Phelps gets a TRAINING STIPEND?

Well, get faster, become the next Bernard Lagat, then accept the stipend and spread it equally all over the sport. Then, the "mac n cheese" athletes will upgrade to hamburger helper with your 36 cent an athlete donation.

If I understand where you're going with this, perhaps there should be upper limit on net income beyond which an athlete is ineligible for a training stipend from a NGB. What that limit should be is up for debate; how about 25% of the salary of the President of the USA? Or some sort of multiplier of poverty level, adjusted for number of dependents, etc?

A while ago there was a very heated debate on directing funds toward developing athletes, and Steve Jones had some very astute comments about the ass-backwardness of the way money came around in his experience. To paraphrase Mr. Jones, by the time he was good enough to earn the government subsidy, he was getting money from races and a corporate sponsor anyway!. He needed that subsidy money five or ten years earlier than when he actually got it.

I can sympathize with the opinion that it's easier to give the stipend to the already successful athlete, and that such stipends are really more about "just deserts" rather than an investment in the future.

But I think the sport would be better served with the NGB subsidy going to athletes with the potential, but no other financial means, to train for competition.

I give your mom a training stipend.

I am surprised Phelps would accept the stipend. Why not give it to someone more needy? He supposedly gave up his place in a swimming event last year in Beijing for a teammate, why not do the same with the stipend if he is sincere about teamwork.

Now lets remember: this is a capitalist society.

Phelps earned every single medal (as far as we know).

How would forcing our athletes towards socialism help the Olympic sports in this country?

The more they work > the better they do > the more stipend they earn because they better represent the country.

Athletes should have to work towards making the stipend.

Phelps preformed an above world class feet while our track athletes can barely compete for one medal. When one of them earns numerous medals, as Phelps did, and doesn't get a stipend, we should be concerned.

Okay, so let's consider making it hyper-capitalist: athletes get a stipend with the obligation of paying back in the future a return on the NGOs investment in them. So that way, US Swimming buys $1750/month in PhelpsLLC; this garners them some number of shares of preferred Phelps stock, which should pay some kind of dividend back to the NGO over time.

Any sort of government stipend, for something so utterly frivolous and peripheral as sport, is to be regarded as a privilege and not a right. If the market is willing to support a professional athlete (working of their own free will) at a level that is comfortably beyond the average income, let it.

Correction: NGO should be NGB.

Post of the week.

It's a bit ironic that you believe a non-profit organization should blindly follow a capitalistic model. If it did that the first step it would take would be to eliminate itself.

Swimming is different than running as it is more closely tied to the national federation that we are. An athlete could completely ignore country national affiliation meets and races in our sport and still make a great living. This is not true in swimming so the federation is more closely involved. USA Swimming is pretty much self sufficient so a guy like Phelps is well deserving of a subsidy. USATF is not anywhere near self sufficient. In case the Marxists missed it, subsidizing those who don't get the job done isn't as effective as subsidizing those who do so giving Phelps money and not giving it to wannabees actually makes sense. However, subsidizing runners is pointless as they don't bring anything back to USATF. IF you doubt this, walk into any town and find out the membership of the local swim team. All of these athletes hold USA Swimming membership. Now check out the local track club. If that town even has one, membership will be a fraction of the swim team and those kids will probably not even have USATF cards. The next time you watch US swimmers racking up golds and then switch to track and watch us get blanked, there's your answer.