Wold Athletics' new shoe rules are out. Vaporflys stay, but as of 4/30, shoe must be out for 4 months to use in competition

Joe Jackson wrote:

I think American football and baseball might be the only two popular sports where athletic brands are not prominently featured. Shoes are a huge thing in basketball (ever hear of Air Jordans? Chuck Taylors?). Nike and Adidas use two big names in real football (soccer) to advertise their shoes for that sport. Cycling is about as brand-focused as a sport can get on down to the lowly shoe.

Everything you see is a business and exists to make money. Once you accept this fact, things make a lot more sense.

Runners also need to come to grips with the fact that times don’t mean what they used to.

Regarding "everything you see is a business and exists to make money": that's one of those sayings that makes the speaker feel like they are above everything and all-perceiving, but it simply isn't true. I'm as cynical and skeptical of human motivations as anybody, but the fact it that not everything is about money. When you go to a typical high school cross-country meet, it is most definitely and assuredly not about business or money-making. Competitive running can be, and frequently is, just about sport. With a few simple regulations, it can be kept that way. There is no inevitable need for running to be overtaken by an arms race by shoe manufacturers.

The NIKE cross country nationals and the FOOT LOCKER cross country championships, not to mention BROOKS PR and the NEW BALANCE indoor grand prix, would like to announce that high school running is NOT, repeat NOT about the money. Not at all. High school runners are not brand conscious and just wear simple but effective shoes. Their tracks, stadiums, and scoreboards are definitely not sponsored by COCA COLA, PEPSI, or local businesses.

my 2c wrote:

The NIKE cross country nationals and the FOOT LOCKER cross country championships, not to mention BROOKS PR and the NEW BALANCE indoor grand prix, would like to announce that high school running is NOT, repeat NOT about the money. Not at all. High school runners are not brand conscious and just wear simple but effective shoes. Their tracks, stadiums, and scoreboards are definitely not sponsored by COCA COLA, PEPSI, or local businesses.

And the public and especially private high schools they go to, definitely not about making money. Wanting to be a good athlete in high school to impress college coaches also not about money.

Call me what you want but it’s probably, no definitely, about money.

Football and Baseball gear sales aren’t about shoes; it’s about selling jerseys and other apparel...which do prominently display the sporting companies’ logos.

As to your other point, I’d say that professional sport IS mostly about business. For-profit companies pay athletes to promote their brands— through athletic achievement and/or social media following— and they expect something in return.

I’d like to think that employees at these companies generally do love the sport and do earnestly try to grow it, but the shareholders don’t care much either way as long as they get a good return on their investment.

KraftMacAndCheese wrote:

[quote]800 dude wrote:

This 4-month rule is going to be a disaster, not just for the Olympics (because shoe companies were blindsided), but for pro running going forward.

The entire point of professional running is to sell shoes to the masses.

This is just wrong.

You have to consider the current structure (or lack thereof) when it comes to how the Brands manage relationships with their signed athletes & the target market of people wanting to buy gear related to their favorite athletes. A rule such as this can give some impact on how the brands use their athletes to promote gear moving forward.

Something to look at is the INEOS and the Breaking 2 events hosted by Nike and starring Eluid Kpchoge. There are two sides of the coin where these were incredibly awesome to experience and watch by the public but there is a part of the running community calling the events "commercials" and there is in fact some truth where these events have created a demand for some Nike Vaporfly race shoes. Keep in mind that this is probably the biggest promotion a brand has done for an athlete (and shoe) for a while.

Going a couple of levels below a promotion such as this you have to consider the relationship with other athletes and how the brands will consider to promote new shoes moving forward. Understandably so, this rule will force a brand to either plan ahead and hype its new shoe before its professional (not recreational) debut with a signed athlete (because of the 4-month requirement) or adjust how it'll promote a sneaker moving forward (not hype races, but through other means). But we don't know that for sure.

A lot of athletes are compensated through some exposure through their racing. And for some, this is their only avenue as not everyone gets the same treatment as other superstars in the sport (whether you care about that is up to you).

This rule will give some impact to an athlete's career outside of racing and it already has within the grounds of competing because now there is an enforced (and legitimate) rule for what you can race in. Maybe not the entire point, but a lot of emphasis for professional running is to promote sneakers and these athletes have some influence on that.

800 dude has very valid concerns for the future.

800 dude: are you not going to reveal yourself now as the initiator of the stack height limit?

It's your Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame opportunity. :-)

Joe Jackson wrote:

my 2c wrote:

The NIKE cross country nationals and the FOOT LOCKER cross country championships, not to mention BROOKS PR and the NEW BALANCE indoor grand prix, would like to announce that high school running is NOT, repeat NOT about the money. Not at all. High school runners are not brand conscious and just wear simple but effective shoes. Their tracks, stadiums, and scoreboards are definitely not sponsored by COCA COLA, PEPSI, or local businesses.

