Ross Stevens Donates $100M to Pay Every US Olympian and Paralympian $200k
townandcountrymag.com149 points by bookofjoe 5 hours ago
149 points by bookofjoe 5 hours ago
The real answer here is that he is mad about people protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza. This $100M donation is being made with funds he had given to UPenn. He has taken it back, via lawyers, because they allowed the protests to go on. He is now just taking that original donation and moving it somewhere else. Not that I am against the Olympians getting paid, just some context.
Sources: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/donor-pulls-100-mill... https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4348656-upenn-loses-1... https://www.timesnownews.com/world/who-is-ross-stevens-stone... (many more)
I would have never guessed that a significant portion of western society would not only be ok with killing thousands of children but be outraged that anyone would protest it. I feel like I have more information about the world than ever and understand it less than ever.
Estimates for deaths we caused in Iraq range from the low hundreds of thousands to the millions, and that's going to be overwhelmingly civilians. [1] And given those are all very short time estimates (generally 2003-2007), and since many studies are from violent deaths only (excluding subsequent caused famine/disease/despair/etc) the millions is likely closer to the mark than not.
Compare that to the death toll in any comparable war, event, or behavior that we politicize against domestically. Now imagine yourself seeing these things from the outside. That's how the world looks to the 'real' rest of the world, and not the ~15% and declining percent of the world that people call the 'rest of the world', when they mean Europe, the Anglosphere, and a handful of occasional oddballs like Japan or South Korea.
And when you see this world through their eyes, you start to see an entirely different world, and it's the world that we are also starting to see now as all masks and pretexts have been coming off for years now. And in general I think that's a good thing. People can't form realistic and meaningful worldviews if they're stuck in a Marvel Comic Universe perspective of international relations.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Don't think anyone in the "global South", which have suffered from Western "civilizing missions" are surprised by this.
It's kind of funny to see "anti-interventions" podcasters go full empire mode and justify literally colonization today.
Hardly surprising, since most of these white nationalists love the British Empire's "oeuvre" in non-White countries (but somehow ignore the fact that their own country fought against its tyrannical rule).
it's hard to put numbers to words, but I doubt "a significant portion of western society [is] outraged that anyone would protest it" - likely, it's very small but influential and/or wealthy.
I think it's probably significant and at least as big as the crazification factor https://shebloggedbynight.com/2025/the-27-club-or-lizard-peo...
Of course we haven't actually defined what we mean by significant, so I suppose we will have to drop back to that old standby of 5%.
There's a lot of non-obvious information or hidden information out there if you have no context. I mean, at the very least I can tell that there are a lot of wealthy and powerful people in western society that are invested in maintaining the innocence and primacy of Israel.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair.
Where salary in that quote could be metaphorical, given there's other reasons like identity, beliefs, or politics.
What people feel about things is almost an entirely a function of their information environment, rather than the facts of the events themselves. Almost nobody truly aware of the number of slaughtered and starved Palestinian children would be "okay" with it; the people defending it are more-or-less viewing these events in terms so different from that that those basic facts cannot reach their understanding at all.
> Almost nobody truly aware of the number of slaughtered and starved Palestinian children would be "okay" with it
A lot of people aren’t okay with it but also choose not to engage on it.
If I ignore it, it is as if it never happened. Part of it is willful ignorance though. For Ross, he is deeply religious and views the security of Israel as that of the Jewish people (having a home to run away to if shit hits the fan). Children dying is a sacrifice he is willing to make. For the majority of America though, I believe they are a) either scared, because they saw a witch hunt orchestrated by people in power (like Ackman). If 3 female deans, many of them minorities, can get ousted at the whim of a billionaire, then the typical engineer or employee will be easily labeled antisemitic for defending those who are denied their rights to life and property, and will lose their job. Canary Mission and other groups are funded by successful billionaires like Ackman, Adelsons etc and harass students on campuses for protesting. They doxx them, blacklist them (no boss will hire someone on those letters, at the expense of being labeled an antisemite, and you are in it for a suprise once you notice how many of our tech companies and finance sectors are run by religious sociopaths). I know a few victims of those efforts. Interestingly, 90% of them are white middle class, and I think they are mostly women. Their courage is to be admired. Or b) people are okay with it, because Ghaza is so far away and because of Israel's blockade on the media covering ghaza (Israel has already killed more journalists last year than all other nations combined btw. I do not know of any democracy that does this).
