Olympians must resort to "modeling" on OnlyFans to pay their bills

[kenny]

The Olympics and NBC/Peacock use the athletes to pull in tons of money, but what do most athletes get?
Zip.

I think this is sad athletes have to make ends meet by selling monthly subscriptions to drool (and who knows what else?) over those perfect bodies.

Olympians are turning to OnlyFans to fund dreams as they face a 'broken' finance system

Dire financial straits are leading droves of Olympic athletes to sell images of their bodies to subscribers on OnlyFans — known for sexually explicit content — to sustain their dreams of gold at the Games.

apnews.com

 

[Matata]

This is why I was opposed to allowing professional athletes to compete in the Olympics. The imbalance in funding and training resources is grossly unfair to the athletes who sustain amateur status. Imo, the decision in 1971 to allow professional athletes to compete ruined the Olympics.

 

[LilAlex]

At least there is an OF for them to turn to! And they do not need OF; they can monetize their fame almost immediately by leveraging their IG following.

We were struck by how attractive they all are now -- in body and face. Runners, swimmers, gymnasts, you name it. I think it confers a selective advantage, especially now -- just like in the workplace. Physical attractiveness improves confidence (sometimes wildly so!) and confidence favorably influences performance or even the perception of performance. (Judges' perception of performance won't get you much in the javelin but it will in diving.) Physical attractiveness also helps ensure the investment and engagement of the small often-volunteer armies that these elite athletes need for their success. (And this is also why babies are "cute": it helps parents through the low points when they may otherwise question their commitment to this venture. ) You do not see this in pro football or basketball where there is a pre-existing money-making machine once you reach NCAA and you never need the kindness of strangers.

This is why you do not choose the entertainment industry for your profession. And this is what all pro and competitive amateur athletes are -- entertainers. To the extent that their skills support the national interest (pride, jingoism), there may be a national-level program to groom them for the Olympics (but not after). But most of these extraordinary skills are "selfish" pursuits -- every post-medal interview is all about "me." I mean good for them and it is fun and it's amazing to watch but does society owe them a salary?

And this is why I think that although it is unconscionable for a female cardiac surgeon to be paid less than a male counterpart, it is ridiculous to think that male and female soccer players should receive the same salary. They are entertainers and one sex is playing on a much smaller stage (at least for now). Just like how I don't think that Kid Rock should command the ticket prices of a Taylor or Beyonce. It's not "equal pay for equal work"; it's different pay for different art.

I'm sure these are all unpopular opinions. I work out a lot and had my moments in my chosen sport and, as a kid, dreamed of attaining the next level and the next until it became very clear that my time and energy would be better spent pursuing higher-yield avenues (read: I was way better at some potentially money-making things than I would ever be at my favorite sport). So I applaud the single-minded pursuit of individual excellence in an elite physical skill (e.g., shot-put) but I'm unsurprised that some of them don't pay very well.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Lots of examples of Go Fund Me's so that Olympians could attend the games.

cheers--Sharon

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

i

This is why I was opposed to allowing professional athletes to compete in the Olympics. The imbalance in funding and training resources is grossly unfair to the athletes who sustain amateur status. Imo, the decision in 1971 to allow professional athletes to compete ruined the Olympics.

was just going to say it wasnt that long ago no olympian got paid

in saying that iv been enjoying the ladies golf

 

[OboeGal]

At least there is an OF for them to turn to! And they do not need OF; they can monetize their fame almost immediately by leveraging their IG following.

We were struck by how attractive they all are now -- in body and face. Runners, swimmers, gymnasts, you name it. I think it confers a selective advantage, especially now -- just like in the workplace. Physical attractiveness improves confidence (sometimes wildly so!) and confidence favorably influences performance or even the perception of performance. (Judges' perception of performance won't get you much in the javelin but it will in diving.) Physical attractiveness also helps ensure the investment and engagement of the small often-volunteer armies that these elite athletes need for their success. (And this is also why babies are "cute": it helps parents through the low points when they may otherwise question their commitment to this venture. ) You do not see this in pro football or basketball where there is a pre-existing money-making machine once you reach NCAA and you never need the kindness of strangers.

This is why you do not choose the entertainment industry for your profession. And this is what all pro and competitive amateur athletes are -- entertainers. To the extent that their skills support the national interest (pride, jingoism), there may be a national-level program to groom them for the Olympics (but not after). But most of these extraordinary skills are "selfish" pursuits -- every post-medal interview is all about "me." I mean good for them and it is fun and it's amazing to watch but does society owe them a salary?

And this is why I think that although it is unconscionable for a female cardiac surgeon to be paid less than a male counterpart, it is ridiculous to think that male and female soccer players should receive the same salary. They are entertainers and one sex is playing on a much smaller stage (at least for now). Just like how I don't think that Kid Rock should command the ticket prices of a Taylor or Beyonce. It's not "equal pay for equal work"; it's different pay for different art.

