Leo Manzano: " I do feel I should have gotten a higher paying contract after my initial contract was up."

I think there's an obvious point that we are missing here, and that is at global championships, all americans wear nike. Therefore, at the biggest stage with the most exposure, if an athlete does well, he'll be wearing nike apparel, and thats what people will see (minus the shoes). So, even if nike lost Leo, did they really lose him, if he ends up doing well at world championships or the olympics again? Something to think about.

People refuse to believe it, but there is simply no $ in distance running. You can't name one multimillionaire.. if the top 1% of distance running is not making good $, the avg elite is just getting by.

the real issue has nothing to do with flags malmo - it has to do with petty nationalism

He wasn't signed at the price he wanted because he simply isn't that marketable. Nike made the right move. Did anybody really care about that silver medal? It came out of taking a a safe move in the race. He just happened to fell into it after others valiantly went for the win and failed.

And his short stature just don't bring confidence from market perspective.

Re consistency I can think of one prominent, well-compensated Nike athlete who had entire SEASONS where he was off, compared to Leo's RACES. This athlete, who was likely paid significantly more than Manzano despite his inconsistency never came close to medaling in any World or Olympic championship. He was a phenom who teased with this talent and potential, yet whose career will be defined more by what he did not deliver. His name is Alan Webb and if you're talking consistency, world or us rankings, I'm sure his record is not significantly different than Leo's.

Leo's Olympic silver medal trumps Webb's entire career, IMHO, particularly since Webb was undoubtedly more talented.

Leo who?

trackcoach wrote:

Even for someone who is a big Leo supporter, you would have to be a fool not to recognize his inconsistency and the big mistake he made in carrying the Mexican flag at the Olympics.

I admit his inconsistency in racing.

When he has a bad race, it's really bad. And he has a number of bombs each each year.

At the same time, getting top 3 at Nationals 8 years in a row is more consistent than any miler and I can think of. And he hits the A standard every year.

I think about Spivey, Holman and Webb missing Olympic teams while they were clearly the best.

I see absolutely no issue that he also held the Mexican flag while he had the US flag.

And was surprised at the response.

Although, it doesn't take but a few anonymous posters to drive a negative campaign that may appear worse than it is.

We've seen other athletes hold two flags without getting so much flack.

I actually like that he respects where he came from, what made him who he is and and also who he represents now.

The US is founded on people coming here for a better life.

I would wager that Leo's current deal with Hoka is less than the nike counter offer.

Also many times in the business word, some of the first cuts are guys with high salaries.

Les wrote:

Re consistency I can think of one prominent, well-compensated Nike athlete who had entire SEASONS where he was off, compared to Leo's RACES. This athlete, who was likely paid significantly more than Manzano despite his inconsistency never came close to medaling in any World or Olympic championship. He was a phenom who teased with this talent and potential, yet whose career will be defined more by what he did not deliver. His name is Alan Webb and if you're talking consistency, world or us rankings, I'm sure his record is not significantly different than Leo's.

Leo's Olympic silver medal trumps Webb's entire career, IMHO, particularly since Webb was undoubtedly more talented.

and that most likely proves the point that Nike decided:

1. sponsoring Webb does not sell shoes

2. sponsoring Manzano does not sell shoes

3. sponsoring track athletes does not sell shoes like sponsoring Jordan sells shoes

4. to put an offer on the table to Manzano they thought was fair in the market

it is Manzano who apparently had only one offer (Nike) or no better offer and turned down the offer until Hoka came along

I don't know the numbers but care to guess whether the Hoka contract is better than the Nike offer???

honestly, a lot of sour grapes and bitterness about why track does not get the $ other sports do, just maybe it IS fair given a free economy and what the public market dictates

Sighs_Sighs wrote:

People refuse to believe it, but there is simply no $ in distance running. You can't name one multimillionaire.. if the top 1% of distance running is not making good $, the avg elite is just getting by.

Thank you.

This discussion is sad. It's pathetic that LetsRun is having a pissing match over the tiny contract negotiations of an athlete that 99.9% of Americans couldn't identify if you showed them his picture. Hell, the same 99.9% couldn't tell you who he is if you told them he won an Olympic silver in the 1500 (not to mention having no clue how far 1500 meters is).

Obviously, distance running and T&F in general will never be as popular or as profitable as football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, auto racing, etc. It does well to keep up with surfing, bicycling, moto cross racing, X-games sports and the like. In its current form, running and T&F - at least in the US - will never generate the interest to generate the fans to generate the butts in stadium seats on a regular basis to generate the TV contracts to generate the revenue to pay its athletes millions of dollars.

Nobody wants to watch distance runners compete other than once every four years on NBC. It's BORING to the average sports fan. Do millions of hobby joggers buy running shoes and sign up for the local 5k or Color Run or maybe cross a marathon off their bucket list? Sure, but they're not going to pay money to watch a live race or change the channel from the NBA playoffs to a championship track meet.

Usain Bolt - and the Carl Lewises and Michael Johnsons that came before him - is a once-in-a-generation type T&F athlete who transcends the obscurity of T&F and can cash in on endorsements. Of course, it's no surprise the above named are sprinters.

obviously.. wrote:

I think there's an obvious point that we are missing here, and that is at global championships, all americans wear nike. Therefore, at the biggest stage with the most exposure, if an athlete does well, he'll be wearing nike apparel, and thats what people will see (minus the shoes). So, even if nike lost Leo, did they really lose him, if he ends up doing well at world championships or the olympics again? Something to think about.

