Connect with us

Culture

World Athletics' new Olympic prize money rule is a chance for NCAA to right a wrong

Published

on

World Athletics' new Olympic prize money rule is a chance for NCAA to right a wrong

The latest dent in the NCAA’s bedrock principle of amateurism came from an unlikely place: Monaco.

Track and field gold medalists will become the first athletes to earn international prize money at the Olympics, the sport’s international governing body said Wednesday. Each gold medalist will receive $50,000 for individual wins. World Athletics, which governs track and field from its headquarters in Monaco, also pledged to award prize money to silver and bronze medalists at the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028.

“It is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes at the Olympic Games are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is,” World Athletics president Sebastian Coe said in a statement.

What is not yet clear is if current college athletes are allowed to receive that prize money. In what feels like a relic of college sports’ antiquated past, the NCAA currently bars athletes from accepting prize money in events such as the U.S. Open in tennis or golf. The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the World Athletics announcement.

While the NCAA does allow money to be paid to Olympic athletes in college under its Operation Gold program, that rule clearly states that the money must come from the sport’s governing body for the athlete’s sport in his or her home country. They can accept money paid by their national governing body as well as the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee; the USOPC currently awards $37,500 for each gold medalist, $22,500 for each silver medalist and $15,000 for each bronze medalist.

Advertisement

In that one very specific environment, college athletes can be paid to play their sport — and they can maintain their NCAA eligibility. In essentially any other environment, they can’t.

It’s well past the time for the NCAA to allow its athletes to accept their hard-earned prize money, regardless of which governing body hands it out. That should include World Athletics, which is paying its prize money from the revenue it receives from the International Olympic Committee. That should also include individual professional sport organizations such as the USTA or USGA, which would then allow collegiate tennis players and golfers to earn prize money while maintaining collegiate eligibility.

Such circumstances are the heart of a lawsuit filed by University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier, who is arguing that she and other athletes like her deserve to keep the prize money they earn by participating in and winning tournaments. Right now, they can only keep enough to cover their expenses.

Meanwhile … these athletes see Caitlin Clark appearing in national television commercials and quarterbacks hawking headphones through lucrative name, image and likeness (NIL) deals while maintaining their NCAA eligibility.

“I can’t think of another situation where an organization can have a draconian quid pro quo where you are prohibited from accepting money you earned with your own sweat,” UNC associate head tennis coach Tyler Thomson told The Athletic last month when Brantmeier filed her lawsuit. “I just think it’s really wrong, and especially in the age of NIL.”

Advertisement

That point is even more poignant in an age of NIL marked by pseudo-salaries paid by booster-backed collectives. Those NIL deals effectively allow donors to pay athletes to play at a specific school — a nonsensical workaround in a status quo in which schools and conferences cannot directly pay athletes. The argument that a tennis player accepting prize money is too closely tied to pay-for-play holds far less water when you compare it to what is happening in sports such as football and men’s basketball.


UNC tennis player Reese Brantmeier has sued the NCAA for not allowing college athletes to accept prize money and maintain their eligibility. (Preston Mack / NCAA Photos via Getty Images)

The current system may not be what it is for much longer anyway, as a laundry list of lawsuits continue to chip away at the NCAA’s longstanding legal arguments in defense of its version of amateurism. In the meantime, the organization and all college athletes are stuck in a sort of gray area, as rules that may have made sense once upon a time exist unchallenged until the spotlight shines squarely upon them.

That light has found the NCAA’s hypocritical stance on prize money. It is blindingly bright against the backdrop of million-dollar NIL deals and recruiting inducements-that-aren’t-supposed-to-be-inducements. It’s wild to think that college sports’ governing body could be forcing tennis players to go pro instead of allowing them to go to class and compete collegiately while accepting prize money at various events. Or that the NCAA could bar a collegiate sprinter who beats the world’s fastest from accepting money from World Athletics simply because it’s not run through the USOPC.

All that these draconian rules do is push elite athletes to leave campus earlier than they’d like. That’s not what the NCAA should ever be doing, intentionally or not.

So, here’s a chance to right a wrong. Here’s a chance for a common-sense win amid several losses in court. Let college athletes keep their prize money — and their eligibility, too.