Not that I'm anyone important, but at this point if I google someone and they show up on the Canary Mission website, I'm inclined to hold them in higher regard.
[flagged]
> How many children are dying/starved/killed in the sudan war? Why don't these same protests make the same kind of statements for that?
Because the United States isn't funding and supplying the weapons for that atrocity, and we don't have American congressman and presidents visiting Sudan to pay homage, or have US officials saying "Sudan first" and "Sudan is our greatest ally" and putting the Sudanese flag in their offices. The US president's son-in-law isn't pitching investors on buying beachfront property in Sudan.
> is very specifically socially engineered imho - because there's an actor behind it with purpose
Who do you think is socially engineering these protests and how? There's far more evidence that Israel is manipulating public perceptions, but they're failing at it because there are too many alternative sources of media to control them all now.
As a US taxpayer, I'm outraged that my tax dollars are used to fund the killing of children in Gaza. The political will of my elected officials could end the killing.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not in any way directly funding a war in Sudan. That doesn't mean I don't care, but I'm not being made complicit.
> How many children are dying/starved/killed in the sudan war? Why don't these same protests make the same kind of statements for that?
Because no one in our society is defending, supporting, or funding the killing of children in the Sudan war.
Sudan is a civil war. Ghaza is a genocide orchestrated by one group against another. It is completely different. The Syrian civil war claimed 500k lives. Civil wars are different and more complicated. In Ghaza, the bad actors are clear though. One of them is rightfully labeled for their war crimes. The other enjoys white house visits and the support of billionaires (Ackman), a diaspora that would excuse murder and cover for it. Just listen to bari Weiss, or those influencers that in Netanyahu's own words, must spread israeli propaganda at all costs. In a fair world, the israeli gov and the militias in ghaza would both be side by side at the Hague or in Guatanamo. The world does not work that way, for some are more equal than others, when rich backers in the West would put Israel first, and America and the free world last
> real answer here is that he is mad about people protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza
This sounds more like a proximate cause than a “real answer.”
By the article it sounds like Ross Stevens wanted his money to go towards excellence. Perhaps he didn’t find that at today’s Penn. Taking him at his word, he seems to have found that with the US Olympians.
> “I do not believe that financial insecurity should stop our nation’s elite athletes from breaking through to new frontiers of excellence,” Stevens said upon the announcement of his gift.
So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
> Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
So half of it will never be seen by the athlete. Ever. And the other half will not be seen for at least two decades.
What Olympic athlete is not able to achieve as much because they don't have money decades down the road? Or because their heirs don't have enough money? I might be missing something, but how do these two incredibly-delayed payments help them train now? They can't use money they won't see for 20 or 30 years to hire coaches, buy equipment or pay for track time. They can't buy food or pay rent with money they will never see.
It allows them to "income smooth". They will know they're getting $100k down the road, so they can count on having that money to use for their kids' college or part of their nest egg. In the meantime, they can spend more freely.
As for the gift to their heirs, that also allows them to consume somewhat more freely, instead of purchasing (as much) life insurance. Most young people don't, but people who compete in dangerous sports probably do.
$100K in 20 years is worth about $37K today (20 year STRIPS pay about 5%). Nobody is making long term or short term financial plans based on this. It’s just a nice bonus to honor dedication to a sport.
I would expect that $100K is hedged against inflation though.
I wouldn't bet on a billionaire making sure he's giving even more money away than he promises.
> In the meantime, they can spend more freely
In the meantime, they need income not advice on frugality.
