On the tweets/FloTrack link one tweet was that Nick S is thinking about changing sponsors -- pretty big step; would it mean a change in clubs too?
On the tweets/FloTrack link one tweet was that Nick S is thinking about changing sponsors -- pretty big step; would it mean a change in clubs too?
wejo wrote:
If Nike is a sponsor of the track meet say they get the swoosh on the bib.
They do this realizing Tyson Gay will only be able to have one small logo that isn't a swoosh. If Gay can have a huge adidas logo, or 2 adidas logos, or even an adidas logo and a EAS logo, Nike is going to have less of the total sponsor real estate so in theory they'll pay the race less to sponsor it.
Athletes who get more from sponsors than races won't care too much if the race gets a little less from its title sponsor as they'll hope to make more from their sponsors.
If you get more money from races than sponsors you might care.
You don't see NBA players complaining about logo restrictions on their jerseys. Why? The teams (ie the meets) are paying them a ton of money.
And of course Nike will tell Nick Symmonds, "you want other logos on your jersey?" we're going to pay you less. Now, overall Nick could make more money if he can get a second sponsor to make up from how much Nike drops his contract. Nike however just as easily say Nick we're paying you six figures we're the only logo on your jersey. Each athlete will have to see which works best.
Why do you see that as the outcome of this process, as opposed to Nike (or whichever shoe company) including an exclusivity clause in all future contracts, big and small? If they're going to pay someone to wear their logo, and the have the ability to make themselves the sole logo on that athlete, why wouldn't they?
An ideal outcome for this rule would be to allow athletes to wear whatever logos, and how many logos, they would like. Perhaps a way shoe companies could be brought into the fold would be to have a NASCAR-esque rule set, where there can only be one main sponsor of any athlete (so Nike athletes would have the Nike logo big and center, just as a Ford sponsored athlete would have the Ford logo front and center) of a prescribed size, and allow 6 or 10 or 20 small logos or spaces on the uni to sell to smaller advertisers, just like the smaller logos on stock cars. Depending on the pay level of an athlete, you could institute a threshold for exclusivity, perhaps 50k in guaranteed cash in a year, where the company sponsoring an athlete could buy out the whole uni and be the sole sponsor.
Thats my two cents.
As for those who don't understand why this isn't already the case, someone with the rulebook should chime in and give us the exact text limiting athletes to a single manufacturer and logo size. Violate that rule, as I understand, and you aren't allowed to compete at IAAF/USATF meets.
LashindaDemus
36 minutes ago (~7:42CST)
Even though our last meeting was intense I feel that out of all things we both parties were heard which is rare! #USATFMeeting .
the duke wrote:
An ideal outcome for this rule would be to allow athletes to wear whatever logos, and how many logos, they would like. Perhaps a way shoe companies could be brought into the fold would be to have a NASCAR-esque rule set, where there can only be one main sponsor of any athlete (so Nike athletes would have the Nike logo big and center, just as a Ford sponsored athlete would have the Ford logo front and center) of a prescribed size, and allow 6 or 10 or 20 small logos or spaces on the uni to sell to smaller advertisers, just like the smaller logos on stock cars. Depending on the pay level of an athlete, you could institute a threshold for exclusivity, perhaps 50k in guaranteed cash in a year, where the company sponsoring an athlete could buy out the whole uni and be the sole sponsor.
Thats my two cents.
As for those who don't understand why this isn't already the case, someone with the rulebook should chime in and give us the exact text limiting athletes to a single manufacturer and logo size. Violate that rule, as I understand, and you aren't allowed to compete at IAAF/USATF meets.
You're always going to be limited to having a shoe company as your primary uniform sponsor, because it's other industries (banking, electronics, oil and gas) that are the ones that put in the big money.
the duke wrote:
http://www.usatf.org/About/Privacy---Other-Policies/Uniform-Guidelines.aspxfound them
According to this thread (http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4318896 ), these "rules" were never approved and are being wrongly enforced.
I don't see these "rules" in USATFs competition rules:
http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2011/2011rules.pdfDoes anyone know: would the IAAF uniform rules only apply at the Olympic Trials, and not USATF Championships? What races in the US are, ~sanctioned, by the IAAF (~World Major Marathons...)?
the duke wrote:
An ideal outcome for this rule would be to allow athletes to wear whatever logos, and how many logos, they would like. Perhaps a way shoe companies could be brought into the fold would be to have a NASCAR-esque rule set, where there can only be one main sponsor of any athlete (so Nike athletes would have the Nike logo big and center, just as a Ford sponsored athlete would have the Ford logo front and center) of a prescribed size, and allow 6 or 10 or 20 small logos or spaces on the uni to sell to smaller advertisers, just like the smaller logos on stock cars. Depending on the pay level of an athlete, you could institute a threshold for exclusivity, perhaps 50k in guaranteed cash in a year, where the company sponsoring an athlete could buy out the whole uni and be the sole sponsor.
