I honestly don't understand why a brand would sponsor most elite runners

I know you want to take a swipe at all the pro distance runners whose performances continually disappoint you, but corporations don't give charity to individual people. If they're paying a runner it's because they see it as helping their profitability.

Pro runners are terrible at the sponsorship game. Go out and get other sponsors besides your shoe company. It doesn't even matter if you compete in their gear or wear they name on you when you compete. Get a car contract, fitness device, anything.

A great example of this is Ronaldo. He is paid by Nike but plays in Adidas gear. No need to only seek out shoe sponsors.

Running just isn't that visible to the masses. It is dwarfed by american football, the NBA, MLB, and european soccer. They are visibility sports with millions of followers. It makes sense to invest in those sports.

Yeah. For a while Hokas were viewed as a joke on here too and then they sponsored a few pro groups.

Yeah but it's not just that. They also get marketing value out of dominating the podiums and lead packs of races even if you don't know who any of the athletes are.

I really don't think brands are *that* worried about a direct ROI on individual athlete sponsorships. Instead they view sponsoring, etc as a way to verify their brand's legitimacy. It is not really "Be Like Mike," but "look, these are legitimate products used by legitimate athletes."

There are no guarantees in business and forecasting kid. There's always risk.

Sketchers make "serious" running shoes? LOL

You sound like someone who:

1. Has never been and never will be sponsored so you're angry that others are.

2. Doesn't understand how it all works

They do not receive more than they pay for any athlete- it's not like- we give Joe NFLer 20 million a year and he brought is 21 million.

Let them make their money doing something they love and, if it so pleases you, enjoy.

I have bought shoes because they signed a runner I knew personally and I emailed the companies to tell them that's why I was buying their shoes.

American running is doing fine on the world stage. We had a down period which coincided with Runners World pushing the less is more thing back in the 1980's.

I remember (and I'm serious) a parent complaining that her daughter was running too much (about 20 mpw) and that the cross-country team should be playing more frisbie and soccer.

I kid you not.

What's the deal with all of the inferiority stuff in this thread? Running is not an unpopular sport. For multiple reasons professional running is not as popular for spectators, but it's still extremely popular participation wise.

I strongly suspect running products account for Nike's largest source of revenue. Millions of middle and high school students around the world participate in cross and track. Millions of people participate in local races, from fun runs to marathons. Millions of people purchase running gear for gym workouts.

After high school road races/fun runs are one of the few organized athletic events folks participate in.

People pickup copies of Runner's World or Google running articles to figure out how to hydrate during the local 5k. The article will have a picture of Scott Fauble or Rupp blasting through an aid station grabbing a cup of water with product logos displayed around the picture. They see pictures of Kipchoge on the front page of the sports section or on ESPN after breaking 2. They see that Nike swoosh on the clothing and shoes. A Gatorade logo on the cup. A XYZ brand banner in the background. They'll go to Dick's and subconsciously gravitate to xyz brand because they've seen the marketing.

Frankly, they make better shoes than Hoka at his point. At least in my opinion.

good point, it's way cheaper to not advertise

If a company is sponsoring a runner just for brand awareness with the masses, especially a runner who isn't at the very top of the game or some social media darling, they aren't getting the return.

But there is so much more to bringing elite runners into your company than brand awareness for the masses.

First of all, there are 600 running stores in the country and a portion (even if it's just 20% of them) of the owners and footwear buyers at those stores do know and care about the sport. They hold a ton of sway for what shoes are sold in their community.

Those stores might feel they want to carry a 2-3 carbon plated racing shoes. They might not be able to get their hands on the top Nike shoes, so they have to choose from other brands, and they know/like some athletes that most of their customers have never heard of. Which leads to Saucony on the feet of the local runners in the store's training group because Jared Ward validated the shoes for the store owner, if not necessarily the end customer. Even better is if Saucony is able to send Jared to one of those training group runs to talk with the customers.

Second, marketing is only a small part of what shoe companies do. Actually making the shoes takes up so much time and resources. Having elites test those shoes is invaluable for the product developers as they make decisions that they hope will be on the feet of countless runners. This is why the Brooks Beasts are in Seattle and spend time at the Brooks HQ regularly.

Third, Brands have a never ending need for content. They need pictures and video for catalogs, their website, social media, store posters, trade show booths, billboards. The needs are endless and span the globe. Of course they can hire random models or recruit their friends to take some photos, but they can and do also use their sponsored athletes.

Fourth, these brands host high school races and camps. They have pub runs and sales meetings with key stores. They have charity functions. They have executive retreats and board meetings. If a sponsored athlete can appear at those and impress the people there, that can be valuable.

So if it's all about getting the logo on a chest and hoping people see that logo, its not worth a whole lot. But there's so much more potential.

In the end, sponsoring athletes is actually a pretty good deal for the brands that do it right.

Clifton is a big red dog.

My bad. Clifton is a big red dog.

I'll bite since I work in the industry.

You pay Athlete X a $15k USD base. There are time performance/incentive bonuses in addition to Athlete X getting $5k in gifted product.

With a typical athlete of this caliber and within that circle of influence, we can map out our ROI in the realm of Footwear, Apparel, and Accessories. This is only physical goods sold. Organic SM results in more awareness and ROI. On typical a $15K Athlete can generate nearly $25k-$50k in actual physical goods sold on a yearly basis.

It's worth it with the right athletes, that's why brands are selective.

Interesting. Here's a question- sort of.

I remember back in the "golden age" of road racing when 10k's were all the rage and it was a real circuit with mainly American, a few Europeans and Africans.

It was common for us common folk to mix with the elites in the post race party tent.

Do you think that might give the sponsored runner more exposure and maybe sell more product?

You have Nike, Hoka, Brooks, Puma etc athletes hanging out, talking ...

Yes. Absolutely. I've had conversations with a top level exec at one of the companies about this who said specifically that they like to sponsor people who do well at road races and then hang around and schmooze with the masses.