Looks like he has a sponsor in the works. This win, on top of the Olympics, must've strengthened his hand in the negotiations.
It was an interesting statement he made to Jon Gault. Sounds like he was taken advantage of in his contract negotiations. He intimated maybe they did this because he’s African and could be exploited. But he was proud of who he is as a person and athlete and clearly overcame all the distractions. It sounds like we’ll see a new sponsor and hopefully representation soon (perhaps Adidas and Demadonna/Corstjens?). From there we can hope he is treated with more respect and can focus on chasing his PB after Commonwealth Games.
Looks like he has a sponsor in the works. This win, on top of the Olympics, must've strengthened his hand in the negotiations.
It was an interesting statement he made to Jon Gault. Sounds like he was taken advantage of in his contract negotiations. He intimated maybe they did this because he’s African and could be exploited. But he was proud of who he is as a person and athlete and clearly overcame all the distractions. It sounds like we’ll see a new sponsor and hopefully representation soon (perhaps Adidas and Demadonna/Corstjens?). From there we can hope he is treated with more respect and can focus on chasing his PB after Commonwealth Games.
He lives and trains in the US. I would think he could field multiple offers, and the competition would only increase his salary. He should be worth $500K per year easily.
It was an interesting statement he made to Jon Gault. Sounds like he was taken advantage of in his contract negotiations. He intimated maybe they did this because he’s African and could be exploited. But he was proud of who he is as a person and athlete and clearly overcame all the distractions. It sounds like we’ll see a new sponsor and hopefully representation soon (perhaps Adidas and Demadonna/Corstjens?). From there we can hope he is treated with more respect and can focus on chasing his PB after Commonwealth Games.
He lives and trains in the US. I would think he could field multiple offers, and the competition would only increase his salary. He should be worth $500K per year easily.
Would he lead to an increase of more than $500K in sales (actually it would need to be an increase in profit) to his sponsor?
If what David Monti says is true, he may get back with Nike which is a shame.
BTW, Emmanuel Korir told me yesterday that he is still unsponsored. He's wearing Nike spikes at #WCHOregon22. When I asked him if he was back with Nike, he said "not yet."
It was an interesting statement he made to Jon Gault. Sounds like he was taken advantage of in his contract negotiations. He intimated maybe they did this because he’s African and could be exploited. But he was proud of who he is as a person and athlete and clearly overcame all the distractions. It sounds like we’ll see a new sponsor and hopefully representation soon (perhaps Adidas and Demadonna/Corstjens?). From there we can hope he is treated with more respect and can focus on chasing his PB after Commonwealth Games.
He lives and trains in the US. I would think he could field multiple offers, and the competition would only increase his salary. He should be worth $500K per year easily.
If he thinks that, it would explain why he is unsponsored.
Being sponsored isn't about being good enough. It is about you and your sponsor agreeing on your value. If Nike thinks his 15 mins of air time and photo are worth 100k and he thinks it is worth 500k, he is unsponsored. If he agrees he is worth 100k, he is sponsored.
He lives and trains in the US. I would think he could field multiple offers, and the competition would only increase his salary. He should be worth $500K per year easily.
Would he lead to an increase of more than $500K in sales (actually it would need to be an increase in profit) to his sponsor?
It’s not always about that, it’s about dominance. If regular people always see the top athletes wear a certain brand, no matter who specifically that top athlete is, then they will start buying that brand, either because of recognition or because they believe it to be a superior brand. I can personally say that a lot of my high school track team exclusively bought Nike trainers and spikes because basically every person you see at the Olympics medalling in track is wearing Nike.
Would he lead to an increase of more than $500K in sales (actually it would need to be an increase in profit) to his sponsor?
It’s not always about that, it’s about dominance. If regular people always see the top athletes wear a certain brand, no matter who specifically that top athlete is, then they will start buying that brand, either because of recognition or because they believe it to be a superior brand. I can personally say that a lot of my high school track team exclusively bought Nike trainers and spikes because basically every person you see at the Olympics medalling in track is wearing Nike.
In the business world the only measure of dominance is money, so yeah, he either brings in more (profitable) revenue than he costs - just like any other employee - or he doesn't get hired.
Maybe sponsors are worried about the new Kenyan bust rate?
This is true, no matter how unpopular an opinion it is. Five of the top 14 African 800m runners from 2017 - 2019 now busted, including the fastest (Amos). Why drop $500K on an athlete who has a miserly social media following, no marketability, and a 1 in 3 chance of being suspended under anti-doping rules in the next 2 or 3 years? Oh, and he wears your shoes anyway, because they are the best?
It’s not always about that, it’s about dominance. If regular people always see the top athletes wear a certain brand, no matter who specifically that top athlete is, then they will start buying that brand, either because of recognition or because they believe it to be a superior brand. I can personally say that a lot of my high school track team exclusively bought Nike trainers and spikes because basically every person you see at the Olympics medalling in track is wearing Nike.