I'm wondering if sponsors are really beating down the doors of athletes to sponsor them. A few who have existing relationships (Hall with Nissan, Meb with Visa, etc.) may make out well, but I'm not sure if this is such a good idea for the guys filling out the fields of races.
Has anyone actually done a study or survey to find out the interest/feasibility of "NASCAR-style" singlets? Or are we talking about hypotheticals at this point?
The biggest problem I see is lack of exposure. Sponsors aren't going to want to talk to you unless you're out there and visible. This goes back to the declining (aside from a core group of diehard fans) interest in track and field.
in sacto wrote:
the duke wrote:An ideal outcome for this rule would be to allow athletes to wear whatever logos, and how many logos, they would like. Perhaps a way shoe companies could be brought into the fold would be to have a NASCAR-esque rule set, where there can only be one main sponsor of any athlete (so Nike athletes would have the Nike logo big and center, just as a Ford sponsored athlete would have the Ford logo front and center) of a prescribed size, and allow 6 or 10 or 20 small logos or spaces on the uni to sell to smaller advertisers, just like the smaller logos on stock cars. Depending on the pay level of an athlete, you could institute a threshold for exclusivity, perhaps 50k in guaranteed cash in a year, where the company sponsoring an athlete could buy out the whole uni and be the sole sponsor.
I'm wondering if sponsors are really beating down the doors of athletes to sponsor them. A few who have existing relationships (Hall with Nissan, Meb with Visa, etc.) may make out well, but I'm not sure if this is such a good idea for the guys filling out the fields of races.
Has anyone actually done a study or survey to find out the interest/feasibility of "NASCAR-style" singlets? Or are we talking about hypotheticals at this point?
The biggest problem I see is lack of exposure. Sponsors aren't going to want to talk to you unless you're out there and visible. This goes back to the declining (aside from a core group of diehard fans) interest in track and field.
For guys filling out the fields at races, I think it would have great benefit as well. Not only could Meb have Sketchers in bold across the front of his jersey, along with other logos like powerbar, but the guys filling out these pro races could contract with smaller businesses, like a local running store, website, or other sponsor like a racecar driver would. When flotrack does an interview with the 8th place guy in the 5k at some meet, as they often do, he's wearing powerbar on his shoulder, Jim's running store on his front, and Shamwow on his upper chest.
Will it draw new sponsors to the sport? For sure, because the buy in isn't as big as a billboard at a meet. Will it lend more support to lesser runners? Sure, because someone who's running 2:18 in the marathon isn't getting too much help, so getting a couple hundred bucks from each mini-sponsor on the uni buys his plan ticket to a race, some food for the month, etc.
It could mean more guaranteed yearly income for athletes, which at the bottom line, is what is necessary to grow a crop of athletes in someplace other than the third world.
the duke wrote:
in sacto wrote:I'm wondering if sponsors are really beating down the doors of athletes to sponsor them. A few who have existing relationships (Hall with Nissan, Meb with Visa, etc.) may make out well, but I'm not sure if this is such a good idea for the guys filling out the fields of races.
Has anyone actually done a study or survey to find out the interest/feasibility of "NASCAR-style" singlets? Or are we talking about hypotheticals at this point?
The biggest problem I see is lack of exposure. Sponsors aren't going to want to talk to you unless you're out there and visible. This goes back to the declining (aside from a core group of diehard fans) interest in track and field.
For guys filling out the fields at races, I think it would have great benefit as well. Not only could Meb have Sketchers in bold across the front of his jersey, along with other logos like powerbar, but the guys filling out these pro races could contract with smaller businesses, like a local running store, website, or other sponsor like a racecar driver would. When flotrack does an interview with the 8th place guy in the 5k at some meet, as they often do, he's wearing powerbar on his shoulder, Jim's running store on his front, and Shamwow on his upper chest.
Will it draw new sponsors to the sport? For sure, because the buy in isn't as big as a billboard at a meet. Will it lend more support to lesser runners? Sure, because someone who's running 2:18 in the marathon isn't getting too much help, so getting a couple hundred bucks from each mini-sponsor on the uni buys his plan ticket to a race, some food for the month, etc.
It could mean more guaranteed yearly income for athletes, which at the bottom line, is what is necessary to grow a crop of athletes in someplace other than the third world.
