Let's Figure Out the Details And Get More Context on New USATF Deal: Make a World Champs or Olympic Team - USATF pays you $10K

runbetter wrote:

Pringles wrote:

Running is not a game of skills or team sports. It provides a minuscule amount of entertainment to avg people and that includes 90% of the people who run races. So either you run fast and win or you don't. Nobody owes you anything so you can run twice a day with a power nap in between. It is not unfair. There is no job called Sub Elite professional Runner. Even in baseball, there are a plenty of minor league players who make peanuts and will never see the light of the day.

couldnt agree more... i really have no sympathy for people that cant get money to run.

The huge difference here is that the professional runners who do "make it" are still paid peanuts. We're talking (giddy) about $35k before endorsements. As a PRO. How does that compare to baseball? It doesn't.

I agree with LRC on the underlying questions of:

1. Where is this money coming from? We assume Nike's support

2. Is this a substantial amount of the available money that could potentially be earmarked for athletes?

Here's what I would like to see:

1. More USATF events throughout the Spring and Summer on US soil, each one with some prize money to be paid out. Prize money would come from corporate sponsorships and donations. They do a halfway decent job of this with road races, we need more in track. If it means holding meets that are just: 100, 400, mile, 5000, LJ, HJ, 100h, Shot, so be it. Make the next one: 200, 800, 3000, PV, Discus, 300h, TJ, Jav

2. USATF to challenge developmental groups with providing support to their athletes. So they go to Brooks Beasts and say "We will reimburse you $50,000 annually if you are able to provide $200,000 worth of support to your team" or something like that. The club then has to go find sponsors of their own, but USATF matches a certain amount.

Old D2 Guy wrote:

runbetter wrote:

couldnt agree more... i really have no sympathy for people that cant get money to run.

The huge difference here is that the professional runners who do "make it" are still paid peanuts. We're talking (giddy) about $35k before endorsements. As a PRO. How does that compare to baseball? It doesn't.

Just because youre a professional runner why should you get paid more? The reality is professional runners dont bring in any revenue for a brand so they have no value and people arent going to pay to watch you race because its boring to watch... and this is coming from someone that loves to run and compete.

If you don't want to run for 35k a year then dont and get a job. Nobody is forcing someone to pursue running professionally.

Baseball players make millions because they have TV contracts, endorsements and fill stadiums of people paying 100s of dollars to go to the game... youre right, they dont compare because baseball players draw fans and revenue, runners dont.

Top 40 as determined by Track and Field News rankings.

Its what shoe companies who sponsored teams in the 80's and 90's focused on for continuing sponsorship....

Also, TAC used to send you a letter stating whether they considered you a 'potential Olympian'.

Some sponsors wanted you to achieve that as well .

Like i said, in retrospect the other guys in the top 20, 30, 40 in the US weren't really going to get significantly faster;

Unless you decided to use PED's.

How much did the USATF just get from Nike? Visa? Others? As far as TV contracts are concerned, I think you may be confusing what the MLB has negotiated versus what each individual player had negotiated. Also, our sport doesn't have nearly as many middle men to feed as baseball. Heck, the USATF pays athletes directly.

If I understand you correctly it sounds like the USATF simply needs more televised meets that are well promoted. I can get behind that!

Old D2 Guy wrote:

If I understand you correctly it sounds like the USATF simply needs more televised meets that are well promoted. I can get behind that!

USATF literally has to pay to have their meets televised. Other sports are paid by the networks, but USATF must approach ESPN, NBC, etc. and actually pay them money to get track and TV. Does that sound like a popular sport to you?

(The Olympics Trials are different; that meet's coverage is dictated by NBC's Olympic contract.)

The television ratings for meets that do make it to air are pathetic. Not to mention actual gate receipts at meets.

Face facts: in this country no one is watching track and field or road racing. If no one is watching, there's no money to be made.

watch that stupid box wrote:

Old D2 Guy wrote:

If I understand you correctly it sounds like the USATF simply needs more televised meets that are well promoted. I can get behind that!

USATF literally has to pay to have their meets televised. Other sports are paid by the networks, but USATF must approach ESPN, NBC, etc. and actually pay them money to get track and TV. Does that sound like a popular sport to you?

(The Olympics Trials are different; that meet's coverage is dictated by NBC's Olympic contract.)

The television ratings for meets that do make it to air are pathetic. Not to mention actual gate receipts at meets.

Face facts: in this country no one is watching track and field or road racing. If no one is watching, there's no money to be made.

No my point was this ^. You cant have the events televised because nobody would watch... if you want to get paid more as an athlete you have to make people want to watch which is not likely going to ever happen on a large scale.

How much did the USATF just get from Nike? Visa? Others? As far as TV contracts are concerned, I think you may be confusing what the MLB has negotiated versus what each individual player had negotiated. Also, our sport doesn't have nearly as many middle men to feed as baseball. Heck, the USATF pays athletes directly.

If I understand you correctly it sounds like the USATF simply needs more televised meets that are well promoted. I can get behind that![/quote]

I didn't confuse this I just was trying to be concise. Yes the USATF has those contracts but that doesnt change anything.

Players get paid a ton of money because their teams generate a ton of money and they are vital for bringing in that revenue. The MLB doesnt directly pay athletes, the team does. Why would USATF pay their athletes? MLB is really a terrible comparison, golf would be better. Golf players have better comparison...

Golf tournaments have big purses because the event is sponsored by tv and advertisement (tournaments always have a brand in the name... Deutsche Bank Championship etc...). Are any trrack meets bringing in money? Not really so why would they pay out a lot of money...

