Mike Lundgren wrote:
Thank you for the polite correction, so he actually made $5,666 plus USATF money.
Classy response to someone who deserved much less.
Your points are well said and very true.
Seriously, if a gold tournament can generate money so can an xc meet- esp a global one.
Enough money that goes deep enough will bring in the talent.
True's earnings should be for someone WAY back, not near the front.
. . . wrote:
where do you think money comes from?
dont think a cross country meet generates that much money man/
True. The money comes from sponsors. Golf and tennis are poor analogies to XC. Those two sports have very generous sponsorship deals with companies that are interested in funding TV coverage that lasts several hours each weekend. This is a reasonable marketing strategy because they reach an audience of relatively affluent people who are willing to spend enormous sums of money to participate in the sport on a recreational basis.
In addition, the sponsors reach very interested spectators who serve in executive positions with major corporations. This can help steer business for corporate accounts. Look at the list of PGA sponsors. A good number are not geared toward individual end users, like Seiko is.
http://www.pgatour.com/company/partners.htmlGranted, some of corporate execs are also runners, but they may just pay for one $150 marathon entry each year. Golfers (who play on the equivalent level of hobby joggers) pay hundreds of dollars each week in greens fees in addition to untold sums on equipment, club memberships, lessons and trips to Myrtle Beach each year.
World Cross attracts the interest of HS and college runners and middle aged LRC trolls:). PricewaterhouseCoopers is not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to attract a target audience of people that still live with their Moms, complain about race fees and don't want to pay for Flotrack.
Who cares true is overrated
It's funny how the top Africans are skipping the event because they're not getting paid enough (or their dodgy agent/coach/doctor won't get paid enough) when the reason for the complete lack of interest and sponsorship for the event is African dominance.
Maybe or maybe not , we need to understand where the bar could be and how other sports payout vs ours. No we will never have golf or tennis dollars , thats not the point , we do need though to up the level of professional development of of the sport so that it does gain respect and becomes a event of importance to the world of running and beyond.
This site is not indicative of the target audience , selling the sport to sponsors falls into the category of human interest as we might see on cable TV , the slurry of trash that gets produced ,funded and shown is remarkable. World Cross could be a very interesting if done correctly for cable programming , if done well the global reach could be big , thus attracting far more dollars than we see today sprinkled on the event.
You miss the point in your understanding of corporate sponsorship , entertainment value of senior execs is just one part , reaching the mass audience and getting as many eyes on the logo is the end game. The associative factor of brand to golf to event and how it may or may not impact sales and brand image is always a big question. If the sport of XC can gain a fraction of that we can far better off than what we see today.
chump change wrote:
Dead last in Master's Golf $26,000 , just making first round in a tennis major $8k.
Its embarrassing what is paid out in a WC event for the sport.
Couple of things:
1. The Masters is promoted.
2. People watch the Masters.
3. Companies will pay to be associated with the masters.
None of those things are really true of World XC.
Did YOU watch it live? Welcome to the club. All 40 of us.
Saucony may throw a few $$$ to Ben, Great Race
at the red hook criterium tonight he could have won $1300 for a 14:30 5k.
weird economics.
Why don't fast people show up to win these things? Someone in the NYC area is a 14 minute 5ker with nothing to do on a saturday night, no?
Still missing it.
Yes you are correct , thats why we have to look at ways to change the perception of the sport. We are at the absolute bottom now , it's time we lifted the perception .
We will never be mass market nor attract Masters dollars which is fine and expected. We can though have a presence and space beyond what we have now.
You are making points I entirely agree with. Sadly, it is still a problem that the IAAF has, with them living in Monaco and not seeing how their lack of global promotion and global reach is creating the loss of interest that occurred since at least the 1980's in the US, back in the days of TAC/Olan Cassell/good old boys network. Maybe IAAF thinks that, since they have a handful of longtime sponsors (Seiko, Coke, whoever) that they are doing well, but they are probably getting only a pittance of what might come their way if they look beyond knowing that the BBC has a few TV cameras showing up. What gets a viewer most excited, some crashes (there were those), nationalism (US vs. the world), drama (come from behind races occurred), the unknown (who was this Korir, this True, this Derrick, this Vail, this Mack that we saw), beautiful scenery (think X-Games, Winter Olympics, etc.).
I do see that USATF is still part of the problem, too. They could do much more than just make True their Athlete of the Week, post-coverage. Really? Really!? That's it?! Where's the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Boston Globe links? Do they think there aren't runners in those towns? And do they just go to Poland and NOT talk to the IAAF about how poor the IAAF's reach is in the US?
You are so right "We can have a presence and space beyond what we have now". That should be the Mission Statement of USATF.