How much exposure would you estimate your delivering to sponsors, as someone who has just made the qualification standard for the US Trials? I could see a local running store giving you a singlet, some discounted or free shoes and, at most, some sort of bonus incentive based on performances at local races.
wejo wrote:
They do this realizing Tyson Gay will only be able to have one small logo that isn't a swoosh. If Gay can have a huge adidas logo, or 2 adidas logos, or even an adidas logo and a EAS logo, Nike is going to have less of the total sponsor real estate so in theory they'll pay the race less to sponsor it
I can understand the argument for limiting the total size of logos for any one company, but I don't see why it would hurt Nike for Tyson Gay to have a small Adidas logo and a small EAS logo.
If you really want to take their argument seriously that having multiple logos diminishes each logo's value, then it seems to me that the worst possible scenario for Nike would be for Tyson Gay to have a single Adidas logo. By this logic, Nike should be encouraging non-Nike athletes to wear multiple logos, as long as only one of them is for a company competing with Nike.
get ugly wrote:
wejo wrote:They do this realizing Tyson Gay will only be able to have one small logo that isn't a swoosh. If Gay can have a huge adidas logo, or 2 adidas logos, or even an adidas logo and a EAS logo, Nike is going to have less of the total sponsor real estate so in theory they'll pay the race less to sponsor it
I can understand the argument for limiting the total size of logos for any one company, but I don't see why it would hurt Nike for Tyson Gay to have a small Adidas logo and a small EAS logo.
If you really want to take their argument seriously that having multiple logos diminishes each logo's value, then it seems to me that the worst possible scenario for Nike would be for Tyson Gay to have a single Adidas logo. By this logic, Nike should be encouraging non-Nike athletes to wear multiple logos, as long as only one of them is for a company competing with Nike.
It's not about Nike vs. adidas. You have to compete in sports gear, so those are accepted realities. The amount of direct shoe company sponsorship in major events isn't nothing, but it isn't everything, either. There is no major marathon in the world which has a shoe company as a primary sponsor.
Geoffrey Mutai is clearly the best marathon runner in the world right now. Suppose there were no logo restrictions and his agent secured a deal for him with British Airways, supplanting his adidas deal. Now whenever he races, British Airways is the first a foremost sponsor advertized. How is that going to work with running the Virgin London Marathon in April? It won't.
HJH wrote: Now whenever he races, British Airways is the first a foremost sponsor advertized. How is that going to work with running the Virgin London Marathon in April? It won't.
Tony Stewart wins the NASCAR Ford 400 at Homestead, Florida.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-11/231808180-21072352.jpgthe duke wrote:
For guys filling out the fields at races, I think it would have great benefit as well. Not only could Meb have Sketchers in bold across the front of his jersey, along with other logos like powerbar, but the guys filling out these pro races could contract with smaller businesses, like a local running store, website, or other sponsor like a racecar driver would. When flotrack does an interview with the 8th place guy in the 5k at some meet, as they often do, he's wearing powerbar on his shoulder, Jim's running store on his front, and Shamwow on his upper chest.
Will it draw new sponsors to the sport? For sure, because the buy in isn't as big as a billboard at a meet. Will it lend more support to lesser runners? Sure, because someone who's running 2:18 in the marathon isn't getting too much help, so getting a couple hundred bucks from each mini-sponsor on the uni buys his plan ticket to a race, some food for the month, etc.
It could mean more guaranteed yearly income for athletes, which at the bottom line, is what is necessary to grow a crop of athletes in someplace other than the third world.
The thing is, there's nothing preventing athletes from getting additional sponsorship. It's all about perceived benefit to the sponsor and how willing an athlete (or an athlete's agent) is to market him or herself. There are lots of sub-elite athlete who do a better job of marketing themselves than some elites. In the Puma contest, there's a 27:31 guy without any kind of sponsorship deal. How is that possible when I have a gear deal and I run 32:30? Maybe it's because I'm better at getting my name (and my sponsor's name) in the public eye.
In your post, you're talking about best case scenarios. I'm looking for real world data. It may turn out that having multiple sponsors on a singlet is the way to go. But has anyone (athletes, agents, coaches, etc.) actually contacted existing or potential sponsors to see how such an arrangement would be structured, how much payout there would be, and if existing sponsors would cut their payment due to having to share the spotlight?
As far as post race interviews, are there rules against putting on another sponsor's shirt when a race is done? (It's an honest question, I don't know if there's an existing IAAF or USATF guideline.)
in sacto wrote:
the duke wrote:For guys filling out the fields at races, I think it would have great benefit as well. Not only could Meb have Sketchers in bold across the front of his jersey, along with other logos like powerbar, but the guys filling out these pro races could contract with smaller businesses, like a local running store, website, or other sponsor like a racecar driver would. When flotrack does an interview with the 8th place guy in the 5k at some meet, as they often do, he's wearing powerbar on his shoulder, Jim's running store on his front, and Shamwow on his upper chest.
