How rich and poor countries reward their Olympians

The Olympic Games is facing a parallel contest in how countries reward their winners in addition to the Olympic medals. Poorer countries were more conservative while the rich countries were more lavish.

Poor countries like Britain and New Zealand were quite stingy on the rewards. The cheap British probably did not have much money to spare and only offered to put the pictures of the winners in their postage stamps. Really cheapskate. It is quite pathetic really for Great Britain to save on the pennies. Some poorer countries did not even offer anything and the support and Olympic medals are considered good enough a recognition. 

New Zealand could not afford instant cash but a $60k grant for a year, maybe to study or whatever for a gold medal. Australia and the USA were not much better, offering A$20k and US$25k respectively.

China was a bit richer and paid their winners a healthier S$99,500. But it was outshone by richer countries like the Philippines, $146k and Russia and the other ‘tan’ countries with payouts of US$135k to US$250k.

The richer countries like Malaysia and Singapore were more generous and their purse strings were looser. Malaysia offered $410k for a gold but is a far distant second to the richest country in the world, Singapore. The latter offered its gold medalist a handsome $1m.

Athletes and sports people would definitely find it more rewarding to represent the richer countries than the poorer Europeans or Americans. Like they say, money talks wonders. How rich a country is cannot lie. Whether they can or cannot pay their winners is a sure sign of the monetary well beings of the countries. Singapore’s open door policy on immigration is going to get a boost. If the 4 Jamaican runners were to make a queue here, Singapore can be assured of a few golds and silvers in the Rio. It is time to send some feelers out.