April 11, 2026
A New Proposal Would Tax Some U.S. Athletes at 100% — Here’s Why
What happens when an American athlete wins a medal…for another country?
That question is no longer theoretical.
In March 2026, a new federal proposal introduced in Congress would impose a 100% excise tax on certain income earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents who compete internationally on behalf of specific foreign nations.
In other words, some athletes could be required to give up every dollar they earn.
What the Proposed “OLYMPICS Act” Would Do
The bill — titled the Officially Limiting Yearly Money Procured by Individuals Concerning Sportmanship (OLYMPICS) Act — would create a new excise tax equal to 100% of income earned from:
- Competing in international events
- Prize money
- Sponsorship income tied to representation
In its current form, the bill would only apply to athletes representing certain countries:
- China
- Russia
- Iran
- North Korea
However, changes could be made to impact any athlete competing for another nation. The tax would apply to major global events like the Olympics, World Cup, and other international competitions.
Why This Proposal Is Getting Attention
The bill didn’t come out of nowhere.
It’s directly tied to major recent events like the 2026 Winter Olympics. Eileen Gu, a U.S.-born snowboarder who competes for China, is one of the athletes who could potentially be impacted by this type of legislation, should it ever become more than a proposal.
Gu is one of the most high-profile examples of an American athlete competing for another nation, not just because of her success, but because of the money involved.
- She reportedly earned millions in payments tied to Olympic performance from Chinese authorities
- Over several years, those payments totaled nearly $14 million in government-linked support
- She also earned over $20 million annually from endorsements and sponsorships
This Isn’t as Rare as It Sounds
While Gu is the most visible recent example thanks to this year’s Olympic Games, she’s not alone.
Athletes switching national representation is a longstanding part of global sports. It can happen for a variety of reasons:
- Dual citizenship or family heritage
- Greater opportunity to qualify for competition
- Access to funding, coaching, or sponsorships
- Strategic career decisions
In some cases, athletes represent countries where they have deeper cultural or family ties. In others, it’s about opportunity, making a team they might not qualify for in the U.S.
The Olympics and international competitions regularly feature athletes competing under flags different from their birthplace.
Well-known examples of athletes representing countries outside their primary residence or league aren’t hard to find. Golfer Rory McIlroy, for example, represents Ireland in international competitions like the Ryder Cup and the Olympics, despite playing primarily on the U.S.-based PGA Tour.
In basketball, many NBA players compete internationally for countries tied to their heritage, like Joel Embiid, who has explored representing multiple nations, or Luka Dončić, who plays for Slovenia while starring in the NBA.
In track and field, athletes frequently change national representation, such as Bernard Lagat, who competed for both Kenya and the United States during his career. These examples show that national representation in sports is often shaped by a mix of identity, eligibility rules, and career opportunity, not simply geography.
The Tax Reality Today (Before This Bill)
Even without this proposal, U.S. athletes already face complex tax obligations.
The U.S. taxes its citizens on worldwide income, regardless of where it’s earned.
That means:
- A U.S. athlete competing for another country may still owe U.S. tax
- They may also owe tax in the country they compete for
- That creates potential double taxation issues, depending on treaties
As one analysis notes, dual-national athletes can be subject to tax obligations in multiple countries at the same time.
In short, athletes competing for a nation tied to their heritage or professional status already face complex tax obligations even without the existence of the OLYMPICS Act.
The Bigger Issue: Tax Policy as a Behavioral Tool
This proposal highlights something bigger happening in tax policy: Governments are increasingly using tax rules to influence behavior, not merely raise revenue.
For example, several countries and U.S. cities impose “sin taxes” on products like tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks, not just to generate revenue, but to reduce consumption and influence public health outcomes. Similarly, governments offer tax credits for electric vehicles and renewable energy investments to encourage environmentally friendly choices.
All of this raises broader questions:
- Should tax policy be used to regulate personal or professional decisions?
- Where is the line between taxation and penalty?
- How does this intersect with citizenship rights and global mobility?
Could This Actually Work in Practice?
Even if the OLYMPICS Act were to be passed, enforcement would undoubtedly be complicated.
Some open questions include:
- How to track sponsorship income tied to representation
- Whether payments routed through foreign entities would be captured
- How dual citizenship cases would be handled
- Whether athletes could avoid the tax by renouncing U.S. citizenship
Because international athletes often have complex financial structures, enforcement may be far more difficult than the initial proposal suggests.
What This Means for Taxpayers
Most taxpayers won’t be directly affected by this proposal.
But it reinforces several important principles:
- U.S. citizens are taxed on global income
- International work in any industry can trigger unexpected tax exposure
- Cross-border income is rarely simple
- Tax policy is increasingly tied to global and political considerations
Whether this particular proposal becomes law or not, it highlights a growing reality: In a global economy, taxes don’t just follow income — they follow people and their decisions around the world.
Printable PDF