To be fair, his stink-raising is consistent. The way athletes get paid is by wearing sponsor's brand. For the USATF to forbid athletes from getting paid so **they** can get paid is ridiculously unfair.
Of course, there are a lot more unfair things in this world and we've grown used to it, but Symmond's stink raising does make it difficult for us to ignore or overlook the particular absurdities in professional track.
Not Quiter wrote:
three stripe man wrote:It's funny that so many people are using basketball as an example.
The NBA's official apparel supplier (uniforms, warmups, practice gear, etc.) is adidas. So even if you have an endorsement deal with Nike, in EVERY game and EVERY practice and EVERY locker room interview you're wearing your competitor's logo. And there are no complaints.
Well, to be fair, the NBA also pays players. The USATF does not. So sponsor money is the sole source of income for most runners. There is a difference.
In the context of the Worlds trip the USATF is also "paying" the athletes. They are paying for travel, housing (during training camp), meals, etc.
The letter by USATF is interesting:
1) It says they can pack non-branded apparel. If that is the case then I don't see why they can't pack Brooks apparel. If there is a team photo or something he should be in the team gear. But if USATF is saying "it's ok to wear non-branded apparel (at some tiems)" then they are saying "you are not required to wear Nike apparel at all times" so Nick is going to have way more leverage to wear Brooks apparel.
2) What has happened at events in the past? I assume no one has cared one iota what anyone has worn outside of the day of competition. Day of competition, from once he gets to the track to once he leaves he should be wearing the team uniform. I think most people agree with that. It would be like if some basketball player tried not wearing the NBA uniform because it wasn't his sponsor.
3) Isn't this really only about what he wears at practice? They can't tell him what to wear in the hotel. No other sport does that. If he's at a USA practice on the USA dime, should he be wearing Nike gear? I wonder what team USA basketball does? That may not be a perfect analogy as it is a team sport, but I assume there most people wear the team gear and not their own shorts right? Running is different as Nick will have his own coach, etc , coaching him. And he could easily as some have pointed out not show up for the team practice and practice on his own right?
What do other athletes do?
USATF totally overstepped in telling him what to wear outside of practice. That is ridiculous. This isn't a communist country where they can control what athletes wear on their free time.
Nick knows he has to wear Nike at the meet so this is about practice and his free time.
4) The BONUS gatorade bottle is so ridiculous. That is the most patronizing part of the email.
5) Nick is great at getting publicity. I mean that in a positive way. At the same time, he did point out the absurdity of USATF overstepping what should be the boundary.
The letter could be "here is your USA gear. You are expected to wear it at all official team functions which means official team practices, the meet, and a team picture." The way their letter reads, he can't wear Levi jeans in the hotel.
I assume Nick could still go practice on his own.
Shooting from the hip here...
So Nick could technically wear flourescent green non-branded shorts/shirt/etc. at all times other than when he must have the USA kit on to compete, right?
Is there anything that says it's not legal to etch his sponsors logo into his hair? He could do a buzz cut of sorts with the Brooks logo on each side of his head, the back, and the top. Maybe even his eyebrows? Beard? Leg and arm hair?
I am shocked and appalled at most of the comments on here about this issue. I support Nick Symmonds on this issue 100% and if you are an american and you don't support Nick on this issue then you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Symmonds won the USA championships and he earned the right to represent his country at the world championships and to participate in any training camp meant to support athletes representing the USA leading up to the worlds.
Wearing the USA kit with a distasteful corporate logo during competition is one thing but limiting an american citizen's right to wear the clothing of his or her choice outside of competition is unacceptable.
Nike may have paid for the privilege to support our american athletes, but no corporation has the right to dictate what an american citizen can and cannot wear when not in competition representing the USA. In fact a corporation cannot dictate what american athletes wear in competition either but it is reasonable for the governing organization of the athletes representing the USA be allowed to do so.
Nike paid for the right to support our american athletes but they did not buy the organization known as the USATF. If the USATF is incapable of distinguishing between these two concepts (and I suspect that they are), then they need to be dismantled and replaced with an organization that can.
I urge you all to stand with your fellow american. Stand up with Nick Symmonds against corporate bullying and the quasi-governmental incompetence of the USATF.
been around ya' know wrote:
I am shocked and appalled at most of the comments on here about this issue. I support Nick Symmonds on this issue 100% and if you are an american and you don't support Nick on this issue then you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Symmonds won the USA championships and he earned the right to represent his country at the world championships and to participate in any training camp meant to support athletes representing the USA leading up to the worlds.
Wearing the USA kit with a distasteful corporate logo during competition is one thing but limiting an american citizen's right to wear the clothing of his or her choice outside of competition is unacceptable.
Nike may have paid for the privilege to support our american athletes, but no corporation has the right to dictate what an american citizen can and cannot wear when not in competition representing the USA. In fact a corporation cannot dictate what american athletes wear in competition either but it is reasonable for the governing organization of the athletes representing the USA be allowed to do so.
