It's Jason Day. If you follow any bit of golf, he is very well known as he's won a major and he's always competing for one and always one of the top ranking players. Of course he gets nice money from his sponsors.
Unless you're really into running, you wouldn't know who Bekele or kipchoge is. You may know Galen Rupp if you're an American, but I doubt it.
Why is this even a topic? It doesn't pay to be a pro runner, but it's a big business as participation or working out activity.
Tyson is a more known Gay than Jason.
adsfasdfasdfdsafdsaaf wrote:
Problem is that 99%+ of runners watch 0 diamond league meets/year and only a small fraction watch something like boston/NY. The running market is as large as the golf market. But the golf market follows the sport a lot more so investing in top athletes makes sense. The running market does their own thing so investing in an elite runner makes zero sense.
This is why golfers get paid so much.
Also, many hobbygolfers think that they actually might have a chance at becoming a pro some day (if they can quit their job and golf more). They believe this even if they are fat, alcoholic, unathletic, etc. They know golf is a game and success is based primarily on skill. So they belief they potentially have a great deal in common with the pro golfers so they follow them.
Every once in a while a hobbygolfer makes a shot that is as good as, or better than, a pro. Even if its just a 10 foot putt. This gives the hobbygolfer hope.
Hobbyjoggers are primarily into running for personal reasons. They know they do not have the genetics, the lifestyle, the physiology and the commitment to become an elite. They know they will never be a great runner so they have no interest in or connection to the elite runners.
A hobbyjogger never (or very rarely) runs as fast as an elite runner. The clock does not lie. The vast majority of hobbyjoggers know they can not run a quarter mile at the same pace required to qualify for the Olympic Trials Marathon (and similarly they can not run as fast as the pace required to do a 10k or shorter at the elite level). So there is no connection with the faster runners, even in the dreams of hobbyjoggers.
Is he Tyson Day's brother?
This is a really stupid question. If Day is near the top of the leaderboard in a major, he gets hours on television in his nice Nike clothing to a massive audience. A Nike track athlete if they are lucky gets about 3 minutes screen time to a micro audience and is wearing a singlet.
its egun wrote:
Jason Day.
Probably good for 4 or 5 majors over the next ten years.
He's always around the leaderboard, he's charismatic, handsome, well spoken and a hero in South Africa.
I guess that's the going rate.
(And you're probably right about the whole track budget thing).
Jason Day capitalized on the great finish to 2015 and early 2016. I'm not sure he's good for multiple additional majors. He didn't seem to enjoy the additional scrutiny once he reached number one. Lots of guys with tons of talent and great swings win that one major and then fail to meet the lofty projections -- Tom Weiskopf, Fred Couples, Davis Love. None of them won another major.
Day had troubled teenage years but now has settled into contented family man with a couple of kids. I don't think he has the ruthless attitude of Jordan Speith, for example.
Golf is somewhat of an oddity since participation numbers have really dropped in this country but the sponsors continue to line up for tournaments, marquee players and TV coverage.
"Sounds like a lot, but when you consider Nike sells $30 billion worth of sports stuff a year and has a marketing budget estimated to be more than $2 billion, the $10 million it just paid Day is a rounding error."
Nike even pay Paris St-Germain football club $28 million to wear their clothes.
"Their shirts are sponsored by Nike and, according to reports, the club are paid about 24m euros (£21.5m) per season by the sportswear company."
Adidas pay Manchester United $98 million.
Barcelona get $156 million.
golf is a game wrote:
adsfasdfasdfdsafdsaaf wrote:Problem is that 99%+ of runners watch 0 diamond league meets/year and only a small fraction watch something like boston/NY. The running market is as large as the golf market. But the golf market follows the sport a lot more so investing in top athletes makes sense. The running market does their own thing so investing in an elite runner makes zero sense.
This is why golfers get paid so much.
Also, many hobbygolfers think that they actually might have a chance at becoming a pro some day (if they can quit their job and golf more). They believe this even if they are fat, alcoholic, unathletic, etc. They know golf is a game and success is based primarily on skill. So they belief they potentially have a great deal in common with the pro golfers so they follow them.
Every once in a while a hobbygolfer makes a shot that is as good as, or better than, a pro. Even if its just a 10 foot putt. This gives the hobbygolfer hope.
Hobbyjoggers are primarily into running for personal reasons. They know they do not have the genetics, the lifestyle, the physiology and the commitment to become an elite. They know they will never be a great runner so they have no interest in or connection to the elite runners.
A hobbyjogger never (or very rarely) runs as fast as an elite runner. The clock does not lie. The vast majority of hobbyjoggers know they can not run a quarter mile at the same pace required to qualify for the Olympic Trials Marathon (and similarly they can not run as fast as the pace required to do a 10k or shorter at the elite level). So there is no connection with the faster runners, even in the dreams of hobbyjoggers.
