I noticed that Mondo's bib at yesterday's meet had Puma on one side and Red Bull on the other. I cannot recall seeing this before. If the main sponsor is say Nike - is it up to them to stipulate whether an athlete can show more than one company logo or is it an IAAF thing?
The underlying problem is that USATF and World Athletics have basically locked up sponsorship for a handful of athletic footwear and apparel concerns. This is why I feel that it is important for the athletes to organize/unionize so that they can overturn the controls that federations have put in place. Athletes should be allowed to garner sponsorships outside of the traditional sources like Nike, Adidas, etc. Rules can be mutually agreed upon to ensure that you don't have someone sponsored by OnlyFans, Pornhub, Marlboro, and the like. But it seems horribly unfair to athletes that they cannot promote other consumer brands like Ford Motor, Dole, or Cheerios on their singlets. More money for the athletes, it looks better for the sport to have more sponsors, and not very athlete is in the same ugly Nike, Adidas, or New Balance kit which makes it tough for potential fans to pick our athletes in the field.
It'd be interesting to then see how much the sponsored athletes make. So nearly half were unsponsored, so a little over half were sponsored. I'd bet about 30-40% of the sponsored athletes are making over $100k from their contract + contract bonus + whatever prize money they can get, and half of those are making over $200k, and a handful making over half a million (sydney potentially a million+ with multiple endorsements in the past year). And the remaining unsponsored athletes are lucky to snag $10k in prize money in an entire year. It's a steeeeeep dropoff. In the 110 hurdles I imagine Allen and Holloway and Roberts who likely have well over 100k+ contracts bumping elbows with other guys like Jamal Britt with nothing.
I bet 75% of the sponsored athletes are making less than 50k. Essentially just enough to live, travel, train, and chase the dream for another year.
The underlying problem is that USATF and World Athletics have basically locked up sponsorship for a handful of athletic footwear and apparel concerns. This is why I feel that it is important for the athletes to organize/unionize so that they can overturn the controls that federations have put in place. Athletes should be allowed to garner sponsorships outside of the traditional sources like Nike, Adidas, etc. Rules can be mutually agreed upon to ensure that you don't have someone sponsored by OnlyFans, Pornhub, Marlboro, and the like. But it seems horribly unfair to athletes that they cannot promote other consumer brands like Ford Motor, Dole, or Cheerios on their singlets. More money for the athletes, it looks better for the sport to have more sponsors, and not very athlete is in the same ugly Nike, Adidas, or New Balance kit which makes it tough for potential fans to pick our athletes in the field.
The real underlying problem that people continue to overlook in discussing this topic is that this is not a real pro sport. When an athlete's pay can come from one of a thousand different sources rather than primarily from one centralized source then it's simply a collection of loosely affiliated freelancers. There's money in it yet it's not at all run like a real pro league or tour where athletes and agents are organized to have a seat at the table to have a credible say in where the money goes and how their likeness will be used for promotional purposes plus competitive expectations.
Nothing is stopping anyone from showing up with Ford, Dole, Cheerios as the prominent logo on their kit. It's certainly allowed. In fact, there was a Mazda TC many moons ago. It's just that those types of brands aren't convinced that they'll get decent ROI from the brand exposure to be gained. Our sport remains an ever-shrinking slice of the sports pie in terms of public awareness and interest and that's precisely because it's essentially left up to NGBs like USATF, USOPC, IAAF, and IOPC and as a rule innovation doesn't happen there (see also: four major domestic meets held in the same, out-of-the-way location.)
The underlying problem is that USATF and World Athletics have basically locked up sponsorship for a handful of athletic footwear and apparel concerns. This is why I feel that it is important for the athletes to organize/unionize so that they can overturn the controls that federations have put in place. Athletes should be allowed to garner sponsorships outside of the traditional sources like Nike, Adidas, etc. Rules can be mutually agreed upon to ensure that you don't have someone sponsored by OnlyFans, Pornhub, Marlboro, and the like. But it seems horribly unfair to athletes that they cannot promote other consumer brands like Ford Motor, Dole, or Cheerios on their singlets. More money for the athletes, it looks better for the sport to have more sponsors, and not very athlete is in the same ugly Nike, Adidas, or New Balance kit which makes it tough for potential fans to pick our athletes in the field.
Everyone says track and field would cease to exist without Nike, but the truth is that their stranglehold on T&F governing bodies and athlete sponsorship rules is the primary culprit for stunting the sport's growth.
It'd be interesting to then see how much the sponsored athletes make. So nearly half were unsponsored, so a little over half were sponsored. I'd bet about 30-40% of the sponsored athletes are making over $100k from their contract + contract bonus + whatever prize money they can get, and half of those are making over $200k, and a handful making over half a million (sydney potentially a million+ with multiple endorsements in the past year). And the remaining unsponsored athletes are lucky to snag $10k in prize money in an entire year. It's a steeeeeep dropoff. In the 110 hurdles I imagine Allen and Holloway and Roberts who likely have well over 100k+ contracts bumping elbows with other guys like Jamal Britt with nothing.
I believe your numbers are high.
A very GOOD pro contract is $30k base with travel and gear + performance bonuses. I would bet that less than 10% of US sponsored athletes make over $100k.
