Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Tax VOX

Gleckman: Why doesn't the US Olympic Committee pay taxes?

The US Olympic Committee helps support American athletes compete on a worldwide stage every two years. But the organization helps promote athletes with endorsement deals and generates millions in revenue, prompting TaxVox' Howard Gleckman to ask why it should be exempt from paying taxes.

By Guest blogger / February 14, 2014

Shaun White of the US reacts after the men's snowboard halfpipe final at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games, in Rosa Khutor, on February 11. White, one of biggest draws at the Winter Olympics and favorite to win his third straight halfpipe title, bowed out without a medal on Tuesday. Athletes like White, who reportedly earned about $8 million from endorsements, raise the question of whether the US Olympic Committee should be tax-exempt, argues Howard Gleckman.

Lucas Jackson/Reuters/File

Enlarge

Every two years, I sit in front of my TV watching the Olympics. Like clockwork, in the midst of some competition I can’t understand, my mind wanders to tax wonkdom and I ask myself: Why is the U.S. Olympic Committee a tax exempt organization?

Skip to next paragraph

Howard Gleckman is a resident fellow at The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the author of Caring for Our Parents, and former senior correspondent in the Washington bureau of Business Week. (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org)

Recent posts

The law says tax exempt status is granted to groups that “foster national or international amateur sports competition.” But do the hyper-marketed modern games even remotely fit the ideal of amateur sports? Sure, some athletes who represent the U.S. are amateurs but a great many others are highly paid professionals or marketing magnets. Snowboarder Shaun White–who won no medals– makes a reported $8 million-a-year in endorsements.

And then there is USOC itself. By almost any standard, it is a commercial enterprise. It exists primarily to help organize a bi-annual made-for-TV entertainment extravaganza.  Yes, it provides some support for athletes (though surprisingly little). But its real business is marketing itself and playing its part in a two-week orgy of athletic commercialization.

USOC’s total revenue for 2012 (the last publicly available data) was $353 million. Of that, $263 million, or nearly 75 percent, was generated by broadcast rights, trademark income, and licensing agreements, according to its financial statement. About $46 million came from (mostly corporate) contributions.

How did the committee spend that money in 2012? Its total expenses were $249 million. Nearly $21 million went to fundraising, $17 million to sales and marketing,  $3 million to public relations, and $14 million to administrative and general expenses.

Of what was left, about $74 million went to “member support,” or to fund individual National Governing Bodies such as the US Ski & Snowboard Association, USA Track & Field, US Speedskating and the like.

How much went to direct support for athletes? It’s hard to tell but according to one estimate, it was less than 6 percent of total USOC spending. Top ranked athletes get monthly stipends ranging from $400 to $2,000. Others get nothing. Athletes have access to Olympic training centers though most have to pay to use and stay at them and therefor don’t. A watchdog group called the U.S. Athletic Trust has a nice explanation here, though it reported on USOC expenses from 2009-2011.

About $24 million went to support U.S. Paralympics, and $4 million to sports science and sports medicine.

And USOC paid its senior staff handsomely. A dozen of its top executives made $250,000 or more in 2012, and its CEO, Scott Blackmun, received $965,000. After all that, it still had nearly $100 million in surplus revenue.

To be fair, USOC isn’t the only sports behemoth to enjoy tax-exempt status. The National Football League, the National Hockey League, the Professional  Golfers Association, and other big-bucks professional sports leagues are also tax-exempt–though under a different code subsection than USOC.  Last year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced a bill to take away the tax-exemption for the pro outfits. It has gone nowhere.

USOC is somehow different, perhaps because it so successfully clings to the myth of the amateur athlete who competes for the love of sport, and not the big bucks.

But reading through its financials, USOC sure looks like a business. Yes, it probably does foster enough international amateur competition to satisfy the law, but I’m still left with the question I had as I tried to figure out what the heck slopestyle is: Why does the government grant tax-exempt status to businesses like USOC?

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org.

  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer

 

Doing Good

 

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change...

Danny Bent poses at the starting line of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton, Mass.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, Danny Bent took on a cross-country challenge

The athlete-adventurer co-founded a relay run called One Run for Boston that started in Los Angeles and ended at the marathon finish line to raise funds for victims.

 
 
Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!