Shocking, Max is who we thought he was. The Nike deal which was clearly crooked from the start is going to be criminal, who would have thought.
Shocking, Max is who we thought he was. The Nike deal which was clearly crooked from the start is going to be criminal, who would have thought.
Good job of Runners World tying this in with the Shelby situation and initially appearing on the start list.
Kvothe wrote:
wejo wrote:
I said hopefully.
I don’t know that’s the case.
I’d prefer to know the group running our sport and it’s #1 sponsor weren’t doing stuff illegal. It’s like saying ‘I hope the investigation into city hall finds nothing’
Interesting. I'd hope we could repair the organization running our sport in the US. It should be an athletes not executives first organization.
Im bias, but I agree. Our state USATF has not a dollar. Runs terrible meets with nobody attending at all. Nothing. Yet..they can throw around 25 mill for a consulting fee? USATF and IOC...yickk..
Any deal that involves Nike in any capacity whatsoever is probably somewhere between shady and corrupt. They are the worst company in this industry and I'd love to see them hit so hard they go out of business. The world would be better off without them. It will never happen though unfortunately.
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
Interesting!
Earlier this year, a Nike employee was convicted by the Feds of enriching himself by directing Nike business contracts under his control to a side hustle firm that he owned.
I wonder if the FBI discovered that this was a common practice and found a link to USATF and Siegal's media company? Perhaps someone at Nike acting as a paid consultant to or holding loads of influence over USATF directing company and USATF money to their own fiscal interests or firms owned by other Nike or USATF employees?
Now you are onto something. Initially, I was wondering it somehow could be an anti-trust violation to not bid the Nike contract out.
But the more I re-read Sarah's article and the more I think about it, I'm wondering if the investigation is something along the lines of what you are writing about.
Sarah Lorge Butler wrote:
Runner’s World has learned that a grand jury subpoena requested documents pertaining to USATF and its board of directors and three businesses: Nike; Matchbook Creative, a marketing firm in Indianapolis that counts USATF as one of its clients(Rojo note and has super close ties to Siegel - see below) ; and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures LLC, [Rojo note this is the media rights firm run by the two-ex Nike employees that negotiated the Nike deal
The key is to remember what the hell Matchbook Creative is. Here is what the Washington Post wrote about it in 2016.
Was Post wrote:
Matchbook Creative is an Indianapolis marketing company that used to be located next door to Max Siegel Inc. For years, Matchbook Creative also has done contract work for Siegel’s marketing company and his race team, and Matchbook employees have used email addresses that end “@maxsiegelinc.com.”
The fact that anything went through Matchbook Creative in the first place is just gross. Imagine if these ex-Nike guys are greasing the palms there for a few hundred k a year.
We got an email from a lawyer that was kind of interesting.
A lawyer wrote:
Hey guys -
I think the investigation here is - well a couple of things -
1) Did the former Nike employees kick something back to Siegel under the table for the 20+ year sponsorship deal?
and
2) Is the dealing all above aboard.
Each board member and the officers too, have a fiduciary duty to act in good faith. I don't know if that necessarily means criminal action here, but if there is fraud or collusion then that might rise to the level of criminal conduct.
Based on who has been investigated, it seems like there were some private side deals between Siegel and the ex-Nike employees that we may learn about in the coming months.
The one thing about the Nike deal that always struck me as being so ridiculous was the length of time. $20 mil just on its face does not seem like a ton of money even now. It will definitely not be a ton of money in the 2030s, or 2040 when the deal expires.
I then asked about the anti-trust stuff and they wrote back.
A lawyer wrote:
I have ZERO experience in antitrust law. My limited understanding though is - and you may be onto something - if Nike and USATF acted in a way that allowed Nike to unfairly control the track and field industry. It somehow jettisoned two employees from marketing to suddenly "represent" USATF, and there was a side deal with a company that coincidentally has maxsiegel.com as its e-mail address .... Was all of that a conspiracy of sorts to exclude the other shoe companies from the marketplace ....
Obviously something there smells fishy.
How that interplays with antritrust I cannot say. A friend works **** and i put in a message to her. I'll let you know if i hear anything good.
I think Matchbook will be Max's downfall. I think Nike will find the right people to pay off so they emerge unscathed.
I absolutely f-ing love it.
ehehh wrote:
wejo wrote:
They have done things outside of non profit norms
Unfortunately, you are wrong on this. Non profit companies have a LOT of money floating around, and take a wild guess as to where it goes.
Yes, look at the fraud that is the Susan Komen fund.
This post was removed.
STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:
These greedy pigs in the administrative capacity all want to take the bag at the expense of the athletes. Screw them. He deserves to go down.
Correct! Who the F is Max Spiegal anyway and how is he even close to the right person to be running USATF. Did this dude ever even participate in track ever? How does someone so useless end up in a such a high position bankrolling off of the backs of real athletes? It is such a messed up rich people's world, it is sad.
rojo wrote:
wejo wrote:
They have done things outside of non profit norms so let’s shine some light on this. Hopefully it turns out to be nothing.
and
Runner Person That Goes Slow wrote:
Thank you Wejo for your comment. How do we get this feature front and center on the main page?
My GOD. I agree. I feel asleep on the floor putting my son to bed but how in the world do you take time to comment on this but not put this 3 wide on the front page? I'm putting it there right now.
And I'm not hoping for a certain outcome - I want the truth to come out. Well, that's not totally true, I want change at the top as I think it's disgusting for a non-profit CEO to make that much.
