USA Track & Field defends CEO’s $4.2 million 2018 salary number

David S wrote:

Limousine Libertarian wrote:

Thanks to Max's leadership, their revenue from $17 million to $40 million per year, so paying him only $1.2 million per year is a bargain for USATF. I fully support this.

This isn't relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing whether paying him $1.2 million would be a bargain if there weren't a global pandemic (although for the record people have claimed the Nike deal was terrible, go back and read old Letsrun articles). Rather, we're pointing out that 7 members of his staff have lost their jobs while his compensation remains far higher than he needs to survive. It's immoral.

This topic is about his 2018 compensation, and people are offended by his high salary regardless of the pandemic.

Firing people during this pandemic is also the correct action, because those people can collect government money, and get hired back later, while USATF can save money. To do otherwise would be stupid.

None of the Communications Majors in my sorority in college were in need as they had families with plenty.

edumacation rulez wrote:

Fleshman said on twitter that the board is unlikely to get rid of him before his contract expires in 2024.

I forgot she was on the Board. She used to be so outspoken about the problems within USATF. Now that she is on the board she is silent. Maybe she's just being a team player and working within the system which is what I get but a little transparency might be a good thing.

Limousine Libertarian wrote:

David S wrote:

This isn't relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing whether paying him $1.2 million would be a bargain if there weren't a global pandemic (although for the record people have claimed the Nike deal was terrible, go back and read old Letsrun articles). Rather, we're pointing out that 7 members of his staff have lost their jobs while his compensation remains far higher than he needs to survive. It's immoral.

This topic is about his 2018 compensation, and people are offended by his high salary regardless of the pandemic.

Firing people during this pandemic is also the correct action, because those people can collect government money, and get hired back later, while USATF can save money. To do otherwise would be stupid.

No this was a response to another thread that claimed his compensation was 1.1 million and he's cut it by 20% while firing 7 employees.

Here are some reasons why the rest of your statement doesn't make sense:

1. If you fire them they're not doing their jobs. Max isn't going to suddenly do the jobs of 8 people.

2. If you're worried about saving money, USATF would save more money if they simply cut Max's salary to say $100K and kept the other employees.

3. It takes time to receive unemployment benefits.

4. Their unemployment benefits will be lower than their salaries

5. People with lower salaries are more likely to struggle to manage a salary cut than people with higher salaries (they have a greater marginal utility for each dollar earned).

I'm assuming these people are getting paid to do important jobs, otherwise that's a different kind of scandal :)

David S wrote:

Here are some reasons why the rest of your statement doesn't make sense:

1. If you fire them they're not doing their jobs. Max isn't going to suddenly do the jobs of 8 people.

2. If you're worried about saving money, USATF would save more money if they simply cut Max's salary to say $100K and kept the other employees.

3. It takes time to receive unemployment benefits.

4. Their unemployment benefits will be lower than their salaries

5. People with lower salaries are more likely to struggle to manage a salary cut than people with higher salaries (they have a greater marginal utility for each dollar earned).

Those employees have nothing to do with all the track and field events cancelled. USATF will go on just fine without them for a couple months.

edumacation rulez wrote:

You are rojo are following the same brainless analysis that I've seen on twitter.

Let me repeat.

He didn't get $4.2M in 2018.

His 2018 has NOTHING to do with what's happening now. ZER0. It has nothing to do with the Covid layoffs. To tie the 2 together is stupid.

I can agree his salary seems excessive and he should take more of the a cut for this year.

I disagree with your analysis.

Rojo didn't say he's getting 4.2 million right now.

Max is entitled to get $4.2 million. I'm assuming since the auditors put it on the books that means he gets the money no matter what even if he leaves USATF.

And the fact of the matter is if USATF wasn't on the hook for $4.2 million for Max it could use that money for whatever else it wants. Say that's an extra $700k per year in deferred comp max gets.

Max got a lot more money from Nike (and USATF is paying a $1 million commission to the company that did this). Besides that I'm not sure what he has done.

But if Max didn't get a new Nike deal he wouldn't be doing the basics of his job. Is Max getting a ton of money for Nike in a no bid contract a sign of his genius or just a sign of the sports right landscape paying a ton more for these deals? I'd say it's the latter. In all sports across the board, shoe companies are paying a TON for sponsorship deals with top entities.

Plus there is the issue USATF is a non-profit and Max was an insider on the Board which set his salary and the Nike deal was negotiated with Steve Miller who used to work at Nike. Just red flags all around on poor non-profit governance.

It is great Max got a lot of money from Nike but considering the Nike contract I think was up, this seems like something he should have done.

Maybe I should hire that consultancy to sell ads for LetsRun :) They aren't selling sports sponsorships right now.