Advertisement

(Top photo of Athing Mu, who left Texas A&M to turn pro just before the 2021 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials, celebrating her gold medal in the women’s 800-meter at the Tokyo Olympics: Jewel Samad / AFP via Getty Images)

Culture

Why Is Everyone Obsessed With Bogs?

Published

on

Why Is Everyone Obsessed With Bogs?

In prehistoric northern Europe, peatlands — areas of waterlogged soil rich with decaying plant matter — were considered spiritual sites. Since then, swords, jewelry and even human bodies have been found fossilized in their sludgy depths. More recently, however, many of these bogs have been depleted by overharvesting, neglect and development. But as awareness of their important role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere grows, more wetlands are being restored, while also serving as unlikely creative inspiration. Here’s how bogs are showing up in the culture.

At fall 2026 Paris Fashion Week, several houses — including Louis Vuitton (above left) and Hermès — staged shows amid mossy sets featuring spongy green structures and mounds of vegetation. And the Danish fashion brand Solitude Studios is distressing its eerie, grungy looks (above right) by submerging them in a local peat bog.

For her exhibition at California’s San José Museum of Art, on view through October, the Chalon Nation artist Christine Howard Sandoval is presenting sculptures, drawings and plant-dyed works (above) exploring how the state’s wetlands were once sites of Indigenous resistance and community. This month, at Storm King Art Center in New York’s Hudson Valley, the conceptual artist Anicka Yi will unveil an outdoor installation featuring six-foot-tall transparent columns holding algae-rich ecosystems cultivated from nearby pond water and soil.

The Bog Bothy (above), a mobile design project by the Dublin-based architecture practice 12th Field in collaboration with the Irish Architecture Foundation, was inspired by the makeshift huts once used by peat cutters who harvested the material for fuel. After debuting in the Irish Midlands last year, it’ll tour the region again this summer. In Edinburgh, the designer Oisín Gallagher is making doorstops from subfossilized bog-oak scraps carbon-dated to 3300 B.C.

At La Grenouillère on France’s north coast, the chef Alexandre Gauthier reflects the restaurant’s reedy, frog-filled river valley landscape with dishes like a “marsh bubble” of herbs encased in hardened sugar. This spring, Aponiente — the chef Ángel León’s restaurant inside a 19th-century tidal mill on Spain’s Bay of Cádiz — added an outdoor dining area on a pier above the neighboring marshland, serving local sea grasses and salt marsh flowers alongside seafood (above) from the estuary.

Advertisement
Credit…Penguin Random House

The Irish British writer Maggie O’Farrell’s forthcoming novel, “Land,” about an Irish cartographer and his son surveying the island in 1865 after the Great Famine, depicts haunting encounters with the verdant landscape, including its plentiful oozing bogs.

Continue Reading

Culture

Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas

Published

on

Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas

SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay, by Mary Lisa Gavenas


Mary Kay, the cosmetics company whose multilevel marketing included sales parties and whose biggest earners were awarded pink Cadillacs, was really in the business of selling second chances. Or, at least, that’s what Mary Lisa Gavenas argues in “Selling Opportunity,” a dual biography of the brand and the woman behind it.

Mary Kathlyn Wagner, who would become Mary Kay Ash, “the most famous saleswoman in the world” and “maybe the most famous ever,” in Gavenas’s extravagant words, was born in 1918 to a poor family and raised mostly in Houston. Although a good student, she eloped at 16 with a slightly older boy. The young couple had two babies in quick succession.

Mary Kay’s creation was a combination of timing and good luck. Door-to-door sales was a thriving industry — but, traditionally, a man’s world: Lugging heavy samples was not considered feminine, and entering the homes of strangers, unsafe. But things began to change during the Great Depression, Gavenas suggests, thanks to a convergence of factors — financial pressures and the rise of the aspirational prosperity gospel espoused by Dale Carnegie’s self-help manuals.

At the same time, female-run beauty lines like Annie Turnbo Malone’s Poro and Madam C.J. Walker’s were finding great success in Black communities. And, coincidentally or otherwise, the California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939.