Nike paid for the right to support our american athletes but they did not buy the organization known as the USATF. If the USATF is incapable of distinguishing between these two concepts (and I suspect that they are), then they need to be dismantled and replaced with an organization that can.
I urge you all to stand with your fellow american. Stand up with Nick Symmonds against corporate bullying and the quasi-governmental incompetence of the USATF.
Symmonds is a child and acts like a little entitled sh!t. This is par for the course for this spoiled brat.
Nick has no perspective on how the real world works. Never had a real job. Has no clue.
He acts is as old a he is. He won't be in Rio.
Suck it Nick. wrote:
Symmonds is a child and acts like a little entitled sh!t. This is par for the course for this spoiled brat.
Nick has no perspective on how the real world works. Never had a real job. Has no clue.
He acts is as old a he is. He won't be in Rio.
Symmonds is entitled. He is our american champion and as such he deserves our support and respect. He is standing up to an organization that is allowing the encroachment on an individual athletes freedoms.
In your "real" world maybe you accept being sh@t on by those that appear to have more power than you but I don't believe that is what most americans see themselves accepting.
Nick has all the leverage on this one.
wejo wrote:
The letter by USATF is interesting:
1) It says they can pack non-branded apparel. If that is the case then I don't see why they can't pack Brooks apparel. If there is a team photo or something he should be in the team gear. But if USATF is saying "it's ok to wear non-branded apparel (at some tiems)" then they are saying "you are not required to wear Nike apparel at all times" so Nick is going to have way more leverage to wear Brooks apparel.
2) What has happened at events in the past? I assume no one has cared one iota what anyone has worn outside of the day of competition. Day of competition, from once he gets to the track to once he leaves he should be wearing the team uniform. I think most people agree with that. It would be like if some basketball player tried not wearing the NBA uniform because it wasn't his sponsor.
3) Isn't this really only about what he wears at practice? They can't tell him what to wear in the hotel. No other sport does that. If he's at a USA practice on the USA dime, should he be wearing Nike gear? I wonder what team USA basketball does? That may not be a perfect analogy as it is a team sport, but I assume there most people wear the team gear and not their own shorts right? Running is different as Nick will have his own coach, etc , coaching him. And he could easily as some have pointed out not show up for the team practice and practice on his own right?
What do other athletes do?
USATF totally overstepped in telling him what to wear outside of practice. That is ridiculous. This isn't a communist country where they can control what athletes wear on their free time.
Nick knows he has to wear Nike at the meet so this is about practice and his free time.
4) The BONUS gatorade bottle is so ridiculous. That is the most patronizing part of the email.
5) Nick is great at getting publicity. I mean that in a positive way. At the same time, he did point out the absurdity of USATF overstepping what should be the boundary.
The letter could be "here is your USA gear. You are expected to wear it at all official team functions which means official team practices, the meet, and a team picture." The way their letter reads, he can't wear Levi jeans in the hotel.
I assume Nick could still go practice on his own.
Brooks apparel would be branded apparel, so they're instructing him not to bring any. He wouldn't be allowed to wear any at practice (Beijing or Japan training camp) at dinner at the team hotel (beijing or Japan training camp), in the stands at the meet on the days he's not competing, etc.
As someone pointed out, what's considered official Team USA periods is expanding. The 2nd 4x1 relay team in Monaco wasn't allowed to run because some of the athletes were sponsored by adidas, and they were being asked to wear the usa uniform. That has NEVER been the case in previous years. They've always been able to run usa 4x1 teams at Diamond League meets and such with everyone in their sponsor gear.
I have no problem with strict uniform rules at meets. Companies pay big money for such rights. But once it starts affecting Diamond League meets and such, then it's gone too far, and is hurting both athletes and the sport.
Mikey Montana wrote:
Nick has all the leverage on this one.
Ask 10 random people who Nick symmonds is. I bet not ONE knows. No one would care if he was kicked off the team. That's not leverage.
In 5 years USATF will still be here. Nick will be on peds or washed up.
'Suck it nick' has to be Ms. Hightower.
Rojo/wejo, other sports have deals so an athlete is photographed with specific apparel away from competition.
I don't know how usatf works, but cycling world championships, nearly all athletes pay the federation for the whole trip, apparel included, once they qualify. And it's way above the cost organizing the trip for yourself like most cyclists do already. Essentially, they pay the travel for federation people they never see.
Seems like Usatf is missing revenue opportunities.
always interesting when strident proponents of unbridled free markets like the brojos suddenly become defenders of monopolies and collusion when someone rebels against the status quo (a typical elitist approach to the world, IvyLeagueBroJos).
This is a fight that started with Pre back in the day. Track and field athletes have, at the most, 8 - 10 years to profit off of their talents and hard work. But for USATF/Nike, they're basically a replaceable commodity. Most all power resides with USATG/Nike, and non with the athletes. They have no Union, no bargaining rights, and so easily exploited.
