Dear World Athletics,
You’ve fumbled once again.
Last year, World Athletics, the governing body for road running and for track and field, found itself unable to crown a single standout “2023 World Athletics Athlete of the Year” at their award ceremony in the tax-haven of Monaco.
Rather than making a decisive choice, they opted to give the award to all six finalists, an unusual move for an organization that oversees elite sport, where it’s not about participation medals and orange slices.
It’s about one person winning.
This year, World Athletics has once again got it wrong—before the awards have even been given out.
The World Athletics Athlete of the Year award has almost completely turned into a popularity contest.
After being unable to take it upon themselves last year, World Athletics has now placed most of the burden on the outside world… and here’s why that ruins the value of this award.
What Is The New Voting Process?
World Athletics announced five male finalists and five female finalists for each of the three categories: track, field, and out-of-stadium (we should mention, they made up three categories last year so they could make each finalist a winner).
Out of each five, the top two athletes in each category—track, field, and out-of-stadium—were selected through an initial round of voting. This round included input from the World Athletics Council, the “World Athletics Family” (which is not explained anywhere by the organization), and a public vote conducted via social media.
New this year is a final round of voting, which will be held from Nov. 4–10, allowing anyone to cast their votes and influence who will be named the overall World Athlete of the Year.
Why This New Process Is A Problem
The structure of this year’s vote highlights an uncomfortable truth: the Athlete of the Year award might be leaning more toward athletes with media appeal and marketability than consistent elite performance, and ironically by World Athletics’ persistent effort to force unpopular field sports and race walking onto track fans on an equal footing.
Consider Alfred’s Olympic gold medal in the women’s 100m—a stellar achievement that certainly caught global attention and boosted her visibility, especially since her country’s Olympic legacy hasn’t typically shone as brightly on the track. This historic win not only brought her into the spotlight but also enhanced her marketability, as the world is eager to celebrate new athletes from underrepresented nations.
Now, compare this to Beatrice Chebet, who isn’t just winning but consistently dominating. Throughout the season, Chebet has racked up multiple major victories, capped off by two Olympic golds in the 5,000m and 10,000m—feats that confirm her status as one of the most formidable distance runners, not just today but all time. In both those events, she beat multiple generational standouts. Oh, and she set the 10,000m world record earlier this year—in a race that wasn’t even set up for her to
Yet, despite her undeniable accomplishments, when it came to the shortlist, Alfred made the final cut, not Chebet. Why? Alfred may have a bigger social media presence and marketability factor, likely swaying votes in her favor due to her visibility rather than her year-round performance. In the end, the decision seems to reflect more about what’s trending than a consistent track record of dominance.
This favoritism toward visibility is not unique to 2024, but it has become increasingly prominent as social media plays a larger role in athlete selection and their overall careers. Athletes from smaller or less-followed nations, who may lack extensive media coverage or robust online followings, may be at a disadvantage, despite delivering season-long performances worthy of global recognition. The emphasis on popularity rather than achievement diminishes the award’s prestige and devalues the dedication of lesser-known athletes who consistently excel without major media support.
The Need For World Athletics To Take Accountability
If World Athletics is genuinely committed to highlighting the sport’s best, it must reconsider its voting process and criteria. World Athletics could start by making the voting process more transparent, explaining how much weight is given to each voting component, and ensuring that it does not heavily rely on public opinion, which can be swayed by external factors like media coverage and athlete popularity.
World Athletics also needs to clarify when honoring athletes who excel in versatility, like Hassan, who excels on the track and the road. While earning Olympic medals in both categories, she’s nominated for the “Out-of-Stadium” category, which technically shouldn’t encompass her track results… but on the other hand, how can we ignore them?
So, why is there even a voting process? Here’s what I think.
This year, the World Athletics Athlete of the Year award seems less about celebrating the pure athletic achievements of deserving competitors and more about promoting a favorable image for the organization.
The emphasis has shifted from honoring the athlete who truly represents excellence in the sport to selecting those who boost the organization’s visibility and appeal. This trend toward highlighting marketable and fan-favorite athletes, rather than the objectively “best” athlete, can create a disconnect between World Athletics and long-time fans who value consistency and merit over popularity.
By implementing a voting system, World Athletics cleverly sidesteps direct responsibility for controversial outcomes, deflecting accountability onto “the will of the fans.”
If a particularly deserving athlete is overlooked in favor of a more popular or media-savvy choice, the organization can simply claim that the result reflects public opinion. This approach provides convenient insulation from criticism and enables World Athletics to maintain its image, even when fans who follow the sport closely express dissatisfaction with the results.
Ultimately, this voting structure prioritizes optics and engagement over the integrity of the selection process, suggesting that the award may be evolving more into a popularity contest than a true measure of athletic excellence.
So here’s to say, World Athletics can do better, and they should do better.