This doesn't explain why another mass participation sport like tennis has participants who also follow pro tennis. Most social tennis players know they will never, ever get close to being a pro -- they don't have the tennis skills and if they do, they don't have the athletic skills -- but they still follow the major tennis tournaments.
golf is a game wrote:
adsfasdfasdfdsafdsaaf wrote:Problem is that 99%+ of runners watch 0 diamond league meets/year and only a small fraction watch something like boston/NY. The running market is as large as the golf market. But the golf market follows the sport a lot more so investing in top athletes makes sense. The running market does their own thing so investing in an elite runner makes zero sense.
This is why golfers get paid so much.
Also, many hobbygolfers think that they actually might have a chance at becoming a pro some day (if they can quit their job and golf more). They believe this even if they are fat, alcoholic, unathletic, etc. They know golf is a game and success is based primarily on skill. So they belief they potentially have a great deal in common with the pro golfers so they follow them.
Every once in a while a hobbygolfer makes a shot that is as good as, or better than, a pro. Even if its just a 10 foot putt. This gives the hobbygolfer hope.
Hobbyjoggers are primarily into running for personal reasons. They know they do not have the genetics, the lifestyle, the physiology and the commitment to become an elite. They know they will never be a great runner so they have no interest in or connection to the elite runners.
A hobbyjogger never (or very rarely) runs as fast as an elite runner. The clock does not lie. The vast majority of hobbyjoggers know they can not run a quarter mile at the same pace required to qualify for the Olympic Trials Marathon (and similarly they can not run as fast as the pace required to do a 10k or shorter at the elite level). So there is no connection with the faster runners, even in the dreams of hobbyjoggers.
And 90% of golfers are hobby golfers with nothing close to the talent of the pros.
Most people just don't like watching running. They don't see the point. I'm not one of them and I'm a "hobby jogger". But I absolutely love watching road races and track and field. I don't mind watching golf either but usually just the majors.
But to me nothing compares with watching elites race on the road. I guess I'm weird and in the minority of sports fans.
I also played tennis in high school. I love watching tennis and have followed the sport all my life.
My 2 favorites sports to watch these days are tennis and running.
I never watched running until I started running 8yrs ago.
its egun wrote:
Jason Day.
Probably good for 4 or 5 majors over the next ten years.
He's always around the leaderboard, he's charismatic, handsome, well spoken and a hero in South Africa.
I guess that's the going rate.
(And you're probably right about the whole track budget thing).
It's great that he's idolised outside of Australia. In light of the above quote, can the Aussies claim Wayde Van Niekirk, regardless of the fact he may have never set foot in the country?
"We think of Nike as track brand but how much do you think THERE total US endorsement contracts are worth?"
its "they're" not "there" moran you're english is bad
Rojo am a good writer wrote:
"We think of Nike as track brand but how much do you think THERE total US endorsement contracts are worth?"
its "they're" not "there" moran you're english is bad
or "their" good try though
CallMeCaitlyn wrote:
I thought Nike said it s getting out of golf stuff, same as adidas?
they don't do clubs anymore, but they still do clothing.
bladerunner wrote:
Rojo wrote:I was reading an article on the British Open that said Jason Gay gets $10 million a year from Nike. I almost fell out of my chair.
We think of Nike as track brand but how much do you think there total US endorsement contracts are worth?
Wannabe consultants, this is the perfect type of job interview question. Let's do the math. How many track US athletes does Nike sponsor and what does it total to?
I'm assuming it's over 10 million but this summer heat has sapped my energy to figure it out myself.
Jordan Spieth's contract with Under Armor has been kept private but I've read it's more than twice Jason Day's. I assume you meant Day, not Gay. Jason Gay is a sports writer with the WSJ. Also, Rory Mcilroy's contract with Nike is significantly more than Jason Days. To put it in perspective, I would wager any amount that Jordan Spieth's caddy makes more than any track athlete.
here is an article from last year that breaks down roughly what caddies earn.
http://heavy.com/sports/2015/07/michael-greller-jordan-spieths-caddie-salary-earnings-money-bonus-net-worth/Wrong again wrote:
Rojo am a good writer wrote:"We think of Nike as track brand but how much do you think THERE total US endorsement contracts are worth?"
its "they're" not "there" moran you're english is bad
or "their" good try though
sarcastically challenged much?
Do you even think, bro? wrote:
Nobody cares about running except a few idiots who post threads about such things as which Greek god would scrawny Evan Jager play in a hypothetical movie starring mostly unknown scrawny runners.
That's so unfair & dishonest. The thread was about which ROMAN god he'd play.
PS OP would have typed "Geek god," and then wondered why everyone was talking about Bill Gates.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
CallMeCaitlyn wrote:I thought Nike said it s getting out of golf stuff, same as adidas?
Pretty much true. I think that they have both sold their golf club divisions.
It is easier for them to do sponsorship deals if they are merchandise and footwear only. Clubs hurt their ability to partner with clothing. More conflicts, etc.