FOR many years the Olympic Games was the bastion of the world's greatest amateur athletes, who dedicated their lives to their chosen sport for the spirit of competition, rather than monetary gain.

Amateurism was at the heart of Pierre de Coubertin's Olympic movement, and once upon a time merely pitting your unpaid skills against men or women on a payroll could have led to disciplinary action from the never-controversial International Olympic Committee.

However, the 'A' word seems to have been removed from Olympic consciousness, presumably for the good of the Games. Or the ones pumping in the money, at least. The Games are no longer for amateurs, as the golf and tennis debates attest to.

And, with the Rio extravaganza looming large, prospective Olympians have been clamouring to get out their thank-you messages for their sponsorships and endorsements, for fear of breaching the dreaded Rule 40.

Until August 27, this prevents athletes' sponsors without special dispensation taking part in 'ambush marketing' and using the Olympic name – and various related words – in the public domain, the most extreme cases potentially resulting in disqualification.

Obviously, the official Olympic sponsors have carte blanche to tweet words such as gold, Rio, effort, performance, victory and 2016. But these are now dirty words for those who are not Olympic partners but whose financial input allows their chosen ones to live their Olympic dream. Even Team GB is decidedly dodgy.

These athletes, however elite they may be, do not earn six-figure sums on a weekly basis. They cannot command obscene wages despite, in countless cases, being every bit as dedicated and talented as the multi-millionaires who swan around Premier League pitches.

Even the world's greatest athletes have to find a way to profit and earn their living, and this quadrennial (that is a word, according to the internet) event is when the eyes of the world will be on them. But, during the Games, Heaven help a kit supplier who wishes a competitor good luck, a triple jumper who puts out an erroneous hashtag, a badminton player who tweets a gold-themed emoji or a fencer posting a picture on Instagram sharing innocent words of gratitude for their invaluable sponsors.

The IOC will no doubt hit them hard, claiming non-affiliated companies cashing in harms the revenue from official sponsors, money that filters through to athletes and their governing bodies.

Sponsors do not, as far as I am aware, donate money to sportsmen and women out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it primarily for self-promotion purposes and should be able to at least interact with their chosen Olympian on social media without fear of legal action from 'The Man'.

As former heptathlete Kelly Sotherton suggested on Twitter, the IOC appear more interested in punishing athletes for infringing on intellectual rights the likes of Coca-Cola and McDonalds have coughed up for than getting its house in order and banning drug cheats.

She is, of course, spot on. You have bigger, more important fish to fry, IOC.