Ok. I found a new article analyzing this $4.2 million saga by Rich Perelman and it's very good. Everyone needs to read it (link at the bottom). I was most fascinated by two things in the piece.1) Was it even Siegel's idea to extend with Nike? There are conflicting reports but it's entirely possible that the two Nike execs asked to be introduced to Siegel as they had an idea to pitch Nike on the multi-year endorsement contract.

2) Was it possible this $3 million in deferred compensation agreed to only when Vin Lananna was put on leave?

wejo wrote:

edumacation rulez wrote:

Fleshman said on twitter that the board is unlikely to get rid of him before his contract expires in 2024.

I forgot she was on the Board. She used to be so outspoken about the problems within USATF. Now that she is on the board she is silent. Maybe she's just being a team player and working within the system which is what I get but a little transparency might be a good thing.

"Silent"??? Ummmm, no. I found out about all this from Lauren.....“In my opinion, no executive of a nonprofit should make that much money. No matter how good they are at their job,” Lauren Fleshman, a retired athlete who serves on USATF’s board of directors, said about Siegel’s compensation. “It’s a clear representation of the way very few get super rich off the backs of free or undervalued labor across the entire Olympic movement. There should be total transparency of the way NGB executives are compensated across the board, especially when most athletes are pitted against one another for table scraps.”

She added, “I’ve said this to Max and the board. We have to agree to disagree.”

ohia wrote:

lotta anti-capitalists in here...

brah it is a non-profit, and 11% of USATF lost their jobs.

Limousine Libertarian wrote:

Yes we have wrote:

Give me one coherent reason that capitalism is good in this case.

Thanks to Max's leadership, their revenue from $17 million to $40 million per year, so paying him only $1.2 million per year is a bargain for USATF. I fully support this.

This would have happened if an edible fruit arrangement was running USATF. Hiring Max was not what allowed the deal to happen. This deal fully needs to be put in perspective. USATF only got that deal by locking Nike in as the sponsor at a fixed rate for a very long time. Those who laud the deal do not understand the concept of inflation. They also do not understand if in a few years USATF has vastly greater sponsorship value we are stuck with that deal for a decade-plus.

Almost everyone involved in non-revenue sports are well off from resourceful families. Siegel is not one of those and 100% deserves every dime received.

birdbeard wrote:

brah it is a non-profit, and 11% of USATF lost their jobs.

Amen bro, anyone working at a non-profit taking a salary is a thief.

I would be remiss without pointing out though that 11% job loss is better than the average US company.

So Wejo's 'analysis' was to (ignorantly, without bothering to have ANY idea WTF he's talking about) single out the one person who's had the guts to openly criticize this f***ing disgrace, and criticize *her* for 'being silent,' when she's actually done the opposite??

Incredible.

USATF is a protected Monopoly.

ohia wrote:

lotta anti-capitalists in here...

sp2 wrote:

So Wejo's 'analysis' was to (ignorantly, without bothering to have ANY idea WTF he's talking about) single out the one person who's had the guts to openly criticize this f***ing disgrace, and criticize *her* for 'being silent,' when she's actually done the opposite??

Incredible.

I just gave my opinion, mainly how I had forgotten she was on the Board because I haven't heard much from her recently. Maybe some of that comes from her not competing anymore.

I clearly was erroneous in this instance on her being silent as she did speak to the media about Max's salary. I can't recall her speaking out about much since she's been on the Board. From afar my impression is the same and that is she used to be much more outspoken in general about USATF. I surmised that she might be trying to be more of a team player and go through the official channels. There is some logic to doing that if you are on the Board as you have to try and change it by working with it.

I'll admit that wejo might have overstated things re: LF, but I must beat a dead horse here and point out that this is the same LF who eviscerated the OPJ (not just AS, but the whole project, minus the "goody two shoes, KG") and yet... once went to alberto for "help" with a "breathing problem."

I'm sorry but until she comes out and says "that was the dumbest thing I've ever done and I wish I wouldn't have done that," I can't take *anything* seriously that comes from her mouth. Credibility is important in all walks of life, and LF is not excused from her hypocrisy.

Devils advocate: what bearing does this have on wejo's contention that she might be just trying to be a team player? well it shows very clearly that she's willing to look the other way if it might benefit her and, perhaps by extension, those she wants to see benefit. Is that a bad thing? After all, someone might benefit from all this... but I think weldon's point is that it would be nice for her to stand up a little more firmly in public AND in meetings, and be more of a thorn in the side of the upper brass at usatf. perhaps that isn't possible in her position and i'm being too harsh- sorry, i tend to be based on my knowledge of her history.

He's done nothing to market the sport. There's absolutely no promotion to the general public about meets or athletes; The average person still can't name a current track athlete.

All this talk about increasing revenue is negligible. When the sport has more air time on ESPN than darts, then maybe that might be justifiable figure.