Leo Manzano: " I do feel I should have gotten a higher paying contract after my initial contract was up."

Star wrote:

You want photos?

http://c2971522.r22.cf0.rackcdn.com/7v0wNll9qJmsADxxCOll.jpghttp://ih.constantcontact.com/fs079/1103726989975/img/473.jpghttp://i.huffpost.com/gen/1129203/thumbs/o-LEONEL-MANZANO-facebook.jpghttp://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/d3/d30d5fb5-9da0-4c7c-ae61-b7e0151b5ae9.jpg

This is an interesting thread. Nike will still get Leo in all the pictures above as when he wears the USA singlet it will have a Nike on it.

One thing LRC should look into is if Nike has scaled back on the individual athlete level and just bumped the $ saved to USATF.

The Leo vs Galen comparison is a good one. Is Galen way more marketable than Leo? It's my understanding Galen is one of the highest paid Nike distance runners yet you all are comparing him to Leo who got his contract cut.

A bunch of journalists were talking about Leo at World Relays and we all agreed that Leo is one of the most impressive guys in the mixed zone. He is a pleasure to talk to. That is different from selling shoes, but if Hoka One utilizes Leo the right way they have a lot to work with.

You mention the flag as if Nike only sells products to Americans, white Americans at that.

Nike could have used Leo to target the Latino population both inside and outside the US.

Sounds like lazy marketing on Nike's half if you ask me. What did they ever do to individually market Leo after winning the silver medal, even to the running world?

"Leo was without a sponsor and on his own at the age of 28. He had a child to support, bills to pay and was not prepared for a life without running."

Manzano has a kid?!?!

What the? wrote:

It seems that what he does not understand is that he was not an employee of Nike but was sponsored by Nike.

Those come with different expectations. A good employee generally gets additional benefits including higher pay as things move along. Someone who is sponsored needs more than just good performance. They need to prove how they can be out there and promote the product they are sponsoring. Unless you are by far the best, performing well is only one aspect of this.

If I am wrong and he was an employee, forget what I said to a degree but the same idea still holds with regards to athletes who are sponsored.

Employees get screwed all of the time also. When you don't get what you deserve the only recourse is to leave and find another company.

your analysis is quite wrong.

getting silver means opportunities for bigger meets and more exposure.

if exposure is the key for sponsors, then he certainly deserves more money.

global teams you are missing the trend = excellent out of college, and improving. gold is as far as you can get.

on a peaking time table US nationals not so important. making the team is more important. how many US finals? how many teams?

rankings; Kenyans only get to send 3 to big meets. top 10 also misleading.

not a linear relationship on finishing place.

mexican flag? give me a break. have you seen US demographics?

337 looking at backs and 337 kicking for a win. see the difference?

average time is also misleading. how much faster does he run at Pre if

Tom Jordan does the right thing? I'm thinking 1-2 seconds.

Dude are seriously that much f @$! $ retarded?!!!

Retired Steepler wrote:

A Duck wrote:

Yeah, but they can be money making pros until age 65, 75, I know an 82 year old who still works cos he loves it.

Pro runners have a shelf life.

Sure, but we're talking about a guy losing his contract at age 28 immediately following an Olympic silver medal.

I like Leo, and I think he does his sponsor due-diligence. But Leo had a lot going against him post olympics for contract $, in order of importance:

1) Timing of his contract. There's a reason contracts expire after olympic years. Even with great performances, contract renewals tend to reduce, unless you're on a major upswing, very young, and/or just did something spectacular (a la Michael Johnson '96).

2) Leo's over the hill for a miler. Do you see Leo progressing to be a medal threat in the longer distances?

3) Leo's inconsistency. He's a baller, hell of a racer - love him for how he races. But I personally discount him every time out due to his Leo Light and Dark performances. I failed to include him on my olympian list in '12. Then he wins the trials. I didn't even consider him a medal threat, then he get's silver. If I'm not alone on this, Leo's not very visible as a consistent favorite that a shoe company can build some marketing inertia around. Think Reebok w/ Dan and Dave. Think athletes that Nike tends to market more (Rupp, Lagat, Flanagan) that are (almost) always performing. You don't put all the $/effort in an athlete when the chances of success/failure are 50/50.

4) Marketability. I'm guessing the Hispanic/Latin American market is either: 1) not buying alot of specialty Nike running shoes, or 2) don't consider Leo a Mexican role model (i.e. won't promote the purchase of more Nike products in the US). If either of the above wasn't the case (either across the border, or via our own Hispanic/Latino HS and adult market), I'd think Nike would be all over the likes of a Leo for future sales.

5) The flag issue. Same with Symmonds and some of his recent fanfare. I think there's a fine line with the likes of Nike between good publicity (i.e. that can sell more product) and bad publicity that just makes Nike look off. Leo and Symmonds are not Nike's past Agassi, Barkley, etc. - and they're not the likes of Woods who can F up but still sell product.

6) Leo's affiliation with a Nike-sponsored coaching group and/or ties to Oregon. It may be flash-bulb memory, but athletes who went to U of O or other Oregon schools, have ties to Oregon, and/or have publicly declared Oregon as their home and training base seem to stay with Nike for a long time (i.e. better contracts?).

Leo Manzano doesn't have a sponsor because he licks himself.

What shoe company wants their athlete licking himself in their gear on worldwide television?

Good post with the exception of #5. No one outside of Letsrun gives a sh*t about "the flag issue."