Correct, it is gross. The top admins at USATF should not be making more than an average salary; may 50-80k per year depending on location. These people do not even have the merits to be making more than minimum wage yet here they are somehow bank-rolling off of poor athletes. Thanks for elevating this in the public eye.
Given that this investigation is coming out of the US Attorneys Office rather than the DOJ Antitrust Division, I’d be quite surprised if this had anything to do with antitrust law. There’s not an obvious Sherman Act claim either. Particularly because USATF and Nike aren’t competitors. So a typical bid rigging claim would have involved competitors—like Adidas and Nike— agreeing to not compete on the USATF bid. Most association (think NFL or NCAA) cases involve the rules that the association sets for its members (team relocation and student athlete pay). I’d have some difficulty coming up with a theory for USATF/Nike that fits the bill there.
My guess is that it’s some garden variety wire fraud case that involved higher ups getting paid off to give the contract to Nike.
Why now? My suspicion is that in the EDNY investigation the government came across some emails or had some interviews that weren’t pertinent to the world’s case but aroused suspicion of illegal conduct. The Government then probably issued a Civil Investative Demand to get more pertinent documents (and probably got around to reading through all xxx,000 of them during the pandemic). And then they found enough there to bring it before a grand jury.
the antitrust angle is cooky wrote:
Given that this investigation is coming out of the US Attorneys Office rather than the DOJ Antitrust Division, I’d be quite surprised if this had anything to do with antitrust law. There’s not an obvious Sherman Act claim either. Particularly because USATF and Nike aren’t competitors. So a typical bid rigging claim would have involved competitors—like Adidas and Nike— agreeing to not compete on the USATF bid. Most association (think NFL or NCAA) cases involve the rules that the association sets for its members (team relocation and student athlete pay). I’d have some difficulty coming up with a theory for USATF/Nike that fits the bill there.
My guess is that it’s some garden variety wire fraud case that involved higher ups getting paid off to give the contract to Nike.
Why now? My suspicion is that in the EDNY investigation the government came across some emails or had some interviews that weren’t pertinent to the world’s case but aroused suspicion of illegal conduct. The Government then probably issued a Civil Investative Demand to get more pertinent documents (and probably got around to reading through all xxx,000 of them during the pandemic). And then they found enough there to bring it before a grand jury.
Nice post. Are you a lawyer or law professor or did you simply sleep at a Holiday Inn Express?
I'm looking for someone to give me a few quotes for an artilcle.
robert@letsrun.comMalmo is correct in that USATF has been a sh*tshow since long before Max. But to single out Masback seems arbitrary. Logan's short tenure reeked even more. And why hasn't Lanana walked away from this heaping pile of filth a long time ago??? It sucks that it took an effin Fed investigation to get things stirred up here.
rojo wrote:
We got an email from a lawyer that was kind of interesting.
[quote]A lawyer wrote:
Hey guys -
I think the investigation here is - well a couple of things -
1) Did the former Nike employees kick something back to Siegel under the table for the 20+ year sponsorship deal?
and
2) Is the dealing all above aboard.
Each board member and the officers too, have a fiduciary duty to act in good faith. I don't know if that necessarily means criminal action here, but if there is fraud or collusion then that might rise to the level of criminal conduct.
Based on who has been investigated, it seems like there were some private side deals between Siegel and the ex-Nike employees that we may learn about in the coming months.
The one thing about the Nike deal that always struck me as being so ridiculous was the length of time. $20 mil just on its face does not seem like a ton of money even now. It will definitely not be a ton of money in the 2030s, or 2040 when the deal expires.
The other angle is excessive compensation rules for non-profits. The 990 has specific reporting that helps build the case that exec comp is "reasonable" including the steps taken by the board in setting comp. If found to be excessive, an excise tax of 25% (of the excess benefit) - up to 200% (if not corrected) is due. The IRS goes after exempt all of the time in this area.
We're going to let this thread end up on page 3?!? WTF? This doesn't warrant being among the Top 160 threads? If you're not livid with USATF, you've not been paying attention.
What if there were restrictions placed on USATF leadership?
No working for a major sponsor within 6 -8 years either before or after hiring.
Masback would have not been incentivized to sell us out, nor would he have been allowed accept a Nike salary.
Lanana would not have been allowed to hold office at any point.
Siegel would not have been allowed to accept or give the payoff to any Nike affiliated.
As it was written Siegel was incentivized to set up a long miserable deal and pocket a payoff on top of his salary.
In other words his payoff was to sell us out while collecting Nike and USATF money.
ehehh wrote:
wejo wrote:
They have done things outside of non profit norms
Unfortunately, you are wrong on this. Non profit companies have a LOT of money floating around, and take a wild guess as to where it goes.
Not-for-profit companies definitely have more stringent rules they need to follow than for-profit companies. For example, if a not-for-profit in NY sells any assets, the sale must be approved by the state attorney general's office to ensure the not-for-profit is getting a fair price. They do not want, for example, the not-for-profit selling assets at a low price to a private individual -- thereby enriching the individual at the expense of the not-for-profit , which is supposed to be operating for the public good (which is why they are not taxed). So if the USATF unfairly enriched private individuals or companies in some arrangement, then they could get in trouble for that. They are in essence taking tax payer money and giving it to private individuals.
That being said, usually not-for-profits are policed by states, not the feds, but I don't know how jurisdiction would work in something like this.
Well, USATF is legally a Virginia firm. They fall under Virginia law. Could that be a reason the DC office of the FBI is investigating?