Please explain to me the privileged people's objection to Rule 40.

Sarah is an admitted bedwetter....

Also, those sponsors were aware of the Rule 40 when they decided to sign these athletes, right?

Because it takes money away from the athletes and the athlete's total income is too low.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Because it takes money away from the athletes and the athlete's total income is too low.

It does not take money away from them. They were never promised money from the IOC, so nothing to take away.

Uhh. Ok, so nobody talks about the Olympics because only advertisers are allowed to discuss them online. And then what little income there is to Olympic sports athletes steeply declines.

Yeah, makes sense.

They are upset about it because it is a rule they believe cost them money.

It is a rule that NO other sport has.

Tell me one other sport where sponsors are not allowed to advertise around their athletes around an event.

The rules of the NBA could be that Nike could not advertise during the NBA finals. Or the rules of the PGA Tour could be that Under Armour can't advertise with Jordan Spieth during the Masters. People wouldn't stand for this.

Your argument of A) don't run if you don't agree with the rules isn't a strong one.

If the rule is changed, most people believe more money would go into Olympic sports. There is debate as to whether the USOC and/or IOC Might have less money but that is debatable. The PGA Tour and Tennis are good examples and they allow individuals' sponsors to advertise. The athletes and agents believe this leads to more money in the sport.

Your argument b) isn't very good either. They think there sponsors would pay them MORE if they could advertise around the Olympics. Or they could pick up new sponsors.

I don't see why anybody other than sponsors themselves would care. I'd rather not hear any shameless vacuous plugs. This is the Olympics, not NASCAR.

I think the difference is that real sports don't host their most important championship in conjunction with kayaking, air pistol, and mixed doubles badminton competitions.

As long as track athletes tie their life long goals to this farce, they are kind of stuck with these unfair rules. They are going to need to get the stones to boycott the games before any meaningful change can take place.

All of the examples you used: NBA Finals, the PGA tour, etc are great examples of what track should strive for. Their own, self-governed championships that allow for these kinds of sponsor/athlete/event relationships. I don't see US basketball players complaining about Rule 40. I believe that is because in their world, the Olympics are not the "main event" as it is with track and field.

Rather than trying to change (or even worse, just cry on social media about) a stale model like what exists for the Olympics, these athletes and companies should be thinking of ways to monetize the sport on their own.

It is a fascist law and abuse of power. They think that by banning rival companies from the olympic focus they are gonna make for money....

XCJogger wrote:It is a fascist law and abuse of power.

It isn't a law.

Track has its own self-governed championships already.

Exactly. Championships that do not include Rule 40.

I am saying why make Rule 40 an issue, when 90% of other Olympic sports don't care about it?

Fix the things we can fix. Don't lose sleep over the things we can't fix.

800 dude wrote:

XCJogger wrote:It is a fascist law and abuse of power.

It isn't a law.

Not in a legal sense, but it is a rule that must be abided.

You See No Pun? wrote:

I don't see why anybody other than sponsors themselves would care. I'd rather not hear any shameless vacuous plugs. This is the Olympics, not NASCAR.

Really, you don't think that athletes would get paid more for being able to deliver more value to their sponsors?

Explain please wrote:

So in a nutshell, people seem to be upset that they cannot mention their sponsors while competing at the Olympics. Why?

Either A) don't run at the Olympics if you disagree with their rules. Or B) don't worry about it. Surely your sponsor won't hold it against you if you don't give them props when you are not allowed to.

to quote Sarah Silverman, "you're being ridiculous."

A sponsor wants someone who can promote its brand/product. Rule 40 keeps athletes and the companies from doing that. Maybe Gatorade wants to sponsor a track athlete, but since it is a Pepsi company (not a IOC sponsor) it can still sponsor the athlete but during the most high profile weeks of the athlete's career neither the athlete or the company can mention the very event. They cannot even say "Congratulations".

I argue that is keeping money from the athlete. I would say it takes off the table a major exposure point.

This is a bit of an exaggeration, but the "don't run if you disagree with the rules" is pretty lame I guess Rosa Parks should have just chosen not to ride the bus since the rules are the rules.

The IOC (and USOC) fear losing money. Well, since at least some of the USOC money goes to athletes (through several avenues) it could, but maybe the athletes replace the income from the USOC with income from sponsors? However, the IOC and USOC do not want to lose that money. They have big staffs (the growth in the USOC marketing dept over the past 20 years has been incredible).

Sorry, the Olympics are like NO other event. Nothing is comparable. The PGA has events all year and Ever year. Other events are sports specific.

Looks like you've been brainwashed by Sally.

Rosa Parks? you officially lost the argument. this a commercial endeavor not civil rights.

Marco YOLO wrote:

Rosa Parks? you officially lost the argument. this a commercial endeavor not civil rights.

It is a commercial endeavor that is largely propped up by governments. The public has essentially granted the Olympics a monopoly by paying the incredibly high cost associated with the Olympics while any competitor would be required to overcome impossible barriers to entry unassisted. We've long accepted that public responsibility can be placed on the private beneficiaries of government supported monopolies.