[apparent]

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.

[koolba]

$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.

[fouc]

I would expect that $100K is hedged against inflation though.

[bastawhiz]

I wouldn't bet on a billionaire making sure he's giving even more money away than he promises.

[conductr]

> In the meantime, they can spend more freely

In the meantime, they need income not advice on frugality.

[jychang]

Cash is fungible. Money not spent on kids is money you can spend now.

[conductr]

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.

[rowanG077]

This is a privileged viewpoint that is only true when you actually have cash to spend now.

[zck]

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?

[lmm]

If that money is what makes them feel comfortable e.g. dropping out of college to focus on their sport, absolutely.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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.

[readthenotes1]

Not in the amount promised unless they have non positive financial acumen

[maxerickson]

That's like $75 a year of term life insurance for a young healthy person.

[fn-mote]

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.

[maxerickson]

I agree that whole is a better comparison to the actual value.

I was responding to the freedom to spend the other poster had in their second paragraph, where I think it's reasonable to look at the insurance that would be better to actually buy.

[justin66]

You make it sound like the word of an eccentric billionaire is as good as a US treasury bond.

[winddude]

lol, what?