WSJ article on pro-runner salaries

Newsflash: they are not in it (primarily) for the money.

I was thinking of becoming a professional runner, but you talked me out of it. Thanks!

Wow, that stinks. 30 years ago I made about $15,000 a year running (which was enough to live on) and I wasn't top 10, more like top 20.

Daddy Runbucks wrote:

Wow, that stinks. 30 years ago I made about $15,000 a year running (which was enough to live on) and I wasn't top 10, more like top 20.

How can you be surprised? How much would you think the #10 ranked U.S. hammer thrower make?

The WSJ is talking about an average of the top ten athletes in all events. The best guys at the top events do just fine.

The sponsorship issue is what it is, it fluxuates in the sport and always has. If you are dependent soley or largely on sponsor dollars you are in a potentially bad situation and unfortunately there simply isn't much (if any) appearance fees and prize money in track ...... but there is in road racing.

This is why track is a stagnant (at best) to dieing (at worse) sport and the future is in road racing (growing rapidly). The athletes who accept this and move to the roads are less likely to starve then the die-hards who cling to the track - and worse yet the less popular track events like the steeplechase.

Ben made most of his money on the roads but trained for the track, and if he had focused his racing and training on the roads he would have likely doubled his income.

And BTW - the sponsors care how many twitter followers you have, how many FB likes you have and the popularity of your website almost as much as your PR's. The athletes who ignore these areas do so at the their own detriment when it comes to sponsor dollars.

The track is nice and can be fun until you turn pro, then if you want to make a living you are best off moving to the roads.

Running is running, so why not do your running where you can make a better living at it.

But if you are top number ten in the U.S. in say the marathon, what are you ranked in the world? 500?

I know the money is in sponsorship, but does anyone here actually use products because their favorite runner endorses them?

Well, you can say that for any sponsorship of any sport.

JackOfAss wrote:

I know the money is in sponsorship, but does anyone here actually use products because their favorite runner endorses them?

Runners are different. Marketing does not work on us like it does basketball players and fans or football players and fan. We are much too smart to let flashy gimmicks determine what products we buy.

Can anyone recommend a good pair of Nike trainers?

I'll go ahead and say yes.

JackOfAss wrote:

I know the money is in sponsorship, but does anyone here actually use products because their favorite runner endorses them?

The guy on food stamps. Shouldn't he get a real job? Why should rest of us pay for his ramen noodles so he can sit at home all day to rest and sleep to run 20 miles per day. There is no injustice here. He wasn't delivering any value to Nike anyway. He should be thankful instead.

What serious runners don't realize is nobody cares about the sport that is not entertaining. The money goes to those who can entertain the spectators like Jeter, Pujols, Lebron, etc. At most, running is a participant sport/exercise. Nothing more. That is why I don't discuss my running with people. One guy asked me at a Superbowl party if I sprint the whole 12 miles that I ran that day.

LI Runner wrote:

Well, you can say that for any sponsorship of any sport.

JackOfAss wrote:

I know the money is in sponsorship, but does anyone here actually use products because their favorite runner endorses them?

I think NASCAR fans are famous for loyalty to whatever brand their favorite driver has as a sponsor.

If runners were more like that it could help the elite guys. I like AlSal, Rupp, and such, but I havent worn Nike in years.

hks321 wrote:

The guy on food stamps. Shouldn't he get a real job? Why should rest of us pay for his ramen noodles so he can sit at home all day to rest and sleep to run 20 miles per day.

Easy there. Some of us who are on food stamps don't live on Ramen noodles. We use them to buy cooking wine and lemon extract so we can get drunk on the government's dime. Use your brain, for Chrissakes.

"And BTW - the sponsors care how many twitter followers you have, how many FB likes you have and the popularity of your website almost as much as your PR's. The athletes who ignore these areas do so at the their own detriment when it comes to sponsor dollars."

Exactly. If I am CEO Nike, why should I sponsor someone who isn't going to sell the shoes and overpriced nylon gears?

All these runners want something for free. Its not stipend for you to purse your "running dreams".

Have you heard about hand sanitizer? Woohoo! I'm juz shayin!

JackOfAss wrote:

I know the money is in sponsorship, but does anyone here actually use products because their favorite runner endorses them?

Yes. The week after Jenny Simpson got gold in Daegu, I bought some NB 890's for just that reason, and I would have liked them even better if they said "Barringer" instead of "Baddely" on the side. They're actually decent trainers too.

I'll also pledge that if any American gets gold in London from the 800m up, I'll go out and buy a pair of whatever brand of shoes they endorse and think it is money well spent.

bling don't sing wrote:

Newsflash: they are not in it (primarily) for the money.

Newsflash: show me an east African runner that isn't. This is a problem of incentives.

I just read that article in the newspaper.

The Skechers PR person deserves a raise. They got Meb on the cover of the Marketplace section and then article makes it sound like Skechers is saving athletes while Nike athletes are on food stamps.

If I was Nike I'd be pissed off. They shell out millions of dollars for track athletes and Skechers who sponsors one athlete comes out looking ahead, so does Brooks.

Looking at the article again it really is poorly composed. The author doesn't understand the industry that well and compares Meb to an athlete who may be the 5th ranked discus thrower in the US. That is a misleading comparison. Skechers is paying Meb more than Nike wanted to, but it's not paying Meb more than Nike pays athletes like Galen Rupp or Andrew Wheating. Apples to apples.

Meb talks about "reduction clauses" a ton in his book and you can tell he doesn't like them.

In some ways it's just like a non guaranteed contract in other sports.

Some athletes may still take reduction clauses because they'll start with a higher base. A reduction clauses in itself is not a bad thing.

Top 10 in the US in a lot of events isn't that high up in the world. Just as the 750th ranked tennis player doesn't make much money neither will the 750th ranked distance runner.

Skechers signing Meb was a good move on their part.

The WSJ also had a great article about the decathlon and basically how $200,000 from Visa which they describe as a "rounding error" in Visa's budget was enough seed money to help keep the US dominant in the dec.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303459004577362042259455630.html

I think a bit more money out there for for the people who are, for example, numbers 5-15 in the US in their event could pay big dividends in keeping talent in the sport long enough to develop. Groups like the Hansons have never had big money but they have given a lot of runners a shot at getting good at the marathon and produced 2 Olympic marathoners. That's the kind of encouragement the sport needs and it wouldn't cost that much in the big scheme of things, especially when you compare it to the money in the NFL, NBA, college football, etc.