I'm sure these are all unpopular opinions. I work out a lot and had my moments in my chosen sport and, as a kid, dreamed of attaining the next level and the next until it became very clear that my time and energy would be better spent pursuing higher-yield avenues (read: I was way better at some potentially money-making things than I would ever be at my favorite sport). So I applaud the single-minded pursuit of individual excellence in an elite physical skill (e.g., shot-put) but I'm unsurprised that some of them don't pay very well.

Does society "owe" them a salary? That depends on how much society values what they can do. Do we really want a society in which there are no particularly skilled athletes, dancers, sculptors, painters, musicians, actors, screenwriters, videographers, writers? How many of us want a society in which there is no particularly well-written literature or beautiful art or dance or compelling music, or performers that can execute those things in the way the creators of it intended? Or in which the only people "allowed" to create and perform are those born into wealth?

I can tell you, as a lifelong professional musician, that it's nearly impossible to work a full-time job that is professional enough to pay the bills and develop the level of skill you need to do ANY of those things well. The amount of physical and cognitive energy and focus and just TIME isn't there after a day at work, even if it's a relatively "cushy" office job, and you can't commit to a gig or athletic event if your boss at your day job is going to tell you at the last minute a few days before that "oops, sorry, you have to go to this out-of-town client meeting, or else". If society isn't willing to help those with talent and passion develop, then we've gone back to shutting the door to these areas to anyone who isn't born into wealth, regardless of the level of talent or passion or drive they possess. That's not the society I want to live in.

I don't think it's a valid argument to just say that "well, if they sell enough tickets, they get paid, and anyone who doesn't, oh, well!" because every Taylor Swift and Beyonce and whoever else had to spend time developing their craft and their network before anyone knew who they were to even BUY tickets. There are artists, like Brandi Carlisle and Rhiannon Giddens, for instance, who spend DECADES in the trenches, traveling, playing at tiny venues, sleeping in their car at rest stops between tour dates, before they ever start getting the kind of recognition of their abilities that allows them to truly pay their bills. If no one is there to help in that intervening span, they'll never have any chance to GET to the point where they can command that level of ticket sales.

The bigger issue here is that there are companies, organizations, and individuals making enormous amounts of profits off the backs of people actually doing the majority of the hard work, and that is happening in every arena of western society, especially in the US.

That's the top executives of the IOC, the executives and shareholders of all the companies advertising during the Olympics and other big sporting events and art festivals, the very most famous pro athletes/musicians/writers who suddenly make millions and millions and then say "F you, I got mine" to all the athletes/musicians/writers just below them who are very nearly as good and yet having to sell their bodies on OnlyFans and sleep in their cars to afford to train.

It's the for-profit equity firms buying all the hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes and grinding the doctors, nurses, care aides, and other providers into the dust while providing inadequate care to patients and residents, all to maximize profits for CEOs and shareholders.

It's the CEOs of every big company making millions in salary, plus stock options, while rendering employees at the bottom doing the critical labor essentially indentured servants for paltry wages and no sick leave, and trapping them by holding the key to their health insurance (if they even offer that), all while maxing profits for the shareholders.

It's the wealthy landlords and private equity firms buying up all the housing and charging OUTRAGEOUS rent or flipping houses for exorbitant prices, all while barely keeping the properties legal, let alone pleasant to live in, because making money hand over fist in the stock market just isn't enough for them anymore; now they need to INCREASE those profits in real estate, too.

It's universities charging crushing amounts of tuition to kids just hoping to get enough of an education to be able to survive, while having the courses taught overwhelmingly by faculty adjuncts paid nearly nothing while teaching overwhelming course loads, or conversely, not enough courses to make anything more than a smidge of money.

It's these wealthy/corporations being allowed to "buy" all the media for propaganda purposes and all the elected officials so that they can game the system even MORE to their benefit.

Our unwillingness to put society-level curbs on just HOW wealthy (and therefore powerful) we let those at the top get or how desperate we let the lives of those at the bottom be are destroying society.

 

[LilAlex]

I agree with everything you are saying, @OboeGal, and intended no offense to artists. Maybe my error here was using music as a stand-in in that one ticket-sales instance. We need art and music and literature and dance. We do not need shot-put or pole-vault or nearly anything else in the Olympics or the world of other pro or advanced-am sport.

I don't know how to pay musicians or other artists. Much of this career path is entertainment. Some of it is our cultural legacy and the absolute pinnacle of human creative achievement. (We did not send an Olympic medal out into the universe on Voyager!) It's hard to tell which is which at the outset.

I had plenty of passions that I did not pursue, career-wise, because they would not be economically viable -- at least not for me at my level of skill and talent. I think this is when we need parents who are supportive of our hopes and dreams but also realistic about the long odds and the potentially rough road. Being told "follow your dreams" is unhelpful at best and ruinous at worst. Kid of a family friend bypassed college to became a pro baseball player. He got a seductive signing bonus (for a kid) and then languished in no-man's land of the minors for years with no safety-net plan. His parents were furious that it did not pan out for him. These were smart, college-educated parents with terrific jobs and when I hear them tell this story I want to shake them by the lapels and ask "What is wrong with you people?!" I am so grateful for my (now long-gone) parents who were great listeners but also gentle editorializers around half-baked plans...

AFAIK, there has never been a great system for paying artists as they develop. "Patrons" were wonderful but also abusers. Federal funding is important but notoriously challenging to allocate. You know this world -- what would you suggest?

 

[OboeGal]

No offense, @LilAlex - you're good! I'm sorry if I came off as offended; I didn't mean to. It's such an integral subject to my very being that it's difficult for me to talk about without being so passionate that I can sound a bit different than intended.

I wish I had good answers about HOW to do it differently. I know it needs to change, but no idea how best to do so. You make a good point about the number of kids who go into sports or the arts or similar fields with desires and big dreams, but no idea how unlikely it is that they can make a viable living. I remember as a college student being discouraged, even by the music faculty, in pursuing a degree in performance rather than music education because of the economic opportunities, but I knew for sure that the world didn't need more band directors who were frustrated performers just in it for the paycheck - there are fields one can go into just for the paycheck, but to me, teaching isn't one of them - and that playing was what motivated me, not teaching. So....I stayed the course for the performance degree - and have honestly paid the economic price my whole life - but if I'm honest, it wasn't just because I knew I didn't want to be a school teacher; it was also because I was wearing the blinders of youth and wanted to believe that "somehow" it would be different for me. I saw a lot of that in my peers, and see it in young people today as well.

The situation is even worse these days, though. Back then, the music faculty were realistic with us. These days, these poor underpaid part-time faculty adjuncts who are the ones actually doing most of the intensive instrument/voice instruction to music majors are threatened with being summarily replaced if they don't go out to local high schools and aggressively recruit potential majors among the kids who appear to be more "into" their participation in band/orchestra/choir - something that NEVER happened when I was in high school. The overwhelming majority of these kids have no business pursuing music as a profession; while they enjoy their experiences with it and play better than the average kid, they don't have the passion, commitment, or exclusivity of interest in music to go that route. But, as kids, they're easily convinced to prolong the "fun" of high school music programs into college and the career they think is coming, and to the colleges, they're a great source of those sweet, sweet exorbitantly high tuition bucks. The faculty adjuncts KNOW this is all wrong, but they're also scrambling to pay bills and not have to live in their cars, so what can they do? So, the industry is absolutely FLOODED now with kids who are competent players, but not usually outstanding, often on instruments that no one is paying to listen to these days, all while the number of opportunities to play live are dropping off at a far more dramatic rate than any of us, even the old-timers, predicted. It's insane, but universities are only getting more aggressive. What do they care? They only care about getting the tuition.

Given the numbers, then, I don't know how to fairly allocate funds to those who would best utilize them and have the most potential. There are just too many trying. 35+ years ago, when I was just starting my career, there already would be 200-500 people showing up to audition for spots in even low-level regional orchestras that were just part-time. There were so many that audition committees honestly couldn't distinguish enough difference between most to pick a winner, so they would have to employ arbitrary means to weed people out. Now, with aggressive university tactics, the situation is even worse while the number of viable orchestras dwindles daily and some of the most renowned struggle with gimmicky programming to fill their seats. This same scenario is playing out in all the music genres.

I sometimes wonder if funds should go to those that honestly don't have anything else that they have skill or passion for, but that may be personal bias because that describes me! I've tried multiple other fields, but I'm just not good at them and I literally go into clinical depression when I can't put the music first. I was fortunate in that, when my husband and I married, he was earning enough to "rescue" me financially and support us so that I could quit the horrendous office job that I'd had to take on to avoid bankruptcy but which was making me want to put a bullet in my head while I sat there doing nothing that benefited society and watching the music skills that I'd spent a lifetime working so hard to hone wither away. Some skilled musicians legitimately have other areas that they are very good at and have some passion for, so can at least accept relegating music to "hobby" status, but I've never been one of them.

I DO believe, on the greater society level, that we have to attack the unbelievable level of wealth and wage inequality that's been building particularly rapidly over the last 40 or so years, and the political changes that have allowed those with wealth to hijack political processes and societal discourse to their own personal ends. That is what I think is the starting point to address not just supporting beginning artists, but so much else that we need to be doing to be a fairer, more stable society and to promote more of the community good.

ETA: I just remembered that a lot of young(ish) artists who manage to eke out a living, especially while getting established, do so by learning how to exhaustively pursue the various grant opportunities out there. If we had less wealth inequality and more available public funds, as well as incentives for the wealthy to establish foundations to provide grants, there could be much more opportunity there.