Cash is fungible. Money not spent on kids is money you can spend now.
Time is the issue. Time spent training for Olympics can't necessarily be used to generate an income. The whole premise of this donation is to afford them time, which it doesn't.
FWIW, most athletes are already used to being frugal as they juggle an often expensive training schedule with their personal finances. This is being framed as giving them money to focus on their sport/event during their competitive years.
This is a privileged viewpoint that is only true when you actually have cash to spend now.
Do you think a 21-year old fencer will be more competitive because of this money? A 17-year old swimmer? A 16-year old gymnast?
If that money is what makes them feel comfortable e.g. dropping out of college to focus on their sport, absolutely.
Then they are likely fools in more than one way. They might be awesome athletes, and dropping out to pursue their sport might be absolutely the right thing for them to do. But a promise of $100k after age 45 is not the reason.
Not in the amount promised unless they have non positive financial acumen
That's like $75 a year of term life insurance for a young healthy person.
Not to be too pedantic, but this is not a term life insurance policy. It's a guaranteed benefit, so you should compare it to a "whole" life insurance policy (US terms). I see $500k benefit for $500+/mo, so I guess $100k benefit is $100/mo. Not amazing but not a joke either.
You make it sound like the word of an eccentric billionaire is as good as a US treasury bond.
This has all the tell signs of a financial lie. I doubt this money will ever materialize. But of course he's immediately receiving the results of the publicity stunt.
If this individual pulled funding because of a political perspective, is it possible that these recipients lose their future funding if they speak about an issue or act in a particular way?
> Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.
> So half of it will never be seen by the athlete
This can't be right, right? I never heard of people "receiving a donation" that you get the promise of now, but will be given to your family once you die, sounds a bit macabre. And as you mention, also pointless, how would that make them "break through new frontiers of excellence" when they may not be able to afford rent while being alive?
> will be given to your family once you die, sounds a bit macabre.
To me it sounds more than a bit macabre - depending on the familial relations, it would seem like a motive for them to commit suicide in order to provide for their children or for their children to murder them. I can already imagine the memoires being adapted into Netflix shows.
Many companies provide a life insurance benefit equal to 50%-150% of annual salary.
If your sport has any mortality or long term risk (concussions, cardiac events) then this could be seen as a nice extra insurance policy.
My very rough lay understanding is that life insurance policies can be quite lucrative (maybe because of the tax advantages?), and the main thing that holds back life insurance on arbitrary people from being a general investment strategy is that you need to have some plausible reason why you're interested in someone's lifespan. I have to wonder if this whole thing isn't some giant tax dodge based on taking out small life insurance policies that pay out to the athletes, and much larger ones that pay out to the asset protection strategy of his choice.
Have you never heard of a trust before? They have all sorts of stipulations depending on what the person creating the trust wants. It's very common for a kid to only get access to their trust when they turn 18 with more access granted at other milestones. It also sounds like a free life insurance policy. Those also only pay out when someone dies.
This doesn't sound macabre at all to me. Sounds more like loophole finding to avoid directly paying the athletes to allow them to keep their amateur status to me.
Yes, I've heard of all of those things, but never used in a way to motive the person who is currently alive.
A trust that says you don't get access to the rest unless you graduate college isn't meant as motivation? Allowing extra payout for a house only if married? People have put all sorts of limitations on trusts specifically as motivation.
> A trust that says you don't get access to the rest unless you graduate college isn't meant as motivation?
No, a trust that is setup to give your family money when you die, in order to serve as motivation for you to "break through new frontiers of excellence"
This isn't motivation though. This is a reward for achieving a place on the Olympic team. If this does not continue as a thing past the upcoming Olympics, athletes will still train in hopes of qualifying for the next team. They won't be doing it because this might be available to them. If they qualify, this will just be a bonus.
Why even question it? Its a donation that no one ever had to make.
“You only get this money if you submit yourself to Christ and living a conservative lifestyle”
Still not worth questioning?
That isn’t a donation.