Spirit of Pre lives on!
blake26.2 wrote:
Two-time Olympic runner Nick Symmonds said that he will sue USA Track & Field if the NGB keeps him off the national team for this month’s IAAF World Championships over a sponsorship dispute. Symmonds will not sign a contract requiring him to wear Nike-branded gear during all team functions throughout the trip -- first to Japan to train and then to the Beijing competition -- which starts Aug. 22.
Link (free):
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/08/06/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/USATF.aspx?ana=SBD%20Email
Symmonds must have already lined up an attorney. He has a strong case if he points out the business arrangement between Nike and USATF constitutes restraint of interstate commerce. US judges in all jurisdictions take that very seriously. His case could very well end up setting a precedent.
Some people don't mind being ignorant little sheep.
Some of us do.
Suck it Nick. wrote:
Nick has no perspective on how the real world works. Never had a real job. Has no clue.
You could not be more wrong. Nick has more clue and real world experience than most other 30 somethings. He certainly has more than most other pro runners I can think of. He's constantly cooking up schemes, and then getting to work to turn them into reality. it's not just publicity or track stuff, either. He's got the tanning salons; I seem to recall hearing about some rental properties as well.
Nick went to a DIII school. Unlike some other pros from DIII schools, I can't think of a single instance of Nick complaining about how unfairly he is/was treated because of his background. Am I missing something?
I'm not especially a Nick fan, but I think I think if you are going to dismiss the guy, you ought to dismiss for something he actually did, rather than for something you imagine he did.
Restraint of trade a no-no wrote:
blake26.2 wrote:Two-time Olympic runner Nick Symmonds said that he will sue USA Track & Field if the NGB keeps him off the national team for this month’s IAAF World Championships over a sponsorship dispute. Symmonds will not sign a contract requiring him to wear Nike-branded gear during all team functions throughout the trip -- first to Japan to train and then to the Beijing competition -- which starts Aug. 22.
Link (free):
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/08/06/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/USATF.aspx?ana=SBD%20EmailSymmonds must have already lined up an attorney. He has a strong case if he points out the business arrangement between Nike and USATF constitutes restraint of interstate commerce. US judges in all jurisdictions take that very seriously. His case could very well end up setting a precedent.
I don't think so. He would have to show that he is missing out on earning potential by not being allowed to wear his Brooks uniform at the official team training sites and press conferences, while all his Team USA teammates, many making more money than he does, have gotten along ok with these rules. Cas Loxsom supposedly has the same language in his contract with Brooks and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
Being forced to wear a national uniform produced by a brand that competes with your own individual sponsor at an international championships is an accepted practice at this point. If his agreement with Brooks forbids him to wear non-Brooks clothes at the Team USA press conference and training sites, then that's going above and beyond how that's been enforced. What if his contract didn't allow him to wear the Nike Team USA uniform when he races at the World Championships? The line has to be drawn somewhere and this is where it's been for a while. As mentioned earlier, USATF has been pushing it one way, with this "official" national team really camp at Monaco, and now Nick is pushing in the opposite direction.
USATF will not cave on this, so either Nick will or he'll be watching on tv.
I don't get it.
Imagine the Brazilian soccer team had 11 different jerseys for each of their players, one from Nike, another one adidas, puma, etc, you get the idea.
Nike sponsors the Brazilian National team and wants something back.
They have exceptions for shoes where every player can pick his own brand/sponsor but that's it.
These T&F athletes should be happy that there are companies that want to sponsor them at all, I mean there aren't that many people watching...
Soccer Guy wrote:
I don't get it.
Imagine the Brazilian soccer team had 11 different jerseys for each of their players, one from Nike, another one adidas, puma, etc, you get the idea.
Nike sponsors the Brazilian National team and wants something back.
They have exceptions for shoes where every player can pick his own brand/sponsor but that's it.
These T&F athletes should be happy that there are companies that want to sponsor them at all, I mean there aren't that many people watching...
Athletes are happy that they have sponsors. And they want to make sure those sponsors are happy. Those sponsors won't be happy if their athletes can never be seen in their logos.
No one is questioning that athletes should be required to be in official Team USA gear for all official team events. The question is what is an official team event.
Where does he think the money to fund the team, for things like travel and stipend comes from? He might get sponsorship by a beer company or others, even from the GOP or Koch Brothers, he is an elite and let's face it a caucasian male athlete, money will be thrown at him basically. But, what about the rest who do not have his luck? like a non-blonde female triple jumper? or a hefty shot puter? He should get over himself and show some team spirit.
InWyo wrote:
Good for him.
The quote about not even packing anything else makes me think the USATF were anticipating his resistance. I wonder if the same language was given to everyone else on the team?
Restraint of trade a no-no wrote:
He has a strong case if he points out the business arrangement between Nike and USATF constitutes restraint of interstate commerce. US judges in all jurisdictions take that very seriously. His case could very well end up setting a precedent.
Posted the anonymous poster who has no familiarity with the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. USATF was granted a sports monopoly.
In case it hasn't been posted:
https://twitter.com/NickSymmonds/status/629357671976673280He got some gatorade bottles too. Woo hoo!