The underlying problem is that USATF and World Athletics have basically locked up sponsorship for a handful of athletic footwear and apparel concerns. This is why I feel that it is important for the athletes to organize/unionize so that they can overturn the controls that federations have put in place. Athletes should be allowed to garner sponsorships outside of the traditional sources like Nike, Adidas, etc. Rules can be mutually agreed upon to ensure that you don't have someone sponsored by OnlyFans, Pornhub, Marlboro, and the like. But it seems horribly unfair to athletes that they cannot promote other consumer brands like Ford Motor, Dole, or Cheerios on their singlets. More money for the athletes, it looks better for the sport to have more sponsors, and not very athlete is in the same ugly Nike, Adidas, or New Balance kit which makes it tough for potential fans to pick our athletes in the field.
The real underlying problem that people continue to overlook in discussing this topic is that this is not a real pro sport. When an athlete's pay can come from one of a thousand different sources rather than primarily from one centralized source then it's simply a collection of loosely affiliated freelancers. There's money in it yet it's not at all run like a real pro league or tour where athletes and agents are organized to have a seat at the table to have a credible say in where the money goes and how their likeness will be used for promotional purposes plus competitive expectations.
Nothing is stopping anyone from showing up with Ford, Dole, Cheerios as the prominent logo on their kit. It's certainly allowed. In fact, there was a Mazda TC many moons ago. It's just that those types of brands aren't convinced that they'll get decent ROI from the brand exposure to be gained. Our sport remains an ever-shrinking slice of the sports pie in terms of public awareness and interest and that's precisely because it's essentially left up to NGBs like USATF, USOPC, IAAF, and IOPC and as a rule innovation doesn't happen there (see also: four major domestic meets held in the same, out-of-the-way location.)
you are wrong about the number of sponsors.. they are allowed 1 or 2 sponsors to be displayed during competition and the logos have size limits on jerseys...
a real league would def be interesting and entertaining if done right... think something like the Savannah Bananas... make it an event.
The real underlying problem that people continue to overlook in discussing this topic is that this is not a real pro sport. When an athlete's pay can come from one of a thousand different sources rather than primarily from one centralized source then it's simply a collection of loosely affiliated freelancers. There's money in it yet it's not at all run like a real pro league or tour where athletes and agents are organized to have a seat at the table to have a credible say in where the money goes and how their likeness will be used for promotional purposes plus competitive expectations.
Nothing is stopping anyone from showing up with Ford, Dole, Cheerios as the prominent logo on their kit. It's certainly allowed. In fact, there was a Mazda TC many moons ago. It's just that those types of brands aren't convinced that they'll get decent ROI from the brand exposure to be gained. Our sport remains an ever-shrinking slice of the sports pie in terms of public awareness and interest and that's precisely because it's essentially left up to NGBs like USATF, USOPC, IAAF, and IOPC and as a rule innovation doesn't happen there (see also: four major domestic meets held in the same, out-of-the-way location.)
you are wrong about the number of sponsors.. they are allowed 1 or 2 sponsors to be displayed during competition and the logos have size limits on jerseys...
a real league would def be interesting and entertaining if done right... think something like the Savannah Bananas... make it an event.
Read it again, I stated nothing about number of sponsors. Neither did the post I was responding to.
The real underlying problem that people continue to overlook in discussing this topic is that this is not a real pro sport. When an athlete's pay can come from one of a thousand different sources rather than primarily from one centralized source then it's simply a collection of loosely affiliated freelancers. There's money in it yet it's not at all run like a real pro league or tour where athletes and agents are organized to have a seat at the table to have a credible say in where the money goes and how their likeness will be used for promotional purposes plus competitive expectations.
Nothing is stopping anyone from showing up with Ford, Dole, Cheerios as the prominent logo on their kit. It's certainly allowed. In fact, there was a Mazda TC many moons ago. It's just that those types of brands aren't convinced that they'll get decent ROI from the brand exposure to be gained. Our sport remains an ever-shrinking slice of the sports pie in terms of public awareness and interest and that's precisely because it's essentially left up to NGBs like USATF, USOPC, IAAF, and IOPC and as a rule innovation doesn't happen there (see also: four major domestic meets held in the same, out-of-the-way location.)
you are wrong about the number of sponsors.. they are allowed 1 or 2 sponsors to be displayed during competition and the logos have size limits on jerseys...
a real league would def be interesting and entertaining if done right... think something like the Savannah Bananas... make it an event.
This is incorrect. You can have a club and an athletics sponsor.
Think Nike swoosh and BTC logo.
Can't have a Pepsi and Mt Dew logo. Red Bull is considered a club which is why you see them on singlets.
The real underlying problem that people continue to overlook in discussing this topic is that this is not a real pro sport. When an athlete's pay can come from one of a thousand different sources rather than primarily from one centralized source then it's simply a collection of loosely affiliated freelancers. There's money in it yet it's not at all run like a real pro league or tour where athletes and agents are organized to have a seat at the table to have a credible say in where the money goes and how their likeness will be used for promotional purposes plus competitive expectations.
Nothing is stopping anyone from showing up with Ford, Dole, Cheerios as the prominent logo on their kit. It's certainly allowed. In fact, there was a Mazda TC many moons ago. It's just that those types of brands aren't convinced that they'll get decent ROI from the brand exposure to be gained. Our sport remains an ever-shrinking slice of the sports pie in terms of public awareness and interest and that's precisely because it's essentially left up to NGBs like USATF, USOPC, IAAF, and IOPC and as a rule innovation doesn't happen there (see also: four major domestic meets held in the same, out-of-the-way location.)
you are wrong about the number of sponsors.. they are allowed 1 or 2 sponsors to be displayed during competition and the logos have size limits on jerseys...
a real league would def be interesting and entertaining if done right... think something like the Savannah Bananas... make it an event.
How could you have a league in an individual sport? There could be a tour, maybe, but income would be prize money and not contracts. In any case, there’s never going to much money to go around in T&F.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.