Also, $donator is making, as far as I know, zero demands. These people would be competing if they had to pay. Actually, most of them do have to pay.
Your analogy is comparing apples-to-sqrt(-1)
If there are stipulations for receiving the money then it is a demand.
If you think the above example isn’t a donation then I don’t see the logic behind seeing this as a donation.
And to be clear, I view it as a donation that is still probably net good, but it’s not a selfless donation. The timeline as well also means it can be clawed back at some point in time.
I’d probably rate it a 2/10 for “goodness” where anything greater than 0 is still good.
Real answer are probably tax benefits for Ross.
He can now report a $100M donation, let it grow for 20 years, pay the actual donation, and pocket the remainder tax free.
It's called a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) and more than beng able to retain the initial investment at the end of a period of time, he would be able to take loans against the principal itself in the meantime (LALs).
However -
> The USPOC currently supports ~4500 athletes, or ~$22,222 each.
Machinations of the uber rich and the morality of them aside, they would've gotten nothing and now they're getting something.
But if he retains the money while its growing wouldn't that result in capital gains?
You can't claim a donation while still holding onto the money?
He'll donate to a trust/non-profit he controls that will direct the investment. That allows him to take the tax benefit today and keep the money
Not if he controls the funds. Tax deductions are only afforded to contributions if they are charitable and am actual gift. If the contributor benefits, it is bit deductible, and control of donated funds is a benefit, as is the ability to direct funds to a particular person or persons.
Billionaires can financial engineer their way around those types of rules quite easily
> So his goal is to prevent money issues from being a thing getting in the way of athletes achieving. But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
Yup, the biggest challenge faced by most olympic athletes, and those doing an Olympic campaign, is affording to train, travel, gear, etc, especially in more niche sports, bobsleigh, etc.
Is there any guarantee he will actually pay out in 20 years? Is this money going into escrow, or is this just a promise that will be completely forgotten in a couple decades?
> half of it will never be seen by the athlete
Guaranteed benefits can be monetized. The gift’s goal is to start building generational wealth. But nothing prevents me from lending one of these athletes $50k today if they give me an LPOA over that death benefit tomorrow (assuming this doesn’t breach any covenants).
$200k is not even remotely close to generational wealth, particularly when structured as $100k 20 years from now and another $100k 50-ish years from now. Those would be worth an estimated $55k and $22k in inflation-adjusted dollars.
It’s a totally different story if those are in a trust which is invested on behalf of the athletes, which pays out the invested value at time of disbursement. But I would be shocked if it were set up that way. Pleasantly shocked but shocked nonetheless.
An athlete who competes for a couple seasons would have the down payment for a house in each of those pay-outs. (And be able to, in all likelihood, borrow against it if they needed it earlier.)
Given how old most Olympic athletes are when they debut I'm sure that could be helpful if they don't incur any living expenses for another 2-3 decades afterwards
We have now moved the goalposts from starting to build generational wealth to maybe part of a down payment on a house in a low-demand area in their mid-forties, assuming they have enough income to still qualify for the loan on the property.
This is a great gift to the athletes, don’t get me wrong. There was just no need to oversell it.
Wow. When I saw the headline, I thought this would be a generous donation so that Olympians wouldn't need to work day jobs to make ends meet, allowing them to focus on training. But... nope...
> But he has structured it in a way that prevents the money from helping this goal.
I suspect it's worse. It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
The money will go to people who somehow already managed to marshal enough resources to get to the Olympics. Good on you for supporting people after the fact, but by that point money problems have long before winnowed far too many qualified athletes out of the pipeline.
That kid from Moab would be an amazing swimmer. That kid from Punxsutawney shoots one hell of a bow. That kid from Tuscaloosa would have a smoking slapshot. None of them have a hope of clearing the initial monetary barriers.
The most effective time to apply resources is when the athletes are young, not done.
>It's structured in a way that will probably harm the goal.
Potentially could also stop others from donating to athletes because they hear this and think "some rich guy already took care of them" not knowing the details.
