Photo: Eileen Gu // Instagram
Athletes representing countries other than their homelands have always been contentious, but the furor reached a fevered pitch at this year’s Olympics. At the center of the controversy was Eileen Gu, an American skier who competed (and won medals for) China. In response, a Republican lawmaker has proposed a bill that would strip her of her income.
The proposal, titled, “Officially Limiting Yearly Money Procured by Individuals Concerning Sportsmanship Act,” (a mouthful of a name, intended to form the acronym OLYMPICS) was sponsored by Tennessee Republican representative Andy Ogles. Though the text of the bill is not yet available to the public, Ogles told right-wing sports news outlet OutKick that the act would set a 100-percent federal tax on income earned by U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who compete in major global events on behalf of a “foreign entity of concern” – which in this case is a discrete list of countries limited to North Korea, Russia, Iran and China.
Ogles made it clear that penalty is aimed squarely at Gu. “Any American who works with a foreign adversary has not only betrayed our country, but must be stripped of all benefits from doing so. That is why I am ensuring that the IRS takes every dollar earned by athletes like Eileen Gu,” he told OutKick.
Notably, the money targeted would not only be direct payments from the foreign country itself, but also sponsorships earned as a result of competing for that country.
Though Gu is the primary target of the legislation, if it passes, there’s a possibility of it affecting other athletes as well. A number of American surfers have chosen to represent countries other than their homeland, such as Erin Brooks competing for Canada and Tatiana Weston-Webb for Brazil. Luckily for them, these have not been deemed “countries of concern,” by the proposed legislation – but it isn’t inconceivable that the list would expand, given the United States’ increasingly antagonistic relationship with foreign powers.
Of course, given the extreme terms of the bill and the logistical difficulty of actually enforcing such a tax, it seems more likely to be intended as a statement, rather than a serious attempt at legislation. So the surfers – and skiers – are probably safe for now.