In the business world the only measure of dominance is money, so yeah, he either brings in more (profitable) revenue than he costs - just like any other employee - or he doesn't get hired.
No it isn't. Aince you have been living under a rock the last, idk, 10 years: market dominance and growth ate two factors that have become more important than revenue. It can be worth sponsoring athletes (lets say Nike takes over all ON athletes) just to make sure your competitor is absent from elite sport, to ensure market dominance in the future. Who gives a f1ck if you get your 500k from a specific athlete back if you potentially stopped a brand becoming a big competitor in the future.
There is some truth to what THOUGHTSLEADER said though, sponsored athletes are probably more protected from busts. Could you imagine a 2 million+ western corporate branded asset being allowed to fall? A lot of them at once? I just don't think that's how it works. It makes talking about it by almost any current aspiring, let alone elite athlete, taboo...it would be serious self-inflicted harm. The honest person becomes the pariah and possibly their own doping, or that of their teammates, or country folk would come out. There would be hell to pay. The Kenyans are paying because they need to be taken out of the front for better selling models.
That's what is audacious about the brojos/gault trying to get top-level sponsored athletes to talk about doping by previous top-level or record-holding athletes, it's taboo, and the hypocritical brojos/gault , know it is.
Doping has a huge foundation and those that built the foundation are athletics leading, advertisers, sponsors, coaches, administrators, and organizers...nobody is going to upset that apple cart.
Maybe sponsors are worried about the new Kenyan bust rate?
This is true, no matter how unpopular an opinion it is. Five of the top 14 African 800m runners from 2017 - 2019 now busted, including the fastest (Amos). Why drop $500K on an athlete who has a miserly social media following, no marketability, and a 1 in 3 chance of being suspended under anti-doping rules in the next 2 or 3 years? Oh, and he wears your shoes anyway, because they are the best?
There are some that say, only desperate runners have tendency to dope:
- Rashid Ramzi was getting extremely mixed results (good followed with low results) between 2006 and 2008. Especially the year 2008 (ranked 5th Indoor WC)
- Asbel Kiprop level decreased after 2015.
- You can't tell Amos was doping in the precedings. He was getting low results in the latest 3 years.
There is some truth to what THOUGHTSLEADER said though, sponsored athletes are probably more protected from busts. Could you imagine a 2 million+ western corporate branded asset being allowed to fall? A lot of them at once? I just don't think that's how it works. It makes talking about it by almost any current aspiring, let alone elite athlete, taboo...it would be serious self-inflicted harm. The honest person becomes the pariah and possibly their own doping, or that of their teammates, or country folk would come out. There would be hell to pay. The Kenyans are paying because they need to be taken out of the front for better selling models.
That's what is audacious about the brojos/gault trying to get top-level sponsored athletes to talk about doping by previous top-level or record-holding athletes, it's taboo, and the hypocritical brojos/gault , know it is.
Doping has a huge foundation and those that built the foundation are athletics leading, advertisers, sponsors, coaches, administrators, and organizers...nobody is going to upset that apple cart.
You should contact Kiprop, I don't think even he has tried that consipracy angle.
And these guys who can't even make Worlds want a sponsorship.
Damian Warner got dropped by Nike after winning Olympic decathlon Gold.
Also to the "is the brand deal worth 500k to Nike" is the wrong way of looking at it. Nike want prestige and market and dominance. They want to be able to say the best athletes wear their shoes ergo their shoes are the best shoes. With less money than Under Armor pay Steph Curry annually, Nike can guarantee that the majority of the best athletes and national teams across a whole sport rep their brand across the world. That almost every world champs, Diamond League, road race, and Olympic podium will feature probably one or more Swoosh.
It's not about ROI on one athlete for Nike, it's about basically paying an annual fee to have a controlling stake in a whole sport. Mass signing world champs and medalists is a greater than the sum of its parts strategy for Nike. Is Korir himself worth $100k? Dunno. Is effectively owning a sport worth it? Much more likely yes.
This is true, no matter how unpopular an opinion it is. Five of the top 14 African 800m runners from 2017 - 2019 now busted, including the fastest (Amos). Why drop $500K on an athlete who has a miserly social media following, no marketability, and a 1 in 3 chance of being suspended under anti-doping rules in the next 2 or 3 years? Oh, and he wears your shoes anyway, because they are the best?
There are some that say, only desperate runners have tendency to dope:
- Rashid Ramzi was getting extremely mixed results (good followed with low results) between 2006 and 2008. Especially the year 2008 (ranked 5th Indoor WC)
- Asbel Kiprop level decreased after 2015.
- You can't tell Amos was doping in the precedings. He was getting low results in the latest 3 years.
There might be some truth in that, but it's more likely they get more reckless and risk doping a little more when they are desperate, rather than cross to the dark side for the very first time.
But as far as your examples are concerned, Kiprop definitely fell victim to improved testing in Kenya. Ramzi, I believe, was busted as soon as EPO testing improved another level in 2008.
Don't know if the bust of Amos can be put down to better testing for the substance he was popped for.