amy yoder begley talks about track runners contracts.

Bubba Olaf wrote:

Bearing in mind the concept of athetes being "billboards" upon which the company brand is viewed, how likely is it that someone like Brie Felnagle will hold a contract longer than a less attractive female distance runner? Felnagle isn't particularly competitive of late, but she certainly is easy on the eyes (not unlike Anna Kournikova or Danica Patrick).

Felnagle had a pretty good 2012, just ran out of gas by the summer. ran 15:20 and won club nats xc over katie follet and olympian julie culley. At the very least leaps and bounds ahead of where Yoder Begley's been for the past several years. But your right Begley lost her contract and not Felnagle because of how they look.

It's written into Felix's contract that he gets something.

Amy YB looks better than Felnagle. I do not understand this board's obsession with Felnagle's looks. I don't even like to comment on such things, but I could name 15 elite U.S. women who are better.

Felnagle has a contract because she's younger and her career is perceived as on the rise. Yoder Begley, alas, is on the tail end of her career at best. It may actually be over.

Beoynd Goucher and Meb and Ryan Hall and maybe Shalane Flanagan and Bernard Lagat, I wonder how many American runners' names and faces actually sell shoes. I'm not even sure Rupp or Centrowitz do.

How do you know he has a contract ? My guess he get's his free shoes etc. through Allyson , he gets into meets as a token because of his GF.

I think athletes also need to look at themselves as salesmen (or women). They get commission (bonuses) on top performances. Just like a sales person gets paid on how many sales they make. If they dont sell, they dont get paid.

[/quote]

Salespeople in most companies get a base salary and benefits like health insurance. AYB has it right in her column that the athletes are independent contractors.

Questions asked wrote:

How do you know he has a contract ? My guess he get's his free shoes etc. through Allyson , he gets into meets as a token because of his GF.

He is self-described as a "Professional Track Athlete for Nike" on his twitter page --

He is listed as being represented by Emanuel Hudson / HSI Internatinoal on USATF site and HSI site.

korviev wrote:

I think athletes also need to look at themselves as salesmen (or women). They get commission (bonuses) on top performances. Just like a sales person gets paid on how many sales they make. If they dont sell, they dont get paid.

Salespeople in most companies get a base salary and benefits like health insurance. AYB has it right in her column that the athletes are independent contractors.

Many salespeople are classified as independent contractors--like in multi level marketing companies such as Avon or Mary Kay--in which case they don't get a base salary or any benefits.

Man, reading that makes me understand Alan Webb entirely different.

Ah man you have to feel bad for everyone save for Rupp and Bekele.

...and maybe Kara G.

Wonder what Ritz's contract is like. 'Effin nightmare. Hahah!

Rupp and Bekele aren't selling shoes, whoever said charity is right along with shoe rep posturing contests.

Vivian Cheruiyot is overdoing track and field and cross country. Vivian plans on the cross country circuit after the track season. Vivian hardly run roads like the half marathon. She run 5k and 10k on the track.

Why is Vivian training so much for track and cross country? She should run a 10k race. She runs the stupid cross country and track race where theres a few same old competitors. Linet Masai quit the track and move to the roads. Linet wasn't at bruxulles the final track race.

Idiot Who Is Typical wrote:

Beoynd Goucher and Meb and Ryan Hall and maybe Shalane Flanagan and Bernard Lagat, I wonder how many American runners' names and faces actually sell shoes. I'm not even sure Rupp or Centrowitz do.

This seems to be a very intriguing question. Lets say Puma gives Bolt 1 million a year to be their billboard. Do they sell more than 1 million dollars of their product as a result of that billboard?

Alan Webb was making something like 800k when he left Michigan. Did he net them more than that per year in sales because he was wearing Nike?

At times I think its amazing that shoe companies even still choose track athletes as billboards. Is it really worth the cost to them?

Shoe and apparel companies need to look at how the board sport companies are doing it and take notes. There are bits of it at NB with the Anton 110 and the 890 for Simpson and Baddley.

