Abby Steiner has signed with Puma for $2 million

Even the publisher of the article that this thread was based on realized Abby Steiner getting $2 million from Puma was just some made up BS, and they deleted the article.

I can't believe how gullible some of you are.

Big black eye for Canada Running Magazine. Ouch.

True or not, she's worth that much. At least. She is the all-time collegiate record holder at 200m, US champ, attractive, and superb in interviews - well-spoken, gracious, respectful. By all accounts she is a great person and teammate. Everyone roots for her. And at 22, she has a great future. $2m is low. Hold out for more, Abby!

I don't disagree with her that her income is her business. At the same time, let's say she did sign for $2M I argue having that public would be good for the sport. It could show other track athletes that there is money to be made in the sport. It could also help others negotiate better deals. This is a common thing in other sports. "If so and so got $12M/year then based on my production I should get $14M/yr".

So it is a tricky situation for sure.

As an aside, I watched King Richard (about Richard Williams) last night. Venus was offered $3M at age 16. She turned it and a larger offer down. 9 months later Reebok signed her for $19M.

Why do you care what shoe company pays her?

There is no way that Coburn is making anything close to "that kind of money." If she were the world champion and an Olympic medalist in 1500m, that could be the case.

letsrun: where pointing out racist pay disparaties in the workplace makes you racist.

now lets do male vs female!

Alicia Schmidt is with Puma. Maybe 90% of her IG followers are males.

Lol. Yeah. She is comically slow by international standards, but she's a 10+

Reality is this is the problem in “professional” track. No one wants actual contract info released primarily because it puts shoe companies in tricky spots to justify to athletes already under contract why a new athlete is paid more than they are. Some college coaches effectively act as agents of the shoe companies by steering their athletes to the shoe company that they work for. They push certain agents to be the athlete’s agent that play this game. In the end it undercuts what the athlete can make in a real free market. The other side of secrecy is all about not letting public, especially college athletes, know exactly how low most of the athletes in the sport are compensated. Last week only 70% of athletes in top 3 were sponsored and half of those were just free product or tiny $20k a year or less deals.

So what is the ROI on this for Puma? Bolt apparently did ok for Puma, but can Steiner make the $2M back (if that is the figure)?

bettermarketing.pub

Usain Bolt and Puma Juked the Olympic Committee for $50M

https://seanjkernan.medium.com

How ambush marketing was taken to a new level at the Olympics

Open link

I am generally in the camp of "if you can get it you are worth it" from the athlete's viewpoint, but from the company side just how much does an athlete move the needle? The whole area of advertising is questionable in terms of does it really drive people to buy your product. Yes, some are notable (Jordan), but what about the vast majority of ads or sponsorships.

I played tennis as a kid. Loved Bjorn Borg but did not play with Donnay. Liked Connors, but did not play with a Wilson T2000. (I did play with a Wilson Pro-Staff but I played with it before Connors switched). How many of you run the shoes (or even just wear) or even the shoe brand of your favorite runners? If so, was that a factor or did they just feel the best?

I googled Reebok running shoes after Justin Knight signed with them, I wasn't aware they had an everyday training shoe. Forget if they do now or not.

Also to be honest after the Olympics and Andre DeGrasse brought home Gold I found myself on the puma site and bought a couple pair of Kids Suedes. On sale, $25CAD ea.

Still won't consider Nike no matter what Mohamed Ahmed does though.

That's not the main way advertising works. If Nike (or adidas, Hoka, etc.) never sponsored anyone, they would have been a niche company that likely would not exist today. Most small businesses that don't grow don't last decades, and don't have resources to develop advanced products. If Nike (or adidas, Hoka...) didn't sponsor athletes, they wouldn't be many runners' favorite brand for racing shoes or trainers because they wouldn't exist in the same form as they do now.

Even with a good product, it takes advertising to build brand awareness. For example, I like Freewaters sandals. They have a great design and are super comfortable, and they support their charity (clean water projects in underdeveloped countries). But almost no one is buying them over Tevas, Chacos, Merrells, Birkenstocks, Oofos, etc. because they are a small company with no brand awareness (except for one comedian). They aren't sending their product out to athletes or all the youtube/blogging site reviewers, so they don't get any buzz. As a result, they mostly don't even end up in stores, so you don't get a chance to decide that they might be your favorite sandals. (I ordered my latest Freewaters online at REI because they don't carry them in store at my local REI.)

I think Abby could make Puma track spikes attractive to HS girls. What I don't get is how Molly Seidel's ROI is, since Puma doesn't really have that much distance running product (or at least doesn't do a very good job of advertising their existance).

What's the likelihood this rumor is true given that Abby has actually signed with Puma?

Look on her recent insta post, it’s confirmed she’s signed with Puma

Did she try out the spikes to see if they would keep her competitive? Do they promise her that they will continue innovating or copying Nike? How disappointing will it be if she looks flat through the rounds and even misses finals?! Is it better to wait for Worlds before changing or are you risking your highest value?!!!

True. She stated during an interview that she loved her Nike track spikes.