Sport is often seen as a meritocracy: perform well enough, and rewards will follow. But for many elite athletes, that assumption couldn’t be further from reality. Despite years of training, international competition, and national representation, a significant number still struggle to make a sustainable living.
In some cases, the problem is obvious, athletes in niche sports with no public funding or commercial support. But more often, the issue lies in the grey zone: competitors who are successful enough to stay in the system, but not successful enough to break through financially. These are the athletes who aren’t scraping by on the margins, but who also aren’t earning enough to build security. And this middle ground can be the hardest place to exist.
The Fragile Economics of Elite Sport
Unlike traditional careers, sport doesn’t follow a predictable financial pathway. Income is rarely stable, and success doesn’t guarantee sustainability. Most athletes are juggling multiple roles: training full-time, coaching on the side, taking freelance gigs, applying for grants, and relying on family support.
Many national funding structures (like UK Sport or Sport Ireland) are performance-based, meaning only those with medal potential receive financial backing. Even then, funding caps are modest, typically ranging between £4,000 and £28,000 per year. And funding is conditional: miss selection or fall short of a target, and the income can vanish overnight.
Meanwhile, commercial sponsorship is rarely spread equitably. It tends to follow trends, visibility, and marketability, not necessarily talent or effort. In many Olympic or lower-profile sports, there simply isn’t a large enough commercial ecosystem to sustain athletes long term.
Falling in the Middle: The Invisible Struggle
The conversation around athlete pay often focuses on two ends of the spectrum, the underfunded grassroots hopeful and the multimillionaire superstar. But the most neglected group may be the ones who fall somewhere in between.
These are athletes who are:
- National team regulars
- Competing in European or World events
- Medalling at university, national, or continental level
- Sometimes even Olympians
They aren’t in poverty, but they also can’t comfortably afford rent in a city, regular physio, or future savings. They might receive some support, a stipend, equipment sponsorship, university scholarships but still need a part-time job to fill the gap.
The issue here is long-term sustainability. Athletes in this group often burn out; not physically, but financially. They can’t justify continuing into their mid or late 20s, let alone 30s, without a clear financial return.
This leads to early retirements, talent drain, and a cycle where only athletes with external financial backing (usually from family) can afford to persist.
Why Isn’t More Being Done?
One answer is that most sports simply aren’t commercially profitable. Without major TV rights deals, large-scale ticket sales, or global sponsorships, there’s no money to distribute. In this framework, athletes are effectively independent contractors, responsible for finding their own funding to pursue a career that benefits the wider public.
That said, many undervalued sports offer huge social value. They contribute to national pride, inspire youth, promote healthy lifestyles, and improve public wellbeing. But because these benefits are long-term and difficult to monetise, they’re rarely prioritised.
There’s also a cultural mindset- a romanticisation of the “struggling athlete” narrative. We admire those who sacrifice everything for sport, but don’t question why that sacrifice is even necessary.
Is It Fair?
There’s an ongoing debate about whether this imbalance is simply the reality of chasing a dream or an unjust result of how we structure support.
Some argue that athletes choose this path, and with that choice comes financial risk. But that view oversimplifies the issue. Most people wouldn’t accept a full-time job with no guarantee of income or basic support, yet athletes are expected to.
Others point out that sport, especially in smaller disciplines, doesn’t generate enough to sustain everyone, and that pouring public money into non-profitable ventures isn’t sustainable.
But it’s not always about making everyone rich, it’s about making the pursuit of sport possible, without forcing athletes to constantly choose between passion and survival. There’s also a bigger question: why do we praise national athletic success while underinvesting in the people who make it happen?
Conclusion: Sport Doesn’t Need to Be This Financially Precarious
The current system leaves too many athletes in limbo, not struggling enough to be considered a funding priority, but not stable enough to build a future. This isn’t just an individual issue; it’s systemic.
If we want future generations to thrive in elite sport, not just survive it, we need to rethink how athletes are valued, supported, and sustained.
Not every sport will be profitable. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth investing in.