I agree, $35k a year isn't much, but when the WNBA first started, the base salary was 18K and I don't recall ever hearing a single WNBA athlete complaining about the money because most of them would have played for free. If you are smart, as in not driving a German car, buying a house or starting a family, you can definitely get by on $35k a year.

runbetter wrote:

Golf tournaments have big purses because the event is sponsored by tv and advertisement (tournaments always have a brand in the name... Deutsche Bank Championship etc...). Are any trrack meets bringing in money? Not really so why would they pay out a lot of money...

Golf is the perfect comparison. I keep hearing track can't make money because it is boring. You want boring? Watch f***ing golf! Jesus, watching the lawn getting sprinkled is more exciting. NASCAR, really? 5 hours of watching a machine go in circles. Really? GDMFing boring.

We need the golf-NASCAR plan pronto.

If there are no logo and trademark restrictions then the $10K is acceptable. As long as we can wear our sponors gear it's o.k. We will not accept USATF acting as a sports agent for Nike.

If you're Nick, you make the team, but you can't (won't) sign the uniform document, do you still get the $10K?

coach d wrote:

If you're Nick, you make the team, but you can't (won't) sign the uniform document, do you still get the $10K?

Don't know.

But on the local news last night, they said or implied this policy is a result of Nick's boycott. Ok, it's in local website:

Larry Dickman wrote:

runbetter wrote:

Golf tournaments have big purses because the event is sponsored by tv and advertisement (tournaments always have a brand in the name... Deutsche Bank Championship etc...). Are any trrack meets bringing in money? Not really so why would they pay out a lot of money...

Golf is the perfect comparison. I keep hearing track can't make money because it is boring. You want boring? Watch f***ing golf! Jesus, watching the lawn getting sprinkled is more exciting. NASCAR, really? 5 hours of watching a machine go in circles. Really? GDMFing boring.

We need the golf-NASCAR plan pronto.

I agree with NASCAR, I don't get it. It is probably because people just like to get wasted at the events. Track= NASCAR without the fun of getting wasted and watching.

Golf though is very entertaining if you have a routing interest for any of the contenders. Thursday/Friday suck but Saturday and especially Sunday are great.

watch that stupid box wrote:

Old D2 Guy wrote:

If I understand you correctly it sounds like the USATF simply needs more televised meets that are well promoted. I can get behind that!

USATF literally has to pay to have their meets televised. Other sports are paid by the networks, but USATF must approach ESPN, NBC, etc. and actually pay them money to get track and TV. Does that sound like a popular sport to you?

(The Olympics Trials are different; that meet's coverage is dictated by NBC's Olympic contract.)

The television ratings for meets that do make it to air are pathetic. Not to mention actual gate receipts at meets.

Face facts: in this country no one is watching track and field or road racing. If no one is watching, there's no money to be made.

This is not entirely true. USATF does have to pay for TV but not all of TV like they used to. There was an interview with someone at USATF that did mention something about cost being cut on the TV side. Many NGB's have to not only pay for TV but also have to pay for announcers and their travel. They also have to pay the network to be on TV. I know this used to be the case for USATF.

If they no longer have to pay to be on NBC and not have to pay for announcers and travel, that is at least a step in the right direction.

The TV ratings are actually really good. NBC Sports Network isn't ESPN or NBC but track and field is usually 1st or 2nd highest rated show. When on ESPN or NBC they beat most sports (e.g. college basketball, MLB, MLS, Dew Series, X-Games, etc.) and are on par with Notre Dame football.

Track and field will never get paid unless they have more content and it seems more events are falling off. If track and field had 20 events someone would probably pay them for the rights.

The acute problem we see at every USATF run meet are the dozens and dozens of 40-90 year old USATF insiders who stand around and do simple, symbolic jobs, yet, get awarded free airline, hotel, food, car, and swag paid for 100% by USATF. Vin Lanana contributes to this inequalty [allegedly] by 'influence peddling', with his well-known, widely talked-of, and infamous "expense vouchers" of $1000-$2000 for USATF Certified Ofiicials. Those quid-pro-quo payments cuts into allocations for young elite medal hopefuls.

The AAC is a shill for Highttower and Seagull. It's best to retain Lee Steinberg for a complete review of this potential nuclear bomb for our athletes.

The TV ratings are actually really good. NBC Sports Network isn't ESPN or NBC but track and field is usually 1st or 2nd highest rated show. When on ESPN or NBC they beat most sports (e.g. college basketball, MLB, MLS, Dew Series, X-Games, etc.) and are on par with Notre Dame football.

Track on OTA NBC is reliably a 1.0. That generally beats, by a little, the time buy shows like Dew Tour. ND Football is 2.5-4.0 for that afternoon slot. Other comparisons are not meaningful as those are regional shows on OTA channels or cable cats including RSNs. Do not compare NBC Sports Channel, likely free air time to USATF, to NBC proper (maybe a time buy still, maybe not). NBC Sports ratings are usually .1 or less (I looked at late June and the NBCSN shows were listed as 0.0 with 100K range of viewers).

USATF prob does not spend much on the internet channel given what we see. Not an insult - just reality. If a few then thousand people access the webcast of a meet, they win (not financially, but psychologically).

I think we can agree there is no money from TV. There is no meaningful money from sponsors not rhyming with "psyche." Membership and user fees from youth and masters either break even or don't pay the bills for those programs. The real question: why isn't 90% of USATF total income spent on elite programs. Every dime spent on staff salaries and travel, on office space and marketing, is money pulled from those who should get it.