Will it draw new sponsors to the sport? For sure, because the buy in isn't as big as a billboard at a meet. Will it lend more support to lesser runners? Sure, because someone who's running 2:18 in the marathon isn't getting too much help, so getting a couple hundred bucks from each mini-sponsor on the uni buys his plan ticket to a race, some food for the month, etc.
It could mean more guaranteed yearly income for athletes, which at the bottom line, is what is necessary to grow a crop of athletes in someplace other than the third world.
The thing is, there's nothing preventing athletes from getting additional sponsorship. It's all about perceived benefit to the sponsor and how willing an athlete (or an athlete's agent) is to market him or herself. There are lots of sub-elite athlete who do a better job of marketing themselves than some elites. In the Puma contest, there's a 27:31 guy without any kind of sponsorship deal. How is that possible when I have a gear deal and I run 32:30? Maybe it's because I'm better at getting my name (and my sponsor's name) in the public eye.
In your post, you're talking about best case scenarios. I'm looking for real world data. It may turn out that having multiple sponsors on a singlet is the way to go. But has anyone (athletes, agents, coaches, etc.) actually contacted existing or potential sponsors to see how such an arrangement would be structured, how much payout there would be, and if existing sponsors would cut their payment due to having to share the spotlight?
As far as post race interviews, are there rules against putting on another sponsor's shirt when a race is done? (It's an honest question, I don't know if there's an existing IAAF or USATF guideline.)
According to the rules being batted about on the boards that USATF apparently uses but may not have actually passed, putting on a shirt with sponsors post race for interviews is a no no. Your post race gear has the same basic sponsorship rules as your race gear.
I hope USATF changes. It is a pathetic organization.
Rod Dixon at the finish of the NYC Marathon in the 80s, presumably before the restrictions.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.70968.1320352207
!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg
Logos for Pan Am, Pepsi and his shoe sponsor, Saucony.
Nick Symmonds posting on Facebook roughly an hour ago...
"Things got pretty heated in tonights meeting. (see Becca Gillespy Peters recap below). I like Jon Drummond and I love his passion. He worked really hard to set up tonight's meeting with the shoe companies and I thank him for that. BUT he told the shoe companies that there would be no media in the room and that no one would be broadcasting the meeting to news outlets. Jon then failed to let anyone else at the meeting know that he promised this to the shoe companies. The shoe companies were furious when they found out that someone was in fact streaming it to Flo Track and left the meeting. Thank you to the Reebok and Saucony reps for returning to the meeting to continue our meaningful discussion. I was disappointed that the Nike reps did not come back. I was even more disappointed that Jon Drummond then chastised the people present at the meeting calling us "unprofessional" for streaming the video. Jon, I respect you, but please don't blame us for your mistake."
HJH wrote:
Why do you see that as the outcome of this process, as opposed to Nike (or whichever shoe company) including an exclusivity clause in all future contracts, big and small? If they're going to pay someone to wear their logo, and the have the ability to make themselves the sole logo on that athlete, why wouldn't they?
I had one sentence in there where I expect a lot of companies to enforce one logo on the jersey. Look at Nike and Tiger Woods. There are no other logos even though Tiger can have them.
I don't think this will revolutionary change the sport that much. However, it's about fairness and not screwing over the athletes with stupid rules. Hopefully it will increase the pie. Don't see how it diminishes it. And at the very least it will upset the status quo and shift money amongst various people.
And for the struggling athlete, say the 27:31 guy without sponsorship, there are very few races where a guy like that runs where uniform restrictions are enforced. If you don't have a sponsor, the ability to have 2 won't help you EXCEPT if you really weren't only getting the first sponsor because of the logo restrictions on the uniforms which I bet that type of guy may not even have been aware of.
Good news on the USATF front. Sound like IAAF will allow 2 logos next year. Recap of the meeting today with Becca's help
http://www.letsrun.com/2011/logo-1202.phpSeveral people speculated about exclusivity in contracts. The major shoe companies already have that in the contracts. Most American athletes run in plenty of races that are not under IAAF rules or USATF's fake rules, they haven't completely been relying on USATF to do their job for them.
This exclusivity issue should be an issue between the athlete, their agent, and their sponsor. The athletes want to be treated like adults, I think most of them are SICK of everyone telling them that this is in their best interest. If I'm an elite athlete that no shoe company wants to sponsor, why should they have the right to keep me from getting a sponsor outside the industry? That is basically what is happening currently.
I will work through thread and see if I can answer any other questions. Sleep is overrated :)
