USATF Meeting

I'm proud to see you kids finally stand up for your right to earn an honest living as athletes. Don't let the sponges siphon off money for perks for themselves and their cronies any longer. I'm sick of seeing the same clowns at every marathon, every OTs, every WCs, every USAs, every WXCs, every NCAAs with ceremonial do nothing jobs and free 5 star hotel accomondations and 1st class round trip airfare.

in sacto wrote:In your post, you're talking about best case scenarios. I'm looking for real world data. It may turn out that having multiple sponsors on a singlet is the way to go. But has anyone (athletes, agents, coaches, etc.) actually contacted existing or potential sponsors to see how such an arrangement would be structured, how much payout there would be, and if existing sponsors would cut their payment due to having to share the spotlight?

It's hard to get hard data for something hypothetical. The main shoe sponsors have no interest in sharing their jersey space. The top athletes will probably see few benefits. The athletes that will benefit most are those that have no shoe sponsorship, at least not a cash one.

Damn the IAAF. I wish they'd cancel the DL meets in NY and OR so that athletes can display their sponsors logos. This is fascism.

IAAF Fascism wrote:

Damn the IAAF. I wish they'd cancel the DL meets in NY and OR so that athletes can display their sponsors logos. This is fascism.

Almost all of the athletes who get in those meets have a shoe company sponsor that they have to be exclusive to anyway. It's apples and oranges to compare a DL meet to a USATF Championship.

Timmy Jenkins wrote:

HJH wrote: Now whenever he races, British Airways is the first a foremost sponsor advertized. How is that going to work with running the Virgin London Marathon in April? It won't.

Tony Stewart wins the NASCAR Ford 400 at Homestead, Florida.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-11/231808180-21072352.jpg

When did NASCAR events stop protecting title sponsors?

polevaultpower wrote:

IAAF Fascism wrote:

Damn the IAAF. I wish they'd cancel the DL meets in NY and OR so that athletes can display their sponsors logos. This is fascism.

Almost all of the athletes who get in those meets have a shoe company sponsor that they have to be exclusive to anyway. It's apples and oranges to compare a DL meet to a USATF Championship.

If what you're hoping to get is more opportunities for up and coming athletes to get a few bucks here and there (which I don't think anyone would oppose by itself) what will happen when a developing athlete has a few of these small deals helping them by has a breakout, as Vessey did a few years ago? Surely they'll immediately break those contracts for an exclusive and more lucrative deal, right?

HJH wrote:If what you're hoping to get is more opportunities for up and coming athletes to get a few bucks here and there (which I don't think anyone would oppose by itself) what will happen when a developing athlete has a few of these small deals helping them by has a breakout, as Vessey did a few years ago? Surely they'll immediately break those contracts for an exclusive and more lucrative deal, right?

That's between the athlete, their agent and the sponsors. Generally if you have a tiny sponsorship, there's not much of a contract to break. I am going to be the corporate sponsor of a pole vaulter next year. If he had a break through and could get a bigger sponsorship, he would be free to move on, and I told him that.

Does the second allowable uniform logo replace the club logo?

In that case my club's not going to pay my travel.

polevaultpower wrote:

HJH wrote:If what you're hoping to get is more opportunities for up and coming athletes to get a few bucks here and there (which I don't think anyone would oppose by itself) what will happen when a developing athlete has a few of these small deals helping them by has a breakout, as Vessey did a few years ago? Surely they'll immediately break those contracts for an exclusive and more lucrative deal, right?

That's between the athlete, their agent and the sponsors. Generally if you have a tiny sponsorship, there's not much of a contract to break. I am going to be the corporate sponsor of a pole vaulter next year. If he had a break through and could get a bigger sponsorship, he would be free to move on, and I told him that.

You don't see that as a disincentive for smaller sponsors? The moment your athlete begins to get your brand exposure they bail you.

in sacto wrote:

I'm wondering if sponsors are really beating down the doors of athletes to sponsor them. A few who have existing relationships (Hall with Nissan, Meb with Visa, etc.) may make out well, but I'm not sure if this is such a good idea for the guys filling out the fields of races.

It is all about choice. If you can only have 1 logo now and it is supposed to be the manufacturer of the apparel and then all of a sudden you can have 2 logos and they can be anything you have more options. I don't see how it makes anyone worse off.

Even if your contract has it written in there you can only have 1 logo you still have the option now of trying to find a better deal.

Most of this is theoretical. Some athletes will make more money. Most will probably stay the same.

wejo wrote:

Most of this is theoretical. Some athletes will make more money. Most will probably stay the same.

polevaultpower wrote:

It's hard to get hard data for something hypothetical. The main shoe sponsors have no interest in sharing their jersey space. The top athletes will probably see few benefits. The athletes that will benefit most are those that have no shoe sponsorship, at least not a cash one.

Again, Wejo and Becca, I really appreciate what you guys are doing. I think this whole mess reveals how there needs to be more transparency at USATF, as well as more logic.

But the fact of the matter is this: does what you're doing help or hurt the average athlete? Again, most would probably say it helps, but no one really knows. That irks me. Worst case scenario, I see more money being allocated for top level athletes, taking away that money for lower lever elites and sub-elites. Best case scenario, everyone gets more money. Well, which scenario is more likely? No one can tell me.

To me, we need to grow the pie first before we start worrying about how that pie will be split up. It's all about exposure.

USATF is horrible.

in sacto wrote:

But the fact of the matter is this: does what you're doing help or hurt the average athlete? Again, most would probably say it helps, but no one really knows.

I agree no one knows what the outcome will be.

At first I startd to write, "I don't see how it can hurt the marginal athlete. But to be honest it probably won't affect them too much."

But then I thought of a few theoretical scenarios but would like to see how you thought the marginal athlete could be hurt.