You ask a just question and shouldn't be downvoted.
A friend of mine is an ex-pro tennis player. She's nearing 60 years old now. She's been n 1 in her country and n 2 worldwide in doubles.
And it's not easy for athletes once they age: when they're still young, they make money doing their sport. Then they find other things, often related, to do: for example she trained a world number one for years.
But later on, it gets more difficult: she became a tennis teacher. And the country's sport federation gives her money for quite a few years... But not until 65 years old.
It's precisely later in life that many pro athletes do need money.
Only those at the very, very, very top do make a really good living. For the others, it's hard.
So $100K at 45 is welcome.
P.S: also if you're 100% guaranteed to get $100 K a 45, I'm sure there are way to use that as collateral for borrowing before you're 45. But that may defeat the idea of giving it when they turn 45.
Is your argument that, if she knew she was going to get $100,000 in 2010, she would have been number 1 in the world in doubles in 1990? That's how I understand the stated goal of this gift.
People absolutely do give up their athletic career to start a normal career for better financial security.
How many of these normal careers pay a single paycheck of $100k that can't be cashed for twenty years? That's what this offer is.
I don't think you should think of it as a paycheck.
Delaying a normal career to compete in the olympics will set your career and earning potential back by a few years. This money tries to balance it out a bit.
The stated goal is that the money will help people do better in the Olympics. I don't see how it will do that. It might be good to do, but it won't help people perform better.
I’ve been close to some people who tried to make a living as a professional athlete. This is a really special way to help passionate, hard-working people live out their dreams and potential.
What actually guarantees that this money doesn't evaporate? Who's managing it? Who's collecting the interest on the money?
> Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, [Billionaire financier Ross Stevens] will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
I wonder if this will adjust for inflation / earn interest at all. If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money. Assuming the same average inflation from the last 70 years (1956->2026).
> If a 20 year old olympian dies 70 years later, then when their family gets $100,000 USD nominal, it will be the equivalent of getting $8,400 in today's money
Did you inflate over 70 or 50 years?
My read of the original article [1] is it’s a defined benefit. That said, “athletes will receive $200,000 for each Olympics they compete in,” so an athlete who competes for four seasons could stand to get $400,000 when they turn 45 and potentially borrow against their death benefit.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/sports/olympics/team-usa-milan-cortina-e...
I wonder what the "breakage" will be in 2096. How would your surviving family members know to cash in this benefit? You keep a certificate in your safe deposit box, next to the expired term life insurance papers, that says, be sure to contact so and so to collect some money after I die?
> How would your surviving family members know to cash in this benefit?
Same way all benefits and assets are passed down. One part trustee’s work. Four parts the beneficiaries’.
My guess is the figure is after interest, that way because of compounding interest, 100k ~20 years after debut and another 100k which occurs let’s assume 50 years later on average would be substantially less than it sounds on paper. And for me at least, a smaller amount in my 20’s that I could use for a house deposit or similar would be worth farm more than 100k in my 40s and another 100k on my death
This seems like some billionaire trying to inflate their donation amount by talking in terms of decades not now. I’m sure there’s conditions attached too (some reasonable but I’m sure some are just intentional land mines)
> seems like some billionaire trying to inflate their donation amount
My reading is Ross made a $100mm donation to the USOPC.
> I’m sure some are just intentional land mines
You’re sure based on zero evidence.
Weird aggresssion. You trust billionaires?
> Weird aggresssion
It’s aggressive to call out baseless conclusions being represented as sureties?
From what I can piece together from Wikipedia/news that is ~1000-1200 athletes in the most recent 4 year cycle (~600 for Summer Olympics, ~250 for Winter, and ~200-400 for Paralympics). That therefore requires ~$200-250M per 4 year cycle.
Granted, that's 20 to 60 years down the line...
