Gina Rinehart, the wealthiest person in Australia, has pledged $3 million Australian dollars ($1.9 million U.S. dollars) to support swimming, artistic swimming, rowing, and volleyball ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics through the Patron’s Medal Achievement Incentive Fund.
The new program offers bonuses for both the recent World Championships and upcoming Olympics that match the World Aquatics figures of $20,000 for a gold medal, $15,000 for silver, $10,000 for bronze, and $30,000 for a world record, but in Australian dollars instead of U.S. dollars.
At just 19 years old, Mollie O’Callaghan brought home five golds and a silver from Fukuoka last month while also breaking four world records, earning her $103,690 from World Aquatics and an extra $72,315 from the Patron’s Medal Achievement Incentive Fund for a total of $176,005 (USD). Ariarne Titmus saw her payday spike from $85,357 to $142,234 thanks to the partnership.
The same payment distribution system was dealt out to the Australian Para swim team, which enjoyed its best Worlds performance in a decade and was rewarded with $289,263 collectively. The money is especially meaningful for Para swimmers and rowers who did not previously earn prize money from their governing bodies.
Rinehart got involved in financing Olympic sports after the Aussies won just one gold medal in the pool at the London 2012 Olympics, reportedly investing $60 million Australian dollars ($38.9 million) of her multi-billion dollar mining fortune over the past decade. The donations are reportedly considered to be the biggest ever from an individual to an Olympic team anywhere in the world.
Rinehart attended the World Championships in Fukuoka, Japan, appearing alongside Kyle Chalmers‘ mom in an Instagram post by the reigning 100 free world champion. The Aussies amassed an impressive 13 gold medals, 7 silvers and 5 bronze for a total of 25 medals at the 2023 World Championships, rendering the competition just the second time since the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne that Australia beat the U.S. in the medal table at an elite international meet.
Shayna Jack, who won three world titles on Aussie relays in Fukuoka along with an individual silver in the 50 free, praised Rinehart as a “generous and supportive person.” The 24-year-old Jack noted that “more athletes would retire well and truly before their 30s if it wasn’t for Ms. Rinehart’s generosity.”
However, Rinehart’s generosity can be conditional. Last year, she pulled nearly $10 million in funding from Netball Australia after players raised issues with wearing a uniform featuring the logo of her family’s mining company, Hancock Prospecting, where she serves as executive chairman. Some critics were concerned about environmental impact while others referenced anti-indigenous comments made by her father, Lang Hancock, before his death in 1992. Among them was a statement that, “and when they had gravitated there, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future, and that would solve the problem.”
Just want to point out that under this incentive system the US swim team would have earned $550K in bonuses and the Australians $415K at this past world championships. I still think Australia “won” the meet.
If we start using “amount of money dished out by a billionaire on a whim” as the standard for who is the best team then we’re in a lot of trouble
I know how much the Americans would have got in World Records bonuses: $0.00.
Do the top 5 Aussie swimmers do as financially as the top 5 Americans? I know swimming is more high profile there than in the USA but don’t know if that translates to more sponsor opportunities, etc?!?
This the same Gina that used to (maybe still does?) comment on a ton of articles here? I remember that Gina being Australian…
The major beneficiaries will be the big stars with the next tier down like Forrester and Dekkers also sharing in the spoils. But I’m not sure it will have a long term impact. For Australia to permanently rival the USA as the world’s strongest swimming nation it needs more critical mass. There would need to be a funding program to entice more athletically gifted children to take up competitive swimming and to stay in the sport beyond their teenage years.
I don’t think potential future financial gain is a huge draw for kids to specific sports in their formative years at all to be honest.
Swimming Australia need to do a better job at investing in programs and proven good coaches outside of their very narrow focus on their podium centres to build the foundations of future success.
Agree. If Reinhart cared about the sport rather than glorification by providing largesse to a few, her money would go towards addressing the dozens of recommendations of the AUS Independent Commission which documented the various broad-scale abuses/problems of AUS female swimmers and the lack of top (any?) female coaches at the int’l level. None of which seems to have been addressed at all. Or perhaps go towards filling the leadership vacuum at the top of AUS swimming, which has seen an administrative revolving door year after year and which has no managerial accountability or credibility. BTW, why was the Independent Commission report never released?
Oh they were going to address all that but they were too busy absolutely destroying the competition, breaking world records and having the best women’s team in history.
That’s lovely, but meanwhile the broader complaints of abuse, weight-shaming, and eating disorders of both elite and non-elite AUS swimmers go unaddressed and continue to pile up. USA Gymnastics provides a fine example for AUS swimming as to how even the best athletic programs in the world can unravel in a hurry both morally and financially. Sounds like you personally have the immoral piece firmly on track in AUS.
Where are these complaints that are continuing to pile up? I haven’t heard of a single complaint since Groves in June 2021?
I assume you have at least 20 prominent examples of complaints since then since you are saying they are continuously “piling up”?