1) The top athletes get more money at the expense of marginal athletes. This could happen two ways. I'll use concrete examples: a) Usain Bolt gets more money from a second sponsor on his jersey and these secondary sponsors pull money from marginal athletes or b) Puma has to pay Bolt more to be the only sponsor on his jersey (because for the first time he has the option and getting say a million a year from Rolex on his jersey) and they pull back money from the marginal athletes.

a) to me seems only theoretical. The marginal athletes aren't getting $ from secondary sponsors so if big time athletes get these secondary deals it isn't at the expense of marginal athletes. b) in theory could happen

2) Marginal athletes could be hurt if races and meets get less from title sponsors because they have to compete with the athletes new logos. If you make most of your money now from prize money or appearance fees instead of sponsorship then you'll be hurt as more money will shift to individual athlete sponsorship versus prize money/appearance fee.

So ING might pay the NYC Marathon less to sponsor the race. Thus the race has less money to pay athletes. So an athlete like Molly Pritz who this year probably made nearly all her money from her NYC appearance fee would get paid less by NYC in the future. She doesn't have a shoe sponsor so she loses out. (But it seems to me NYC which pays a big appearance fee could put sponsor restrictions on the athletes in return for competing)

I guess there are winners and loser any time the status quo is shaken up but if net there is money in the sport hopefully more athletes benefit. I assume this marginally will bring more money in the sport.

If 2) is a huge deal in theory less money could come in but I doubt it. I see this more as a matter of fairness.

Someone wrote with this question which is a good one:

"As regards the new IAAF rules on logos--your article states that the IAAF will, in 2012, allow a second corporate logo in the place where a club logo can currently go, do this mean that if a runner does this, he or she cannot have a club logo on the uniform? That is, are the athletes still limited to two, but both can be corporate sponsors, or can they have three, two of which are corporate sponsors and one of which is the club?"

Wejo,

I can see existing shoe sponsors decreasing their support while other sponsors increase their support. It might be a wash in the end.

Take someone like Molly Huddle. As far as I can tell, her only sponsorship comes from Saucony. So they pay her $A per year (with performance bonuses, of course). So now she secures a second sponsorship deal with Gatorade, and they want to put their logo on her singlet. They want to pay her $B for this logo. Because Saucony is no longer the primary sponsor, they decrease their support to $C per year. So if $A is less than $B + $C, then Molly wins.

Again, this is a hypothetical. I think allowing multiple sponsors is a good thing. I think it's sad that I'm able to wear a "NASCAR-style" singlet for my local Turkey Trot, but someone at the USATF championship level can't. But I just haven't seen a persuasive business case that shows there are companies will to put forth sponsorship dollars for track/road racing athletes. Right now there's a pot of money for track/road racing sponsorship. How will changing sponsorship rules affect this pot? Will it grow, or will the contributors to the pot shift slightly, not affecting the total amount available?

in sacto wrote:

Take someone like Molly Huddle. As far as I can tell, her only sponsorship comes from Saucony. So they pay her $A per year (with performance bonuses, of course). So now she secures a second sponsorship deal with Gatorade, and they want to put their logo on her singlet. They want to pay her $B for this logo. Because Saucony is no longer the primary sponsor, they decrease their support to $C per year. So if $A is less than $B + $C, then Molly wins.

If Molly gets $A from just having Saucony on the jersey why the hell would she sign with Gatorade if B + C was going to be less than A? Wouldn't she just stay with A?

No one is going to make themselves worse off voluntarily.

wejo wrote:

[quote]in sacto wrote:

Take someone like Molly Huddle. As far as I can tell, her only sponsorship comes from Saucony. So they pay her $A per year (with performance bonuses, of course). So now she secures a second sponsorship deal with Gatorade, and they want to put their logo on her singlet. They want to pay her $B for this logo. Because Saucony is no longer the primary sponsor, they decrease their support to $C per year. So if $A is less than $B + $C, then Molly wins.

If Molly gets $A from just having Saucony on the jersey why the hell would she sign with Gatorade if B + C was going to be less than A? Wouldn't she just stay with A?

No one is going to make themselves worse off voluntarily.

I agree that marginal athletes will probably not really be affected, with the exception of the elite clubs. If a club like Hansons, who already has corporate support from non-running companies, might be able to really milk more with advertising. This might encourage more clubs, or expanded clubs, making more of an opportunity for post-collegiate runners. Again, its a theory, but I really can't fathom how more options would make the sponsorship situation worse for anyone.

As for growing the pie, while this rule change doesn't grow the pie itself, it does allow the pie to be grown. If you're not able to bring in sponsors other than apparel makers, you're restricting competition to a couple big ones that sponsor 90% of the athletes, and that means the sponsorship pie can only ever be as big as Nike, Adidas and Puma are willing to make it.

As for possibly shrinking appearance fees, its true, it might happen, however, as an athlete I'd rather be sponsored for X a year rather than have to focus on a race for an appearance fee of X that will get me through the year. Consistent guaranteed support is the best way to foster success.

It appears to me that a more competitive market (i.e. more possible sponsors able to play the game) will in general substantially beat a less competitive one. Of course, it is possible to construct some possible instances where this isn't the case; but overall it appears to be a very positive thing for track and field.

wejo wrote:

Someone wrote with this question which is a good one:

"As regards the new IAAF rules on logos--your article states that the IAAF will, in 2012, allow a second corporate logo in the place where a club logo can currently go, do this mean that if a runner does this, he or she cannot have a club logo on the uniform? That is, are the athletes still limited to two, but both can be corporate sponsors, or can they have three, two of which are corporate sponsors and one of which is the club?"

That is an excellent question, and it was asked of Bob. The second corporate sponsor would replace the club logo. You could have a Club logo or a second corporate logo, but not both.