Oh this explains it:
> Starting with the Olympic and Paralympic Games Milan-Cortina 2026, and going at least through the 2032 Games, every U.S. Olympian and Paralympian will receive $200,000 in financial benefits for each Games in which they compete:
nice sentiment, that it. Most of the financial challenges faced by athletes trying for the Olympics are immediate, affording to train, travel to compete, and gear. Especially in more niche sports, like bobsleigh, fencing, sailing, etc.
Kinda of a side note but a way I try to talk to people about how much a billion dollars is is "how many people can you hire each day at X dollars before you start losing money".
Here's the setup: you have a billion dollars invested in some account earning some interest, let's say 5% because that's like bond rates (lower than S&P500). Day 1 you generate interest and don't hire. All following weekdays you hire a new employee and day then daily at a yearly rate of Y, say $250k/yr. Most people are going to be surprised that you can basically go an entire year before your account has less than a billion dollars.
I do this because it's so much money the daily interest is not negligible. I mean 1000000000*0.05/365~=$137k. Is back of the envelope and estimating, but it gets the point across. (So you can hire people daily at $100k indefinitely...)
Anyways, googling suggests there's ~600 American Olympians that participated in 2024 and another ~250 paraolympians. So what, we need on the order of $10bn to solve this? I can think of a lot worse ways we currently spend that kind of money and about 15 Americans where this would be less than 10% their total wealth and 11 of those people made more than twice that just last year... I'm not saying anyone should but hey, Elon could solve issues like these without blinking an eye. Probably better PR than anything else he could do
Your illustration is really long winded.
If you invested a billion dollars at a conservative 5% interest rate, you could employ 200 people at 250k a year on the interest alone.
You'd need to account for inflation right?
Just use a real rate of return and it still works.
However, 5% real return is not likely from bonds alone.
True, but also very few billionaires are getting only 5% back a year... The estimate was supposed to be conservative on purpose
> Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.
The terms are atrocious. imo dude will move money into a his own charity which will hold onto it since no athlete qualify for the next 20 years. After a few years, he will quietly cancel the grant and use it elsewhere.
$100K after they pass away? I am curious what those will be worth by then. This whole thing sounds like some tricky scheme. He can probably take these 100M from his profit, stuff it into some fund to avoid taxes and let the fund grow, meanwhile the real value of what he has to give will be shrinking as the years pass.
Ill believe it when I see people with cash in hand. Otherwise I will continue to believe this is just another financial grift, like everything else billionaires do publicly with their money. If billionaires weren't the most greedy people in existence to start with, they wouldn't have ever become billionaires, they would have learned how meaningless endless greed is 900+ million dollars ago when everything they, their kids, their grand kids, and great grandkids could ever want was already paid for.
> Billionaire financier Ross Stevens is changing that. Starting with the upcoming Milan Cortina Olympics, he will give $200,000 to every U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete—even if they don’t win a medal. Per the Wall Street Journal, “Half will come 20 years after their first qualifying Olympic appearance or at age 45, whichever comes later. Another $100,000 will be in the form of a guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”
> His entire donation to the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), announced last March, is $100 million—a record breaking gift to the organization.
Just...lol.
Totally outrageous.
"I want to give a ton of money to olympians but... they are too young and dumb to get it now and also they should get half of it after they die."
Unreal paternalism.
I thought the Olympics were supposed to be for amateur athletes
* yes, but payment after the fact doesn't count.
* "amateaur" meaning independantly wealthy, or supported by patron or state.
It's rare to see a kid from the lowest demographics on the gymnast team unless they've been scouted and picked up by a state or national institute.
Similarly horse racing is about the fastest horse with a certified pedigree.
It's about the bloodline, the trainers, the owners, and not about a Waler that can run four miles into a machine gun nest.
Check the fine print
I remember in the 1980's, some rich guy gave a commencement speech in which he said he would pay for college for the entire graduating class in some high school in NJ. He got great press from this. But then it turned out in the fine print that the kids had to max out student loans, and he would cover the difference for tuition, but not including room and board. :-)
Npv the fine print