Creating software is an economically profitable activity that many people are willing to pay top dollar for. Throwing a disc really far by hand, not so much.

That said, the "hobby" angle is irrelevant here. As the article points out, the IOC makes an absolute fuckton of money from Olympic broadcast rights and sponsors, essentially none of which flows back to the actual athletes.

However end result is often the same.

> As the article points out, the IOC makes an absolute fuckton of money from Olympic broadcast rights and sponsors, essentially none of which flows back to the actual athletes.

A lot of it flows back into the Olympic Committees of each country, who are in charge of spreading it, investing into infrastructure, youth development, etc.

I represented my country in cycle ball as well. The thing is that nobody is really interested in that, similar to how nobody is interested in people throwing discs as far as possible. Just because you represent a country, it’s not necessarily interesting and people don’t have to get paid for it.

> "Olympians" representing their countries.

Yes, but people connected to Olympic want to be independent from governments. In some way Olympians Games are private tournaments which are sponsored by host countries.

It is funny that "Olympians" representing my country when they demands public money, but are independent from government when we are talking about organization of National Olympic Committee.

Ok then why don't they get paid a living wage by the countries they are representing? Wouldn't representing a country be a government job?

Otherwise they are private workers/entrepreneurs and as such should be paid by what their customers feel like they're worth. Creating software can be an unpaid hobby, a government job, a private job, or a personal business.

If it became a government job, then they wouldn't be able to get rid of the athletes when they're too old to perform. The solution of course is to distribute gold medals and awards according to age and experience rather than athletic performance.

> "Olympians" representing their countries.

Maybe. But they don't represent the people in their countries. Paying them is not a matter of taxation, I don't care about watching sports (but I do sports) and I never watch, I don't see myself represented in any way and I am not willing to pay for the "honor" or being "represented". In the end the article is about money: who should pay, why, how much? Not the tax payer.

> Who should earn all the money then?

The people doing the jobs that no-one wants to do. The garbagemen, the plumbers, the cleaners. And/or the people who do stuff that other people value, that people will pay to have it done well rather than badly.

If you're doing something fun, something that other people would very happily do for free, then yeah you shouldn't feel entitled to get paid for it. If you're good at your hobby and people care about it, they might pay you to do it (and I'd absolutely count software development among that), but that's up to them.

Those aren't hobbies. I'm not saying don't enjoy what you do. But if you want good money you're going to have to consider its value to others.