this is how you get more olympians.

If enough people are in the market, have egg or sperm donor companies call people who medal.

considers

Looking down the road, because my expectation is that sooner or later, we're going to be doing human genetic engineering, a company getting Olympian genetic material like that might be

as long as they can operate in a legal jurisdiction that doesn't prohibit human genetic engineering

better off just calling up medalists and licensing their DNA. I don't think that you can copyright DNA under current US case law, though it might be patentable.

investigates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_genetic_sequences

As of 2016, genetic sequences were not recognized as copyrightable subject matter by any jurisdiction.[3] The United States Copyright Office's position is that "DNA sequences and other genetic, biological, or chemical substances or compounds, regardless of whether they are man-made or produced by nature," are ideas, systems, or discoveries rather than copyrightable works of authorship.[15]: 23 

You might not need to copyright or patent it, though, if you can just keep the changes you make secret. I mean, you get sperm/egg from Random Person, you do your proprietary modifications, you generate an embryo, you implant. I'm not sure how hard it would be for some other company to reverse-engineer the changes by looking at people's DNA relative to background noise in the DNA.

searches

https://datasciencemilan.org/which-nations-allow-the-use-of-human-genetic.html

Seventy-five out of 96 countries prohibit the use of genetically modified in vitro embryos for initiating pregnancies, known as heritable genome editing. Some of these countries have exceptions. In 2014, researchers Motoko Araki and Tetsuya Ishii analyzed the regulatory landscape of human embryo editing across 39 countries, revealing diverse approaches. As of a 2016 article in Science, Australia and Belgium have introduced legislation to either restrict or prohibit germline engineering. Despite the hurdles in the path of creating genetically engineered babies, many regions remain devoid of legal barriers, raising concerns reminiscent of the film “Gattaca”. A study by Baylis and collaborators reviewed policy documents from 106 countries, highlighting variation in regulations surrounding germline modification. Recent findings in The CRISPR Journal indicate that around 70 countries categorically ban heritable human genome editing, while some countries, including China and the United States, allow gene editing for non-reproductive purposes. Conversely, 19 countries, such as Belarus and Canada, have instituted bans on gene editing trials targeting human embryos, showcasing the patchwork nature of global laws on this issue. Regulatory frameworks differ significantly by country; for instance, some nations employ the principle of substantial equivalence regarding genetic engineering. Notably, heritable human genome editing is prohibited in over 70 countries and is further restricted by an international treaty from the Council of Europe. A review found 29 countries with outright legal bans on genetic editing. The legal status of such practices varies markedly, creating an inconsistent regulatory environment worldwide, particularly concerning the National Health Act in South Africa, which has ambiguous implications for human genome editing.

The thing is that in practice, if you want in vitro implantation, you can probably just travel abroad to a jurisdiction that doesn't prohibit it, unless countries assert extraterritorial jurisdiction that attaches to their citizens. If someone wants an Olympianized kid, I imagine that traveling abroad isn't that much additional barrier. Extraterrorial jurisdiction exists, but it is very rare; prohibitions on child sex tourism are one notable example that a number of countries do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction