Former NCAA indoor mile record holder Chris O'Hare retires at 31

Yes, did you ever forget. He has been in the process of getting an MS in engineering at CU since moving to Boulder.

Funny, those of you denigrating the life and finances of pro runners sound miserable. Chris seems awfully happy, and I doubt he’d waste a second on here criticizing your careers.

funny wrote:

Funny, those of you denigrating the life and finances of pro runners sound miserable. Chris seems awfully happy, and I doubt he’d waste a second on here criticizing your careers.

I think you're misreading a lot of posts. Most of us aren't criticizing Chris at all, he had a good running career. What we're criticizing is the poor rewards the sport has to offer, both for current athletes and for when they finish competing, which means that guys like Chris need to find a viable second act for their lives. IMO, pro runners deserve better pay for their work and talent, and more post-running pathways to remain in the sport, but until there's more eyeballs on T&F, then earnings are going to be comparatively low. Again, Chris had a really good career, the sport is the problem.

To quote George Sheehan, " I don't know what we were put on this planet for, but it certainly wasn't to work".

Who cares how much money you make, you can't take it with you. There is more to life than being rich. Living a full and rewarding life is it's own reward, too bad what you do for a living is such a big deal in the US.

I have never seen an epitaph on a grave stone stating so and so worked hard for 50 years and make lot's of money. Yea, go to college and get out and go straight to work, that's living right. You can have it.

Oops, It was actually, "I don't know what we were put on this planet for, but it certainly wasn't to make a living"

High hopes wrote:

funny wrote:

Funny, those of you denigrating the life and finances of pro runners sound miserable. Chris seems awfully happy, and I doubt he’d waste a second on here criticizing your careers.

I think you're misreading a lot of posts. Most of us aren't criticizing Chris at all, he had a good running career. What we're criticizing is the poor rewards the sport has to offer, both for current athletes and for when they finish competing, which means that guys like Chris need to find a viable second act for their lives. IMO, pro runners deserve better pay for their work and talent, and more post-running pathways to remain in the sport, but until there's more eyeballs on T&F, then earnings are going to be comparatively low. Again, Chris had a really good career, the sport is the problem.

Right, and as such for 99.9% of college runners it's simply not a good decision. It's like deciding to stick with the garage band for a decade, I'm sure there are a lot of fun moments and you can possibly use it to pay your bills while living with roommates and driving a sketchy beater car but really you might be choosing to delay your own development. It looks a lot like Peter Pan Syndrome. You can still run a lot or play music a lot on the side of your main career! As has been mentioned, see Marty Hehir. I guess if you had no grander plans or dreams, it probably doesn't make much of a difference. Let's not give someone with an Exercise and Sport Science BS from U of Tulsa, someone with a Geography & Sociology BS from CU, or someone with a Communication BA from DePauw too high expectations. You're not going to lose out on a lot by running around for around 10 years before getting on with that high school teaching/coaching, personal trainer, running store, barista, real estate, or car sales career. In that case, why not just go for it and wring as much experience as you can out of your peak athletic years. Monetary wealth certainly isn't the only or most important riches in life.

ex-runner wrote:

And the point I keep making about sponsorship is that a cyclist will be paid by their team to cycle. That is their job. Turn up to training, do the job in races, go home.

In athletics the majority of athletes get 0 income from the actual sport.

You're making a distinction without a difference. A cyclist will be paid by their team, which is funded by sponsors, to cycle. The sponsors fund the team with the goal of raising their profile. The cyclist's contract will be structured so that total compensation depends, in some form, on how well the cyclist performs. Included in the contract are expectations about media responsibilities and so on.

A runner will be paid directly by the sponsor, with the goal of raising the sponsor's profile. The runner's contract will be structured so that total compensation depends, in some form, on how well the runner performs. Included in the contract are expectations about media responsibilities and so on. For "local hero" contracts (which often are just gear rather than money), there may be language about the number of Instagram posts and so on, but not for top pros.

If your point is that athletes in (some) other sports make more money than runners, that's obvious. But the lack of team structure isn't the issue. Golfers make plenty of money without being part of a team.

As for whether it's "worth it" to be a good but not world-beating pro runner in your 20s, that's a matter of taste. But those who do it know what they're getting into. No one is like "What, I thought making the final at USATF would set me up for life." (Okay, I don't really know for sure that "no one" thinks that, but anyone who does is an idiot and probably wouldn't be prospering in the corporate world either!)

High hopes wrote:

And think of other sports - the worst paid player in the NBA gets $91k, the minimum salary for an MLS player is $81k and that will rise to over $120k by 2027. That's right, the worst payed soccer players in the US earn more than a lot of Olympians. I know why, free market, etc, just pointing out that T&F isn't an attractive financial option for many

It bears repeating: running is not a real pro sport. You're a freelancer essentially competing in mostly unrelated exhibitions. Sure, there's a USATF road racing circuit/tour, though that doesn't offer a steady salary. USATF will never resemble a pro circuit, league, or tour, it fundamentally can't. Road racing and pro T&F could look a lot more like the PGA, if less lucrative (but still lucrative!). A big reason pro leagues pay so well? Player unions. Athletes in T&F remaining so splintered and selfish is exactly why the sport remains mostly amateurish.

High hopes wrote:

funny wrote:

Funny, those of you denigrating the life and finances of pro runners sound miserable. Chris seems awfully happy, and I doubt he’d waste a second on here criticizing your careers.

I think you're misreading a lot of posts. Most of us aren't criticizing Chris at all, he had a good running career. What we're criticizing is the poor rewards the sport has to offer, both for current athletes and for when they finish competing, which means that guys like Chris need to find a viable second act for their lives. IMO, pro runners deserve better pay for their work and talent, and more post-running pathways to remain in the sport, but until there's more eyeballs on T&F, then earnings are going to be comparatively low. Again, Chris had a really good career, the sport is the problem.

Completely agree.

Chris had a wonderful career, I enjoyed watching him as a British athletics fan and he was an early part of the movement which spurred on the current best guys Britain has in the 1500m

Financially, he deserves more for his career than whatever he got. Whatever that is, he deserves much more. 10x more in my opinion.

But that is down to the organisation and commercialisation of the sport which is essentially just very bad.

WOW as i nearly fell off my chair as i cant believe anyone would wait til 30 to retire as me and wejo decided to retires at 3 as my friend agrees with me a LOT and a TON as we now have a TON and a LOT of time for naps and tv watching and supporting lizbeth homes as we also gots a TON of time to buy kackis and button downs on ebay as we dont like to get too far from our nap and tv watchin couches to go to the stores and as i need to be near the radiobox to listen to rushes replacement now that he retired and can you scientists and docters tell me if you live longer because you retired before preschool or if that be fake news

Strange time to retire, with the Commonwealths, Europeans and Worlds all this year.

Do we know its career-related? I think many of you might be assessing him in American terms. Here in Scotland, many men don't work much at all and aren't career orientated. We have a strong welfare state, and many have generous parents.

This might be a an eye opening perspective for many who are hoping to go "pro" after college. The sad fact is there are only a handful of runners who are good enough to receive enough financial support to train full time, yet there is a sizeable vocal B/C group who think they are deserving of but really aren't competitive enough outside of racing against themselves. They then complain about how shoes companies are mean and don't support the sport because they won't throw money at them. The sobering reality is they really aren't as good as they think and there are and many, many other runners competing just as well after having put on their grown up pants (working full time or pursuing ventures like grad school, internships, etc to set themselves up in adulthood) are doing so with little or no financial support. ​For example, Martin Hehir WON the Marathon Project interning as a doctor and with kids, beating many who are treating running as their full time job. Carrie Dimoff works full time at Nike, has kids, and only trains on her lunch break, and is making World Teams. Hell, even non-runners like Morgan Pearson, a TRIATHLETE, went and beat the brains out of a whole slew of "professionals" at the Michigan Pro-Half Marathon in 2020.

The idea of the full time "professional" runner is kind of a farce unless you are the top of the top. Even then, considering the sport isn't that big in followers, the money isn't great or long lasting. And considering there are many who are competing at the same levels as "sponsored, full time athletes" and doing so FOR FREE, this should be eye-opening for sponsors. Maybe they will wise up that "full time contracts" are more charity isn't worth the investment.

That's a good point. Another good comparison is with tennis. Tennis players were getting shafted before the open era and since then, with tournaments forced to give up more in prize money, even mediocre players can earn a decent living. Take a guy like Liam Broadly, age 28, won just two matches at grand slams in his entire career, and has earned over a million dollars in prize money. At his best, was ranked 121st in the world. I think we can say O'Hare had greater success in his chosen sport but I'm fairly certain he hasn't made a million dollars in prize money and sponsorship. But tennis players are organized, plus, they make commitments to play tournaments. Runners won't do that, they prefer to wait for "peak" fitness, very few will do what Clayton Murphy did last year and basically go on tour like a tennis pro would. And there's the crux of the problem: you want more money for T&F, you need better events, you need more top athletes racing more often.

Ok, I’m back. I’ve read through this and I’m actually laughing.

You guys are making one very large assumption-

That O’Hare does not make a lot of money.

People like Stinson and Tinman boys are who you are thinking of. The real deal athletes like Chris get paid.

Chris got 6 figures base out of college, he then resigned for even more after Olympics, World finals, milrose win, etc.

The amount of prize money he won and the bonuses that almost always double up with those places/times/wins easily added over 40k a year, being on the conservative side, to his income. Many of these are rollover bonuses. Athletics UK also pays all of their Olympians a full time salary.

Chris easily made well over $1m in his 7 year career.

All while traveling the world and being adored, doing what he loves.

Sour grapes.

I could tell you more because I actually know what I’m talking about and not pure speculation. But keep acting like you know hahaha.

Congrats Chris and a great career and making a LOT of money!!

Well said.

I honestly just don't care

I disagree, there is a clear distinction.

A cycling team or football team gets their revenue through sponsorship of the team plus prize money from the competitions plus a share of television/radio/media etc revenue.

They pay their cyclists wages based on how desirable that cyclist is in terms of their ability to help win the various tours/races. The sport is the entity attracting the revenue through multiple streams which is then shared with riders through the wages and bonus structure.

In athletics the athlete is responsible for marketing the brand themselves. They have to attract their own revenue. Sponsorship is even limited by World Athletics rules (can't have multiple logos, can't promote personal sponsors during world athletics events)

The relationship to the money for an athlete is how marketable the athlete is, which brings in other factors such as nationality, event etc.

The tennis example is very accurate. Snooker would be another.

Difference is that winning the effective world championships gets you $700k in snooker and tennis is $3m.

Athletics is $60k.

99% of Boulder "elites" in a MF nutshell.

Every tennis grand slam pays at least $61k to players that lose in the first round (Australian Open pays $77k to first round losers). Win a single match, and you earn over $100k.

Athletics pays it's champions $60k. How is this sport so badly run from top to bottom?