Lani Pallister, for one, added her voice on anorexia in 2022, it had nearly killed her. Over 150 current athletes, ex-athletes, parents, coaches and officials testified to the Independent Commission. Complainants’ names cannot be listed because Swim AUS would not release the text of the Independent Commission report citing “privacy concerns” though the Commission itself had given the go-ahead to do so (cover up to protect coaches?). Dr. Jenny McMahon has interviewed hundreds of AUS swimmers on the issue. But among prominent others who have spoken publicly of body shaming and/or eating disorders are Cate Campbell, Emily Seebohm, Alicia Coutts, Madi Wilson and of course Maddie Groves, Coutts has spoken publicly of dissatisfaction regarding SA’s new ED guidelines and implementation.… Read more »
So you cannot point out a single specific complaint since Groves? Just as I thought.
And again you’ve created yet another new username but are clearly the same person
Groves complained in 2021, along with testimonials from 150 other individuals to the Commission (swept under the rug by Swim AUS–release the report!!), then Pallister complained in 2022 and is lucky to have survived. Who will be the 2023 model? Are there even any swimmers left in your small, dominant swimming populace who haven’t already complained?
You’ve literally named one person so yes, every other swimmer who isn’t Groves would be on that list. Pallister never once claimed SA was responsible for her issues
You think Rinehart should throw money at SA in order to “fill the leadership vaccum”? AKA you’re suggesting she should… buy control of SA? That sounds exactly like something billionaires usually get harshly criticised for.
It has worked since she started doing it in 2012
Harvey Norman are now a partner of the AOC for Paris.
Wow. Well their investment in Titmus paid off, may as well go all in
Harvey Norman’s latest financial results don’t support your “Titmus investment paid off” narrative. Big drop (15% slump) in profits, share price down 11.85% this past year. $1.5 bil+ debt on books. Franchise owners chafing at low payouts, hourly employees complaining about low wages. Not a good look for shareholders or strong brand building when throwing dollars at athletes and sports.
Harvey Norman turns its attention offshore as profit falls – Inside Retail
Well they invested in her and she delivered, over and over and over again.
I disagree. Backing an elite athlete and then after they perform above expectations backing even more of them seems like a great look to me.
As a shareholder, I’m not too happy about Harvey Norman athlete endorsements in the midst of the company’s concerning profit slump and share price decline. I doubt the average HN franchise owner (average earnings of $119,000 for entire year vs Ariarne Titmus’ $142,000+ for a swim meet) is happy also about their franchise fees/royalties going towards marketing via athletes. Let alone such marketing likely contributing to alienation of underpaid hourly store employees. Rather see the company increase wages, or pay down debt which would be prudent financial management.
You’re not a shareholder. You’re not even Australian lol. The lies are just pathetic at this point.
“Melbourne”, “Adelaide”, “Cal”, “Corbeau”, “Rick”, “RXT” and “Analyst” are all clearly you. They’re all users that have never been heard of before, have all made exactly one post that is completely ridiculous but agrees with another one of those users that is also clearly you, and then disappears.
We get it. You’re angry that Australia is destroying you. Just find something else fulfilling to worry about.
No, you’re clearly paranoid. You just can’t handle anything but positive comments reflecting on Swim Australia. Or perhaps you are a paid SA p.r. employee since your comments indicate you are on the site 12 hours a day. If it were the same person with seven different names and the posts were lies, a SwimSwam owner-admin like Braden would be all over the person.
To everyone who wondered how Madi Wilson and her such are still swimming- here’s your answer 🙂
If anything, it makes the US relay incentive look a bit drab. There are plenty of crazy rich people who could do stuff like this (some do privately, like directly funding programs with no recognition), but few do.
But yeah, directly matching bonuses and giving more niche sports a living wage is certainly worth the headache.
Whilst you could look at the business sponsorship and political good will this gives, I don’t think it really changes the position of Rinehart at all. Mainly this is probably her genuine interest in said sports being the deciding factor for her patronage, as the old British nobility did so often.
Love the username. Sjostrom and McKeon have 2/3 but no one else has more than 1.
I like this incentive but will it actually make a difference? The top dogs in swimming already make pretty good money. It’s people who aren’t winning individual golds but need help to stay in the sport that will really help the sport to grow. A great incentive for those already doing well, but we need more broad major long term investment if we want the depth to seriously stay on top.
USA has thousands of college swimmers at prime Olympic age ready to go at any given moment. Something like that could be a game changer
https://www.atlasiron.com.au/grants-and-gold-medal-bonuses-heres-how-australian-olympic-athletes-earned-their-way-to-tokyo/
She does have pathway funding, at least before Tokyo. Some programs do get more support than others like Swimming Queensland.
Regarding the username, ironically for MOC going 23 in the 50 will be the hardest of the 3 for her, even though it is the easiest of the 3 historically. Only 2 swimmers in the 100/200 have ever gone 51/1:52 compared to 12 going 23 in the 50.
