WSJ article on pro-runner salaries

Hodgie-san wrote:

ryong wrote:

Interesting.

What kind of support does he get from Rikuren?

http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/search?q=kawauchi

Thanks!

a real runner wrote:

Can anyone recommend a good pair of Nike trainers?

The Pegasus has been good to me over the years.

A big part of the reason track is such a niche sport today is the way it was managed for decades when it was indeed more popular. If track had had a governing institution that understood or cared about marketing back in the 1950s-1970s and effort had been put forth to market the sport then it would be in far better shape today. But the AAU never really felt that was its role and in fact was almost philosophically opposed to marketing as a violation of amateurism. It was seen as a sort of unseemly activity. The AAU had a very small professional staff and no one really qualified or capable to market the sport. To think about how it was presented on TV or how meets were organized and arranged to increase broader popularity. Yet track was far more popular in the 1950s and 1960s for a variety of reasons. (Just look at eh coverage in the New York Times and compare it to today.) Importantly, there was far less entertainment competition back then. Just think if Pete Rozelle was in charge of marketing track instead of professional football? Or, just think if Ollan Cassell was in charge of the NFL? Track could have capitalized greatly in building a much larger following far more easily back in the 1950s-70s but it simply did not have the people or institutions committed to do so. Now, decades later it is too late, or at least the job of making track more popular is far far more difficult. The competition for entertainment dollars and fan support is saturated with minor sports from the X Games to NASCAR, to the popularity of minor league baseball and golf, to name just a few. If the AAU had devoted resources to really market the international dual meets against the USSR, East Germany and others large scale support of the sport might have occurred. These were popular events WITHOUT marketing and the AAU benefited. Track had wonderful personalities in the 1950s-1970s that could have been promoted, but this would have undermined the amateur ethic. Wes Santee was a promoters dream. He was a dyanamic outgoing personality involved in the most important event at the time. He loved the spotlight. He was essentially punished for trying to market the sport. He could have been promoted but instead was banned. There are tons of other great personalities, but instead of marketing the AAU LIMITED their access to television appearences. The sport still lives within the general confines created by having the odd manner in which it was governed and managed for decades and under the cloud of a long past amateurism. This is far more important now, this legacy, in track's lack of popularity than people realize.

This has a direct bearing on the ability of track athletes today to make a living as a spectator sport. I personally do not think the government or governing agencies should be supporting athletes. The industry and spectator support interest should provide a base for financial support.

G_D

Anyone know how pro-bicyclists salaries compare?? I think a lot of the top American guys live off of less than 50.000 a year.

My take on why shoe companies are focusing their money in the wrong place: http://onceandalways.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/making-it-count-or-why-shoe-companies-should-rethink-their-sponsorship-foci/

The question is, how much support did he get before his 2:08? I know that companies tried to recruit him after his 2:12 before that, but I wonder how much support he got leading up to his 2:08.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Kawauchi is supported by his federation (to some extent) and is a citizen of a country that totally embraces marathon runners. He does not have a need to be motivated by money.Many of our athletes do to survive.

A few random thoughts:

Wejo - The article was actually very well thought out and written. I don't know Sara but she writes for SmartMoney, WSJ, and MarketWatch. She has also worked for Mark Singer. A well regarded young journalist who has an interest in running. The sport needs more like her. Someone who can take our sport and write articles that the public actually cares about. Her comparison of Meb to Ben is exactly the point - the steep pyramid. She also points out rather well how other companies can and are, making Nike contracts work against them in the realm of public opinion.

Conto and Genetic Dysfunnction - I couldn't agree more. Running has not and does not market the sport from equipment/apparel companies on down to struggling athletes. Ex: a couple of years ago I saw a picture of an athlete in a cool quarter zip top (well, at least I thought it was cool.) Hey, I would like that. Do you think I could find one? Not on your life. I tried stores in Boston, Chicago, and on the internet. We could spend days talking about the marketing missteps of our sport.