They need to harness the appeal of great, competitive runners and drop some money on making pro-model shoes with their names on them. Fresh, young pros could be a good place to start.

Seriously, how many pairs of spikes would Nike have sold if they just did an Alan Webb version of the Miler in 2007?

Look More Closelerly wrote:

This seems to be a very intriguing question. Lets say Puma gives Bolt 1 million a year to be their billboard. Do they sell more than 1 million dollars of their product as a result of that billboard?

you might enjoy "Googled,"

, for an illuminating anecdote at the beginning. the google guys go to an ad exec and pitch their new idea, the most fundamental thing google has ever done: quantify the value of an advertisement by how much revenue it generates based on a formula of likelihood to be clicked, click quantity, likelihood that a click leads to a purchase, and a bunch of other complicated stuff. And the ad exec looks at them horrified and says "guys, you're f***ing with the magic!" modern advertisements is one part voodoo, one part guesswork, three parts salesmanship to the companies buying the ad services.

It's impossible to tell if Galen Rupp sells any shoes, and that's perfect for the admen. To me, there seems to be more value in a contract like Meb's with sketchers. They're completely not known as a running company, and if he really does run marathons/train in them, they have to at least be ok. They're like an independent candidate who gets an endorsement from a beloved figure (say, Colin Powell), except it's not a winner-takes-all game. Nike or Asics is like Barack Obama; the vast majority of people are already decided on whether they like the brand.

A couple of points on the topic of "professional" T&F athletes from a business person's perspective:

1) For all but a handful of top T&F athletes (count them on one hand), choosing a professional T&F career is at best a choice to lead a life on a subsistence level based on chintzy compensation (mostly contracted comp from shoe companies, some event purse money). This applies to 99% of T&F pros.

2) Your value is mostly driven by your performance, most recently, and anticipated based on recent performance. A substantial premium can be expected for runners who are especially physically attractive AND are charismatic. Very few qualify, but for those that do (think LoLo, at least in the run-up to the Olympics), there is a substantial upside. And, then there are the personalities who attract lots of attention (think Bolt). For these chosen few, there is n money to be made. Again, maybe a 5-10 at best at any point in time.

3) From a shoe company perspective, their marketing spend for top T&F pros has a huge payback. Celebrity runners who are attractive and charismatic sell in T&F just like any other sport.

4) IAAF and USATF apparently actually depress the upside of T&F pro comp by limiting their endorsements to one company, according to Yoder Begley. This is an outrage and smacks of influence peddling by the big shoe companies. There is no reason a pro T&F athlete shouldn't be able to wear the product or company logo of more than on sponsor. Period. All pros should be up in arms about this.

5) Yes, Feinagle falls into the category of the "attractive" athlete who might warrant higher compensation because of her looks.

Bottom line: For 99% of T&F athletes who have the option of going pro: Do it for your ego, do it for the lifestyle, do it because you thinks it is fun. Do NOT do it because you are going to earn a living wage. For most of you, consider the implications of forestalling a real career choice to pursue an ego trip that has limited expected value.

If you choose the pro path, don't come onto the Lets Run board in retrospect and kvetch when the reality of the pathetic comp available to pro T&F athletes rears its ugly head.

Discuss.

---

The reality is that the only real athletes that have a tangible track record of product sales to consumers are basketball athletes , # 1 being Jordan.

Puma most recent may have visibility with Bolt , but sales as a company have been on downhill slide.

Track and field has a once every 4 years bump and the periodic special televised meet , not many eyeballs on the product outside of that.

Road racing and marathoning are active participant events that lend far more relevance to sponsorship due to the amount of exposure in multiple events over the course of a year. You also have venues to tie in ( expo's ) sales and contact with the brand/athletes.

Athletes see this as window of time in your life to get the best out of your athletic ability , see the world , gain experience that will help you later on in life and know your lucky to have had the opportunity to do it.

What do American's have such stupid names?

Sounds like a cartoon