And the public and especially private high schools they go to, definitely not about making money. Wanting to be a good athlete in high school to impress college coaches also not about money.

Call me what you want but it’s probably, no definitely, about money.

You have the relationship backwards. Track/cross country/roads existed before shoe corporations, and would continue to exist if they all went out of business. Racing is too elemental to be entirely dependent on corporate swag. Think of Phil Jackson - he was a runner for the already popular U of Oregon track team, THEN formed Nike. Not the other way around. Thus proving that track exists just fine without Nike's existence.

With competitive running, as with any human activity, people will find ways to make $$$ off it. That doesn't mean that activity is "all about making money". That's liking saying human sexuality is all about making money for Trojan.

And anyway, all those meets like Foot Locker and Nike Nationals that supposedly prove running is all about making money are only one tiny aspect of the overall sport. The main bulk of the sport is just regular people competing in little races, in which sponsorship is a non-factor. As I suggested earlier, try going to a typical local HS XC meet.

stateroftheoblivious wrote:

Bio Dome wrote:

Something like this happened 50 years ago in the pole vault.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_pole_vault

Also with the Clap Skate at Nagano 1998,. And the dowel grip in gymnastics however long ago that came in. Compound bows in Archery. Nutrition in the marathon.

Technology marches on.

What is fair? Whatever the rules say.

Fiberglass pole was adopted a good 10 years before. It was a specific pole here where they were accused of using something not widely available, but it was in fact the same technology as everyone else was using at the time. I think Catapole even tried to use this temporary banning as a marketing gimmick. It actually has more parallels to the current Nike situation than you acknowledge.

Didn't the VaporFlys take three-plus years to develop *before* the first prototypes were used in an event, and that's with the financial backing of the biggest athletic shoe company out there?

Agreed!! Well said.

The ruling sucks.

This is the first time in our sport’s history we can’t trust performances due to the equipment.

Read the interview with Shalaya Kipp. These shoes make a mockery of our beautifully pure sport.

fly swot ter wrote:

The ruling sucks.

This is the first time in our sport’s history we can’t trust performances due to the equipment.

Read the interview with Shalaya Kipp. These shoes make a mockery of our beautifully pure sport.

No, it's really not the first time that shoes have been a decisive factor. Boston runners were clamoring for the latest lightweight S.T.A.R. shoes in the 30s. Bill Rodgers won at Boston in part thanks to a special pair of the latest Nike prototype. Read some history, it's enlightening.

This is dumb. Technology should advance. U still have to run. Nothing has changed as far as that. This ban sucks so bad

Yes, and in 20 years we should wear 15“ trampoline midsoles underfoot with some lever mechanisms inside plus a compressor that rapidly expands an airbag upon ground contact that make even the average Joe (me) finish a marathon in under 60 minutes.

It's not against progress, but this was about getting out of hand that would start to change this sport to something different. We could as well all wear some artificial limb extensions like those of the „fastest man in the world“

.... if this trend continued without any regulations

DC Wonk wrote:

For all the shoe hysteria, I wish someone would also look at the longer term impact of the VF/Next%: most people report faster recovery, less muscle impact, and ability to train harder. This is all good for everyone, whether you are hobby runner or an elite.

Spot-on.

I just won a (small) marathon yesterday and set a PR by a few seconds — wearing Next% of course. That kind of effort used to knock me out of running again for 4-5 days — but I ran 5 miles this morning and settled into a 8:00/mi pace or so with no pain.

These Vaporflys would be worth it just for training if you can afford it - I can’t - and it’s ridiculous how good you feel after a hard effort in them.

[quote]800 dude wrote:

The entire point of professional running is to sell shoes to the masses.

Exactly this!

+1

If Pro's can not market prototype shoes and build hype, than their value to shoe companies decreases. This will lead to fewer and cheaper professional contracts for pro-runners as shoe companies re-direct their marketing dollars elsewhere. Soon, we'll all be sponsored for Run Gum.

So is the NB carbon plate shoe banned? Anyone know for sure? Can they be used at the Olympic marathon trials?

this and this wrote:

KraftMacAndCheese wrote:

[quote]800 dude wrote:

This 4-month rule is going to be a disaster, not just for the Olympics (because shoe companies were blindsided), but for pro running going forward.

The entire point of professional running is to sell shoes to the masses.

This is just wrong.

Totally agree that the entire purpose of professional running is not to sell shoes.

When sport exists primarily to make money for equipment provider businesses, its not sport anymore, but a huge marketing stunt/commercial.

There is a major problem in a sport when the businesses that supply equipment to that sport have so much influence that their products force the sport to modify its rules so as to accommodate those products.

Don't be obtuse. I'm obviously not saying that the "meaning of running" is shoe sales or that the reason people participate and watch is all about shoes.

I'm saying that that "professional" running--as in running in exchange for monetary compensation--has always been almost entirely a shoe selling business. That's the only reason runners are compensated enough to make it a full time profession. You mess with that too much, and running becomes an amateur sport like rowing.