Where Your Dreams Become Reality

Non-SMA120x60NT

What's Let's Run.com?

Highschool Front Page

Training Advice

More News in Our:
News Section!

Message Boards
Main Message Board

Turn Back The Clock! Today's Top Runners Talk About Their High School Careers

RECOMMENDED
READS

Comments, questions, suggestions, story you'd like to submit?
Email us
 
 You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

Poster: Stephan Shay
Subject: RE: WEJO off the mark on Nick Symmonds' comment
Body:
Shoebacca wrote:

One of Wejo's points, though, is that athletes need to be respectful to the race's sponsors, too. I think we all agree that emerging athletes need more support, but we have to be careful about offending the current sponsors who have given so much for so many years who will lose incentive to advertise if their brand isn't going to be promoted as exclusively. The companies aren't stupid, either. If an emerging, unproven athlete gets more money and can make it without as much from an individual sponsor, then they're going to reduce the sponsorship.

The question is how can we get Nike to agree to still sponsor an athlete for the same amount while letting the uniform take on other brands? How can we get ING to shrug it off if their New York City marathon becomes a melting pot of athletes promoting other companies?







With all do respect, I didn't really get that point from WEJO's comment. He simply states that by being able to have other sponsorships on uniforms, etc, it wont be the answer for runners getting superstar salaries. He states that Lebron James doesn't have to wear McDonalds on his uniform to get big endorsements. I know that professional running isn't as mainstream as the NBA, but allowing other sources of sponsorships creates not only competition for the main shoe companies, but creates more avenues of income for those that might not be able to get a big enough salary with the shoe companies in order to soley be able to devote their efforts to compete well for their sponsors while making an honest living. We're not talking about superstar salaries here... We're talking about a few thousand dollars here or there. For example, if an elite gets paid 20,000 from a main shoe contract, but an athlete approaches them and says, "hey, I'll take a $10,000 cut, but I want to have two more sponsors on my jersey". That could ultimately benefit the athlete if the other two sponsors are willing to pay $10,000 a piece (obviously they would have to be non-conflicting sponsors). In terms of competition for race investors, like ING, I don't see how they would be affected. They still get their advertising on the bib, and as already mentioned, the big shoe names are already on the uniform. The biggest marketing for them is the bib space. Every runner registered for the race gets a bib and sees the sponsor. This wouldn't change. Not to mention, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the companies investing in these races didn't know the IAAF rules.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post. If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is
Your name:

 

Quantcast