Some athletes take time to promote, but most are doing the bare minimum. And you are correct, we do not have well recognized "characters" or "personalities" in our sport today. (and I am not talking about head cases.) The person who I think hands down does the best job of self-promotion and "marketing" given her running status is Ms. Fleshmen. She works social media exceedingly well, promotes herself and her company, and is a fun personality. In fact, the women in our sport overall do a better job than our men. (minus Ryan and Bernard) However, with that said, how many outside of the running circle actually know about Lauren? Not many....

Most people think that most top athletes (top 10-20 in the US) make millions but this is obviously not true. As you said, even in tennis, if you're ranked outside of the top 100 in the world you can barely make a living. The tenth ranked American tennis player (114t in the world) in tennis made $52k so far this year. If you subtract traveling expenses (very high for tennis players as they fly from country to country almost every other week), training expenses (coach, massage therapy, physical therapy, etc) you are left with close to nothing and that's in the peak years of your career. What about all the years that it took to get there? All these years when you had to pay coaches to become a better tennis player, travel to tournaments where you didn't make any money, etc? On average, you can only be outside of the top 10 in most sports if you have a passion for the sport and a hunger to make it to the big time one day...

HAHAHAHAHAHA, WORTHLESS PILES OF CRAP!

ucb wrote:

Frankly I am getting tired of hearing stories regarding the meager incomes of the vast majority of post-collegiate American distance runners. So much of it smacks of jock entitlement -- the country owes them a middle-class living while they pursue their athletic dreams. Somehow it's unjust that they can't make a good living pursuing solely individual athletic goals that bring very little, if any, benefit to others. Get a clue -- your athletic development matters only to you, and unless you can display some worth to others, no one is going to hand you any money.

Weren't there plenty of track athletes in the 60s and 70s who competed at a high level while holding down full-time jobs, or studying towards advanced degrees? All of a sudden it is now impossible for athletes to train and remain competitive while earning an income some other way?

Great post! Nobody owes anyone anything. I remember an article about an older runner (can't remember his name) who was one of the top masters runners and living in total poverty and complaining about the money earned by the 100 best golfer in the world. Or an interview with Johnny Grey where he felt track athletes should be paid as highly as more popular professional sports athletes like football or basketball.

It's simple economics. If a ton of people have enough interest in something to pay money to keep it going, then that creates demand and drives up financial opportunity. Just because someone sacrifices and works really hard doesn't meant that in itself justifies a compensation.

We got people with no talent making great money because a lot of other people want a product they are part of. Look at the bozos on "Jersey Shores." The problem with track athletes is the public outside a very small market is just not interested in their product.

I was listening to a radio show the other day about NASCAR where the hosts couldn't believe the new CEO of Track and Field who left NASCAR would take that job.

Apostrophe Crimes wrote:

Hodgie-san wrote:

For the good health of athletics in this country these folk's should care "about their athletic development" as well:

Folk's what?

Folk is not living up to their mission.

[quote]kanny wrote:

The question is, how much support did he get before his 2:08? I know that companies tried to recruit him after his 2:12 before that, but I wonder how much support he got leading up to his 2:08.

You are correct kanny he is a self made man but when he began to show promise more support was there for him. You won't see that kind of support from our governing org. or the public.

adsfjhadaf wrote:

Anyone know how pro-bicyclists salaries compare?? I think a lot of the top American guys live off of less than 50.000 a year.

That depends on what you mean by "top" ...

The top riders in the grand tours, and those who are high-profile in general make 750,000-1,000,000 Euros. Which if you played your cards right, would set you up for life in 3-4 seasons.

The "top" Americans I consider to be the ones who race in Europe or other big races at least part of the time. That number is now stretching past 200 males. The guys at the top of that pyramid (Leipheimer, Hincapie, Phinney, Farrar, etc.) do very well and make more than most lawyers and doctors, a lot more. The guys at the bottom still make very good salaries. They have a minimum salary in the UCI, so there would be nobody making $15,000 or just scraping by like in track.

The guys that race PRO just in America, are just barely making it. It used to be that some teams were sponsored by a car company and the better riders would get a lease paid for in their name, get health insurance, get all their traval paid by the team, and then they would get a salary. The salary would usually be just enough to cover expenses ... $20,000-40,000. If they were worth more than that they likely raced on a big, mega-team or raced in Europe.