Beyond the Podium: Ethical Dilemmas in the State’s Investment in Athletes

The recent disqualification of Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat from the 2024 Paris Olympics has sparked significant controversy within the sporting community and the broader societal discourse. The controversy took a particularly sensitive turn when one of the Union Ministers stood in the Parliament and disclosed the amount of money spent by the government on Phogat’s training and preparation. Such a public disclosure, especially at a moment when an athlete is at their most vulnerable, raises important ethical and moral questions. Is it justifiable for a government to tout its financial support for an athlete in the public sphere, particularly when the athlete is experiencing a professional setback? Or does this reveal a troubling dynamic where athletes are reduced to mere investments, their worth measured by their ability to deliver returns?

The relationship between taxpayers' money and the support provided to sportspersons is a cornerstone of state policy in many countries. This relationship is grounded in a social contract, where citizens contribute to the public purse through taxes, with the understanding that these funds will be used for the collective good—whether in healthcare, education, or, as in this case, the nurturing of athletic talent. However, the allocation of public funds to support athletes is fraught with ethical complexities, especially when the state’s expectations of a return on investment come into conflict with the dignity and autonomy of the athletes themselves. The social contract, as articulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that individuals agree to form a society and abide by its rules in exchange for protection and the benefits of living in a community.

In this context, the use of taxpayer money to support sportspersons can be seen as a fulfilment of the state’s role in promoting the common good. However, this contract also implies certain obligations on the part of the state, including the ethical treatment of those who benefit from public funds. Rousseau’s concept of the "general will" suggests that the state’s actions should reflect the collective good, but this should not come at the expense of individual dignity and respect. The state’s legitimacy stems from its obligation to protect and respect the rights and dignity of its people. When a government publicly discloses the financial details of its support for an athlete, especially in the context of a setback, it fails to fulfil this moral obligation. Instead, it shifts the narrative from one of support and solidarity to one of accountability and justification.

When a government invests in an athlete, it does so with the expectation that the investment will yield not just medals, but also national pride, global recognition, and inspiration for future generations. Yet, this utilitarian perspective—that the greatest good comes from the greatest return on investment—can often overshadow the intrinsic value of supporting sportspersons for their personal development and the cultural enrichment they bring to society. Moreover, John Rawls’ ‘Theory of Justice’ reminds us that the principles of fairness and equality should guide the distribution of resources. In the context of sports, this would mean that while athletes receive public support, their treatment by the state should be guided by principles of fairness, avoiding actions that would undermine their dignity or create unnecessary pressure.

The issue of governments publicly disclosing the expenses incurred on athletes is not unique to India. There have been instances in other countries where similar actions have sparked controversy. For instance, in the run-up to the 2012 London Olympics, the British government faced criticism for its handling of athlete funding. In a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the government was accused of focusing too much on "medal targets" and not enough on the personal and professional development of athletes. This created a perception that athletes were being treated as commodities, with their value tied directly to their ability to win medals.

During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China faced backlash for the immense pressure placed on athletes to deliver results, with public funding often used as a tool to justify this pressure. In the 2016 Rio Olympics, the Australian government faced criticism for revealing detailed information about athletes’ training expenses following subpar results. The disclosure was perceived by many as an attempt to deflect criticism from the government and redirect focus onto the athletes. This not only affected public perception but also placed undue pressure on the athletes, demonstrating the potential downsides of such transparency.

Similarly, the UK’s handling of financial disclosures during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics faced backlash, as the detailed reporting of expenses was seen by some as an effort to justify funding decisions rather than addressing the broader context of athletes’ performance and support. Debates have also evolved in many countries wherein nations have been criticized for their “win-at-all-costs” mentality, which some argued placed undue stress on athletes and reduced their achievements to mere financial calculations. These examples highlight a disturbing trend in which athletes are increasingly viewed as investments, with their success or failure framed in terms of return on investment. This approach is not only ethically problematic but also detrimental to the well-being of athletes, who may feel that their value is determined solely by their performance on the field.

From a scholarly perspective, the ethics of publicly disclosing state sponsorship of athletes can also be analyzed through the concept of ‘Virtue Ethics’, as proposed by Aristotle. This branch of ethics emphasizes the importance of moral character and the development of virtues such as empathy, compassion, and respect. According to Aristotle, a virtuous person acts per these virtues, not out of a sense of duty or obligation, but because it is the right thing to do.

In the context of the Vinesh Phogat case, virtue ethics would suggest that the government’s actions were not in line with the virtues of empathy and respect. By publicly disclosing the financial support provided to Phogat, the government failed to show compassion for her situation and instead prioritized its own image and narrative. This lack of empathy and respect is ethically questionable, as it undermines the athlete’s dignity and reduces her to a mere means to an end. Moreover, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, which emphasizes the importance of treating individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end, further supports this critique. Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that actions should be guided by principles that respect the autonomy and dignity of individuals. By publicly disclosing the expenses incurred on Phogat, the government treated her as a means to bolster its own image, rather than as an individual deserving of respect and support in her time of need.

The case of Vinesh Phogat serves as a poignant reminder of the ethical complexities involved in the relationship between state sponsorship and athlete’s dignity and reminds us to strike that delicate balance between transparency, accountability, and the ethical treatment of individuals. While transparency and accountability are essential components of democratic governance, these principles must be balanced against the ethical obligation to protect the dignity and well-being of individuals. Drawing on the insights of philosophers like Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls, it becomes clear that the state’s role extends beyond merely auditing its investments in athletes. It must also foster an environment that respects the intrinsic values of sports and supports athletes as individuals, not merely as instruments of national prestige.

Moving forward, governments should approach the issue of athlete support with greater sensitivity and ethical awareness. By recognizing the distinct spheres of justice and respecting the internal values of sports, states can create a more humane and ethical environment for their athletes, one that celebrates their efforts and supports them in their moments of vulnerability. In doing so, society can ensure that the pursuit of excellence in sports remains true to its intrinsic values, untainted by external pressures and transactional considerations. This must be given paramount importance as in the end, the true measure of a society’s greatness lies not in its medal tally but in how it treats those who strive, regardless of the outcome.