And yeah the pathways need a big overhaul, but only really SA can do it, and they are not a competent organisation outside of the elite program. More emphasis on primary/secondary/tertiary competitive swimming is the easiest change.
MOC already has 1:52.
I predict she’ll have 51 by Paris.
Yea there are a few women who have at least 1 (mostly the 23) but yes I would predict Mollie will be the next to join the 2/3 club
Unfortunately she will probably have to dislocate both of her knees next time to accomplish those predictions. Sure continues to be radio silence from both the media and her “physio” team on that remarkable pre-Worlds rehab.
How many name changes are you on now?
PS: Nobody owes a random commenter anything, especially blind accusations when both the performances and recovery fit with known sound trajectories.
PPS: American athletes in swimming, let alone T&F have done suspicious things far more often over the years than Australians, they also abuse loopholes like TUE’s and the like far more often, so sit down and be quiet.
He must be so salty about the Australian dominance in Fukuoka!
Very defensive Aussies it seems. There’s nothing “blind” or random about the comment, which is valid esp given SPW prior history, And since the manner of the “recovery” remains shrouded in mystery, it does not fit a “known trajectory.” Look, if you are going to make a big dramatic advance fuss via multiple outlets over what may or may not have been an MOC knee issue (possibly in order to obtain or backdate a TUE), and the “injured” swimmer then swims PBs and WRs, you should expect some blowback and request for transparency and having to answer questions from those same media outlets when AUS prize and bonus money is involved. And yes, the same standards should apply to swimmers… Read more »
You lost. Get over it 😂😂😂.
Exactly what kind of “transparency” are you expecting? You want them to release a statement with the exact specific treatment and timeline? Perhaps release a bunch of Mollie’s private medical records too?
You are honestly hilarious.
And yes, the same standards should apply to swimmers from all nations.
And yet you only focus on SPW, unless you have some damning evidence and you go through diplomatic channels, you are just a nuisance.
Yeah I wonder if this user has demanded to see all of Dressel’s medical records and Manuel’s medical records or their numerous TUEs?
Can you please provide an example of another swimmer who has released a breakdown of their injury treatment that was sufficient by your standards. I’m not sure what could possibly be enough to satisfy you with you raising “suspicions”.
Also what’s with the “air quotes” on every “second word”? Was there a sale at the “air quotes store”?
Hahaha. I love that you can’t resist coming out of the woodwork to bring up random irrelevant garbage when our women’s team is destroying the competition.
Mollie won because she’s the best. Get over it 😂😂😂
Nervous, fearful laughter from the island continent. The truth hurts. MOC’s swims are “random irrelevant garbage”? Oh, okay, that settles it.
It’s not nervous. It’s hysterical laughter at how desperate you are to find something to criticise about a team who is historically dominant.
“Swimmer who was picked to be a generational talent two years ago delivers on expectations”. Would have to be a pretty sad individual to try to taint that based on nothing. What exactly would be acceptable communication about her treatment to you?
Well, one thing is for sure Mollie O’Callaghan is now the richest teenage swimmer in Australian history.
Ian Thorpe?
Looking purely at prize money and her salary/incentives, she has made over $500000 AUD since Tokyo.
That is certainly a record for her age, but if we were to include sponsorships, I think Thorpe would take the cake.
He had made several million before he turned 20, 1 million a year from Adidas alone since he was 18. https://www.afr.com/companies/ian-thorpe-mr-marketable-20021128-ka3ef#:~:text=His%20biggest%20deal%20is%20with,and%20appearing%20at%20special%20events.
It is possible that she is the richest female teenage Australian swimmer though.
Mollie will have a very nice sponsorship boost heading into Paris, where she will probably gain a bigger Speedo deal along with new sponsorships. If she can maintain her form over the next decade, who knows what she could achieve?… Read more »
Philosophical question (knowing that either scenario is quite profitable) – does a swimmer make more money in a home Olympics coming off a 2028 Games where they won 5 gold medals, but where they aren’t racing in 2032, and so have time to just cavort around and do all kind of experiences and events and doing the television broadcast and stuff.
vs.
A swimmer who races and is past their peak but still very relevant, swimming a reduced schedule, a few relays and an individual.
Of course we don’t know which, if either, of those positions Mollie will be in, but your comment just got me thinking about which has the higher branding potential.
A Last Dance scenario should be the most profitable, looking nice on TV would be great, but going home to finish her palmares would be too alluring.
If we take your theoretical example of MOC:
MOC wins the 100-200 double-double in Paris and LA, but has announced she isn’t competing in Brisbane but will be part of the ceremonial stuff.
Vs
A swimmer who had solid individual success but not at a crazy level, but still relevant for relays and likely to make the Brisbane team in relays only (eg I’m thinking a Bronte Campbell or Emily Seebohm type but obviously younger if we’re talking about 9 years from now).
In Australia I’m almost certain Mollie gets paid signficantly more here. In part because her rise coincided with the rise of the team as a whole, so she gets the extra credit of being a historic… Read more »