With reduction clauses in Nike's contracts did hers get reduced because of how bad she has run the past 2 years?
With reduction clauses in Nike's contracts did hers get reduced because of how bad she has run the past 2 years?
No because she/her parents/her agent probably wasn't stupid enough to allow that to be in her contract.
Like most other T&F compensation, it's all a big secret subject to confidentiality clauses so the public can't know what anyone is being paid, so who knows?
If she had reduction clauses - which Nike says is standard - she was almost certainly reduced because she hasn't hit even minimal goals the last couple of years.
This is an interesting point because the argument for her to go pro vs. running in college was that she should cash in while she was good, because who knew what might happen in college. If she has been seriously reduced by Nike, however, she may not have cashed in very much, while missing the chance to run in college which might have been better for her development.
read a contract one time wrote:
No because she/her parents/her agent probably wasn't stupid enough to allow that to be in her contract.
If that's the case, then Nike isn't telling the truth in the Boris Berian case about how the clauses are so standard that you can automatically assume they are contained in an endorsement contract. Presumably, Nike knows what is standard in all of its own contracts and is basing its claims on that.
I think it can be both ways: undoubtedly Nike has the reduction clauses in 99% of their contracts, but there are bound to be a few exceptions for their highest profile athletes and those who had a lot of bargaining power when they first signed.
Lips wrote:
I think it can be both ways: undoubtedly Nike has the reduction clauses in 99% of their contracts, but there are bound to be a few exceptions for their highest profile athletes and those who had a lot of bargaining power when they first signed.
What they are doing is making the so called pro athletes accountable to be a competitive pro athlete. I'm not sure why any poster here would debate the pro athlete being accountable to the services provided be accountable to what they signed up for. Athletes are paid to do that,its not a charity training fund which many seem to think here. If an athlete decides they cannot live with it then they do have the option not to sign and sign with a company that does not have the reduction language.Its not that complicated.
What Nike is really trying to do is pinch pennies, circumvent labor laws and limit competition. Pretty much what they do with their bribes and their sweatshops.
future past today wrote:What they are doing is making the so called pro athletes accountable to be a competitive pro athlete. I'm not sure why any poster here would debate the pro athlete being accountable to the services provided be accountable to what they signed up for. Athletes are paid to do that,its not a charity training fund which many seem to think here. If an athlete decides they cannot live with it then they do have the option not to sign and sign with a company that does not have the reduction language.Its not that complicated.
You could structure the same deal in 2 ways. You could offer a lower base payment with bonuses or you could offer a higher base payment with reductions. Assuming you could put a probability on future risks and converted everything into present value, it would be the same.
You're surprised to learn that what Nike knows and what Nike says are not the same thing?
umumumumumum wrote:
read a contract one time wrote:No because she/her parents/her agent probably wasn't stupid enough to allow that to be in her contract.
If that's the case, then Nike isn't telling the truth in the Boris Berian case about how the clauses are so standard that you can automatically assume they are contained in an endorsement contract. Presumably, Nike knows what is standard in all of its own contracts and is basing its claims on that.
umumumumumum wrote:
read a contract one time wrote:No because she/her parents/her agent probably wasn't stupid enough to allow that to be in her contract.
If that's the case, then Nike isn't telling the truth in the Boris Berian case about how the clauses are so standard that you can automatically assume they are contained in an endorsement contract. Presumably, Nike knows what is standard in all of its own contracts and is basing its claims on that.
You don't know what standard means. Nike isn't lying if there are no reduction in contracts here or there. There can be exceptions to the standard.
dsrunner wrote:
What Nike is really trying to do is pinch pennies, circumvent labor laws and limit competition. Pretty much what they do with their bribes and their sweatshops.
These athletes aren't Nike employees. They are professional athletes in an amateur sport. They get paid to endorse and wear shoe and apparel company gear. They also make money from competing. Some, like Nick Symmonds want to make money without even competing.
Nick is a good enough marketer that he can get away that a little. Most athletes aren't that savvy, and need to actually perform to make money.
Here is the list of Nike reductions published on this site a week ago. You do the math:
1.Being outside top 3 in the US- 25% reduction
2. Being outside of top 10 in the US- 40% reduction
3. Not competing in Penn or Pre= 25% reduction
4. Not competing in 6 meets in a year= 50% reduction
5. Not competing in 8 IAAF meets in a year- 40% reduction
6. Not competing in 10 IAAF meets in a year- 30% reduction
7. If athlete doesn't make 10 personal appearance for Nike- 25% reduction
8. If athlete doesn't make 10 online appearance for Nike- 20% reduction
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she probably owes Nike 150k for this year.
Probably reduced to 0 wrote:
Here is the list of Nike reductions published on this site a week ago. You do the math:
1.Being outside top 3 in the US- 25% reduction
2. Being outside of top 10 in the US- 40% reduction
3. Not competing in Penn or Pre= 25% reduction
4. Not competing in 6 meets in a year= 50% reduction
5. Not competing in 8 IAAF meets in a year- 40% reduction
6. Not competing in 10 IAAF meets in a year- 30% reduction
7. If athlete doesn't make 10 personal appearance for Nike- 25% reduction
8. If athlete doesn't make 10 online appearance for Nike- 20% reduction
So MC could be making as little as 10% of her base contract years end?
I hope 4 years of college and school related expenses were negotiated as a no cut deal.
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
dsrunner wrote:What Nike is really trying to do is pinch pennies, circumvent labor laws and limit competition. Pretty much what they do with their bribes and their sweatshops.
These athletes aren't Nike employees. They are professional athletes in an amateur sport. They get paid to endorse and wear shoe and apparel company gear. They also make money from competing. Some, like Nick Symmonds want to make money without even competing.
Nick is a good enough marketer that he can get away that a little. Most athletes aren't that savvy, and need to actually perform to make money.
Nick isn't savvy, he's incredibly dumb, and has minions who buy into his crap.
there's no way her rich doctor parents let her give up as a 17 year old going and running at an elite college with contract terms like those posted here.
i'd also assume that NOP contracts are not standard nike. if alberto thinks you shouldn't be racing 6 times in a given year or doesn't want you running pre, uncle phil isn't docking your pay
This is off-topic but isn't Jordan Hasay just the cutest pie?
University of Nike /Oregon apparently has reduction clauses in scholarships. Get hurt and get a reduction. Make the final get nothing back.
future past today wrote:
Lips wrote:I think it can be both ways: undoubtedly Nike has the reduction clauses in 99% of their contracts, but there are bound to be a few exceptions for their highest profile athletes and those who had a lot of bargaining power when they first signed.
What they are doing is making the so called pro athletes accountable to be a competitive pro athlete. I'm not sure why any poster here would debate the pro athlete being accountable to the services provided be accountable to what they signed up for. Athletes are paid to do that,its not a charity training fund which many seem to think here. If an athlete decides they cannot live with it then they do have the option not to sign and sign with a company that does not have the reduction language.Its not that complicated.
Then why aren't reduction clauses the status quo in MLB, NBA, NFL? The reason is because of competition for services. If one NBA team attempted to make reduction clauses standard in their player contracts, providing of course that is ok under the CBA, then the other 29 teams would use that against them in bidding for free agents and draftees. Unlike the major sports there is no track athletes union. Also, unlike the major sports, one company, Nike, dominates the employers. If one NBA team had the hiring power of Nike in track, then yes, they could impose whatever they wanted. Nike includes reduction clauses because they can.
You idiot, there are reduction clauses in pro baseball, basketball, football, etc. ENDORSEMENT contracts.