Great point. Why does Nike sponsor individual athletes at all really? They could drop everyone and still have their logo on every athlete that wins a World or Olympic medal.

It might have been a wee more than ornamental. He tweeted after the silver that we was representing two countries: USA and Mexico.While I too can't see it as a big issue (and warranted given his background/history), it brought national media attention and some muckrake along with it for Leo.Nike's not big on muckrake, unless it's not going to effect their sales. I'm sure some of the Nike execs would still love to punt Knight through the Autzen goal posts for his sit down with Michael Moore.

malmo wrote:

The so-called "flag issue" is contrived by people who are looking for something to be offended about.

For the life of me I cannot see an issue. Manzano obviously carried around the Stars and Stripes prominently, and the Mexican flag was ornamental. Seems like a very appropriate gesture and acknowledgment of his heritage.

The real "flag issue" if you need one, is Bernard Lagat, an American citizen, romping around in a Kenyan flag at the 2004 Olympics.

I'll tell you what, I never heard of Hoka before and this has given them a lot of exposure.

I just looked at their website for the first time and Manzano is featured prominently and they have a video interview with him.

http://www.hokaoneone.com/

Not sure how much money they have to spend on marketing but Manzano may have gotten the benefit of them trying to make a splash if they do have the cash.

it is sad

the original olympians competed for honor and personal glory, i'm sure there were perks too

some NBA coaches make $10million a year which I would bet exceeds more than all professional running sponsorships combined

when is the last time a runner was in a national tv commercial???

the greatest profiting sponsored athlete from track and field is probably Bruce Jenner, and look where the dude is now?

Les wrote:

Re consistency I can think of one prominent, well-compensated Nike athlete who had entire SEASONS where he was off, compared to Leo's RACES. This athlete, who was likely paid significantly more than Manzano despite his inconsistency never came close to medaling in any World or Olympic championship. He was a phenom who teased with this talent and potential, yet whose career will be defined more by what he did not deliver. His name is Alan Webb and if you're talking consistency, world or us rankings, I'm sure his record is not significantly different than Leo's.

Leo's Olympic silver medal trumps Webb's entire career, IMHO, particularly since Webb was undoubtedly more talented.

That's why I don't think that sponsorship money is purely performance based re. consistency. Many more people know who Webb is due to being a 4 minute miler in high school. Fair or not, that helps more than the silver medal that Leo got and makes Webb more well known and marketable.

How much more and what were the differences in their deals, who knows? Without knowing the numbers that were paid to Leo originally, offered to Leo for the new contract and countered by Leo, we can only have a general conversation. If we knew the actual numbers I would have a feeling that some people talking on either side might switch sides (or more understand the other side's argument at least). Without them, we can only speak in generalities but not really support either side (note that I get that these numbers are confidential so don't expect that we will ever get them).

Not sure if this really is Hodge, but as someone who has admired you since I was a kid--and yes--you did have teenage fans, I am saddened and mystified by your response. I have a 15 year old of my own now, and he wonders why anyone would root for Rupp, who shows little sportsmanship beyond the most perfunctory nod. (I remember him spitting on the infield when Lagat went over to congratulate him for winning the Trials 5k). Manzanno, on the other hand, has really made an effort to reach out to kids, including organizing a youth event. The highs school athletes really need stars who are interested in them.

And to the guy who criticizes Manzanno for waving two flags; fine, you think someone should not split their loyalties. I happen to disagree with you on that point. However, from a business perspective, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are a big market. I would think Nike would be more interested in developing that market. Anyhow, most people in the world today have a trans-national identity, and I feel sorry for those Americans who don't recognize that.

That's like saying why bother to sponsor Lebron James? Our logos going to be on the NBA finals regardless. The biggest reason is, if you don't pay LBJ, then you can't use his likeness to advertise your product, you would get sued if you did. Then there's the issue of the entire rest of the NBA season. If Puma did not pay Bolt, then regardless if he wore their shoes or not, they could not put him in any Puma advertising. Very difficult to advertise your product without using an athlete or entertainers likeness.

joho wrote:

obviously.. wrote:

I think there's an obvious point that we are missing here, and that is at global championships, all americans wear nike. Therefore, at the biggest stage with the most exposure, if an athlete does well, he'll be wearing nike apparel, and thats what people will see (minus the shoes). So, even if nike lost Leo, did they really lose him, if he ends up doing well at world championships or the olympics again? Something to think about.

Great point. Why does Nike sponsor individual athletes at all really? They could drop everyone and still have their logo on every athlete that wins a World or Olympic medal.

Something else missing from this discussion is whether or not Nike values a single silver medal all that much. Leo does. The fans do (I sure do) but what about Nike?

In any given distance olympic final, how many medalists are NOT sponsored by Nike? Not very many. They may be thinking, congrats on your medal, but for us, that's not only commonplace, its what we expect."

There have been quite a few other millionairs, I believe Allsyon Felix, Geb, KB, Gay to name a few that made millions from running. I think Hall had at least 2 years where he earned over a million.