Putting the debate on prize money to bed

AS Singapore celebrated the achievements of its athletes in the recent Olympics and Paralympics, observers pointed out the stark disparities in prize money awarded to the country's Olympians and Paralympians, sparking a roaring debate. Is it fair that a Paralympian receives just one-fifth of the prize money awarded to an Olympian for winning a gold medal? The disparity goes against the ideals of equality and inclusiveness promoted through sports.

While governments should take the lead in championing this ideal, we also believe that greater contributions from corporations can finally resolve this inequality once and for all.

Proponents of the existing regime on prize money argue that the Olympics are more competitive because, among other reasons, there are more contenders for medals in the Olympics. Consequently, medal-winning Olympians deserve higher prize money.

We disagree with such a premise and find it unreasonable.

Paralympians are categorised based on the nature and extent of their disabilities, so that they are able to compete in the spirit of equality. Accordingly, there are far more categories in the Paralympics. Thus, it is impossible to expect the number of contenders in the Olympics and the Paralympics to be similar.

We believe that the competitiveness of para-sports and sports are incomparable, and that medal-winning athletes in the Olympics and Paralympics deserve equal prize money.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

In the 1990s, the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) devised an incentive scheme to reward medal-winning athletes in major international competitions. The prize money, which ranged from S$1 million for an individual Olympic gold to S$10,000 for an individual South-east Asian Games gold, was supported by corporate sponsorships and donations from the country's gaming revenue. This includes revenue from Singapore Pools, Singapore Turf Club and casino entry levies collected from Singapore's integrated resorts.

As it stands, the Singapore National Paralympic Council has just six sponsors and corporate partners, whereas the SNOC has 20. Yet, para-sports is no less worthy of corporate support, as it is a testament to what can be achieved with courage and determination.

We believe that greater support for para-sports from corporations can promote diversity, inclusivity and equality, as well as put this debate to bed.

Undeniably, sports play a unique, important and irreplaceable role in our society. It has been described by some as an instrument for social change.

History has proven that sports is a powerful tool for the realisation of aspirations of nations and individuals alike.

Nelson Mandela showed how sports can be used to bridge deeply entrenched cultural differences when he used the 1995 Rugby World Cup to unify the post-apartheid South Africa. More recently, the International Olympic Committee showed us that sports can also be used to protect vulnerable communities when it helped some 100 people from the "Olympic community" of Afghanistan to leave their country on humanitarian visas.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

In this light, corporations that intend to have an effective corporate social responsibility policy promoting ideals of diversity, inclusion, and equality can do so through sports advocacies and contributions.

We propose three ways in which corporations can do their part in building an inclusive and equal society through sports. Firstly, greater financial support for para-sports will mean that para-athletes and organisers of related events will have more financial resources at their disposal to further their agenda of promoting equality and inclusiveness in sports. It can also narrow the current disparity in the prize money for medal-winning para-athletes, thereby putting the debate on equal prize money to bed.

Secondly, corporations can help raise awareness by promoting para-sports in the same way that they do for sports. By doing so, corporations can help enhance public attention on para-sports which will, in turn, improve the marketability of para-sports for potential advertisers.

Thirdly, corporations can assist in strengthening the sporting ecosystem. Specifically, corporations with professionals and professional services firms can support sporting organisations in their governance, financial and risk management, technology, and fundraising, so that they may be adequately resourced to achieve their respective objectives.

Actions speak louder than words. Instead of debating over the relative competitiveness of the Olympics and Paralympics, which reflects the inequality propagated in sports, our energy is better channelled towards finding solutions and alternatives in building an inclusive and equal society.

We need to focus on what is just and right in supporting sports and para-sports. Both are worthy causes and it is high time for us as a society, especially our corporations, to contribute and address the present inequalities.

• Tan Chong Huat is senior partner, RHTLaw Asia; non-executive chairman of RHT Group of Companies; and chairman of RHT Rajan Menon Foundation. Lim Xin Yuan is a practice trainee at RHTLaw Asia.