This is a great example of sponsorship based on marketability vs. performance. Leo was ranked in U.S. top 10 every year from 2005-2013, was ranked in World top 10 in 2010, 2012, won a silver medal in the 1500m in 2012 Olympics, and finished in the top 3 at every U.S. Outdoor Championship from 2006-2013. Kenneth Ferguson (400mH, Allyson Felix boyfriend) hasn't been ranked in U.S. or World top 10 since 2007, nor has run a competitive 400mH since 2007. Leo's performance history is clearly better, longer in duration, and more recent than Kenneth's, but Nike values the marketability of Kenneth over Leo. Nike's marketing department apparently thinks Leo can't help sell Nike product, while they don't want their million dollar cash cow (Felix) seen to be dating a college dropout with no job, so they provide Kenneth a Nike sponsorship. Our gut instinct tells us athletic sponsorships should be a form of meritocracy, but reality is (and always has been) quite different.

Once a Niker wrote:

6) Leo's affiliation with a Nike-sponsored coaching group and/or ties to Oregon. It may be flash-bulb memory, but athletes who went to U of O or other Oregon schools, have ties to Oregon, and/or have publicly declared Oregon as their home and training base seem to stay with Nike for a long time (i.e. better contracts?).

This may be one of the most overlooked reasons for his situation.

He is kind of like a remote employee that is disconnected form the good ole boy network.

Although Nick Symmonds is gone from Nike after getting his Silver last year.

But I think his situation and personality is quite different from Leo's.

It's not like other pro sports.

We don't know the dollars involved so it gets harder to really speculate.

I also want to address the question of him progressing to be a medal threat.

Manzano was the first American to get an Olympic medal in the 1500m in 44 years and it's now been 50 years since the last 5000m medal.

The country has been devoid of medal threats in general.

Maybe he should be celebrated a little more.

I do agree that Centro would be the guy to back right now if I was focusing on the future.

Retired Steepler wrote:

For some reason, I thought Nike dropped him. I was wrong. From the article:

"Soon after getting his silver medal his contract was up for renewal. Leo felt assured he would be compensated for his performance by getting a higher paying contract. After all, he was loyal, had worked hard and more importantly, performed well at the highest level. To his surprise and disappointment, the amount of money Nike offered him was less than what he wanted and felt he deserved. Though I did not get specific numbers from Leo, it is clear, he felt undervalued by an employer to which he was so loyal. Negotiations continued to stall and eventually Leo found himself without a shoe sponsor."

Not sure why you would think this. It's safe to say that nearly every situation like his is because they wanted more but Nike has all the negotiating power.

People on these forums like to act like it's all Nike's fault as the dropped them but its more a failing to agree on terms (aka $$). Sometimes it's less than before or not as much as they are wanting but the athlete is the one that chooses not to except what is on the table. They aren't the victim in most cases.

normal person. wrote:

yep, and winning a Silver Medal means your shelf life is clearly up. and what was your point Duck?

There's only one medal that counts for anything marketing wise.

wejo wrote:

One thing LRC should look into is if Nike has scaled back on the individual athlete level and just bumped the $ saved to USATF.

You've already done that. Nike's bazzillion year extension to the USATF contract is actually a REDUCTION in yearly commitment when examined under NPV.

wejo wrote:

The Leo vs Galen comparison is a good one. Is Galen way more marketable than Leo? It's my understanding Galen is one of the highest paid Nike distance runners yet you all are comparing him to Leo who got his contract cut.

Leo is a much better interview than Rupp, but beyond that he is much less marketable and less valuable to Nike. First, Rupp is virtually guaranteed to make the Olympics and WC in two events through 2016. He benefits from the association with Farah, who is one of the 2 or 3 biggest track stars in the world. But more importantly, Rupp holds residual value for someone investing in an athlete because of his ability to eventually move up to the marathon. Rupp will generate interest on the track through 2016 and if he wins any more medals, his marathon debut will be a huge PR opportunity. There is no such residual value for Manzano.

None of this is meant to diminish Leo, who is one of my favorite athletes and is a wonderful ambassador for the sport. His platform is just a lot smaller, meaning his compensation will be as well. (Just look at twitter. Leo is great in that format and still has 10,000 fewer followers than Rupp who hasn't posted in 2 years.)

Don't be so sure:http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/opinion/navarrette-olympics-flags/http://www.npr.org/2012/09/18/161346427/us-medalist-makes-no-apologies-for-mexican-flaghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/us-olympic-athlete-mexica_n_1767726.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/article/usa-medalist-leo-manzano-waves-mexican-flag-after-silver-win-americans-angry

buy a vowel wrote:

Good post with the exception of #5. No one outside of Letsrun gives a sh*t about "the flag issue."

51 million Americans run every year, 29 million regularly.

Running Times and Runner's World are read by over a million Americans every month, the average reader being a college grad in their early 40s.

If 1% of sales are influenced in their choice by elite athletes, it must makes a difference.

Once a Niker wrote:

Don't be so sure:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/opinion/navarrette-olympics-flags/http://www.npr.org/2012/09/18/161346427/us-medalist-makes-no-apologies-for-mexican-flaghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/us-olympic-athlete-mexica_n_1767726.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/article/usa-medalist-leo-manzano-waves-mexican-flag-after-silver-win-americans-angry

The so-called "flag issue" is contrived by people who are looking for something to be offended about.

For the life of me I cannot see an issue. Manzano obviously carried around the Stars and Stripes prominently, and the Mexican flag was ornamental. Seems like a very appropriate gesture and acknowledgment of his heritage.

The real "flag issue" if you need one, is Bernard Lagat, an American citizen, romping around in a Kenyan flag at the 2004 Olympics.

Leo's a champ and if contracts were built solely on merit, he'd make amongst the most in the US. But they're not. We live in a world where Snooki is a millionaire actress and Mark Rylance is unknown. Let's not pretend everyone gets by on their finishing time.