in the games, it would set them up for a very long time (if not for life).
As for the cost of sports coaches, training locales, etc, there's a whole 50% of revenue left over specifically to help pay for those costs (on top of local OC's). As noted in the article, professional US-based organizations, such as the NFL, generally share 50% of the revenue with athletes. Those organizations also have many of the same types of costs, but still are able to maintain an approximate 50/50 ratio.
More to the point, "have you even looked at the economics?". Yes. The conclusion that I have is that there is huge gulf between, (and using the USOC specifically here), USOC's claimed 90% spending and the article's "6 percent in cash payments" to athletes. So it's not clear cut that direct benefits to athlete's couldn't be raised, and substantially.