Advertisement

Ash began by selling books door to door, moving on to Stanley Home Products in the 1940s. She was talented, but direct sales was a rough gig. Every party to show off wares was supposed to beget two more bookings; these led to sales that resulted in new recruits. But there was no real security or stability: no salary, no medical benefits, no vacations. “Stop selling and you would end up right back where you started. Or worse,” the author writes.

Gavenas, a onetime beauty editor who wrote “Color Stories,” takes her time unspooling Mary Kay’s tale, with a great deal of evident research. We learn about direct sales, women’s rights and Texas history.

But, be warned: Readers must really enjoy both this woman and this world to take pleasure in “Selling Opportunity.” Mary Kay the person keeps marrying, getting divorced or widowed and working her way through various sales jobs (it’s hard to keep track of the myriad companies and last names). Gavenas seems to leave no detail out. Thus, the 1963 founding of the eponymous beauty company doesn’t come until almost 200 pages in.

Beauty by Mary Kay included a Cleansing Cream, a Magic Masque and a Nite Cream (which containined ammoniated mercury, later banned by the F.D.A.). The full line of products — which was how Mary Kay strongly encouraged customers to buy them — ran to a steep $175 in today’s money. (To fail to acquire the whole set, Ash said, was “like giving you my recipe for chocolate cake but leaving out an important ingredient.”)

Potential clients attended gatherings at acquaintances’ homes — no undignified doorbell-ringing here — where they received a mini facial, then an application of cosmetics like foundation, lip color and cream rouge — and a wig. The company made $198,514 in sales its first year.

Advertisement

Although Ash may have seemed a pioneer, in many ways Mary Kay was a traditionalist company, whose philosophy was “God first, family second, career third.” Saleswomen, official literature dictated, were working to provide themselves with treats rather than necessities so as not to threaten their breadwinner husbands.

And yet, they were also encouraged to sell sell sell. Golden Goblet pendants were awarded for major orders. After the company started using custom pink Peterbilt trucks for shipping, it began commissioning those Cadillacs for top consultants. (Mary Kay preferred gifts to cash bonuses, lest women save the money to spend on practical things rather than the licensed frivolities.) The Cadillacs, always driven on company leases, would become industry legend and part of American pop culture lore. “Never to be run-down, repainted or resold, the cars would double as shining pink advertisements for her selling opportunity,” Gavenas writes.

The woman herself was iconic, too. While Ash was a product of the Depression, she was also undeniably over-the-top. She wore white suits with leopard trim, lived in a custom Frank L. Meier house and brought her poodle to the office.

Mary Kay went public in 1968, making her the first woman to chair a company on the New York Stock Exchange. By the 1990s, the Mary Kay headquarters near Dallas was almost 600,000 square feet. They commissioned a hagiographic company biopic; there was a Mary Kay consultant Barbie; they were making $1 billion in wholesale. When she died, in 2001, Ash was worth $98 million.

And yet, Gavenas cites that at the company’s height, in 1992, sales reps made on average just $2,400 per year.

Advertisement

Instead of so much time in the pink fantasia of Mary Kay, it would have been nice for a few detours showing how infrequently the opportunities the company sold were truly realized.

SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay | By Mary Lisa Gavenas | Viking | 435 pp. | $35

Continue Reading

Culture

Historical Fiction Books That Illustrate the Bonds Between Mother and Child

Published

on

Historical Fiction Books That Illustrate the Bonds Between Mother and Child

We often think of the past as if it were another world — and in some ways, it is. The politics, religion and social customs of other eras can be vastly different from our own. But one thing historians and historical fiction writers alike often notice is the constancy of human emotion. The righteous anger of a customer complaining about a Mesopotamian copper merchant in 1750 B.C. feels familiar. Tributes to beloved household pets from ancient Romans and Egyptians make us smile. And we are captivated by stories of love, betrayal and sacrifice from Homer to Shakespeare and beyond.

In literature, letters, tablets and even on coins, we find overwhelming evidence that people in the past felt the same emotions we do. Love, hate, fear, grief, joy: These feelings were as much a part of their lives as they are of our own. And they resonate especially acutely in the bond between mother and child. Here are eight historical novels that explore the meaning of motherhood across the centuries.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending