What is your point? Maybe she signed some NDAs, they have likely expired. Now she is being transparent to help other athletes gain some bargaining power - what exactly is it that you think she is doing wrong?
Very much a moochers attitude. What makes you so special that articles written should be free to you?
I don’t mooch. Have you seen what I wrote here about FloTrack?
I already spend well in excess of $100 per month for access to track-related information. When groups such as Sound Running put on events, I’m happy to shell out more money (as I’ve also seen 1/2 the money goes directly to prize purses).
If you canceled Flotrack with its $30 a month, then you've freed up some funds for RW and NYT with a lot more to spare. Ain't the subscription model great?
This isn't really true. You could read magazines at the local library for free back then. Not so much anymore now that everything went digital, which is a broken model. IMO magazines would probably generate more revenue if they had advertising, kept themselves free and asked for donations from their readership.
Agreed that digital is a "broken model," at least for publishers trying stay afloat. Believe me, they tried very hard to make it work relying on advertising and keeping it free. But the numbers simply didn't/don't add up. Ad revenue (both print and digital) is way down, because there are now so many ways to reach consumers, and companies like Google and Facebook offer ways of reaching whichever consumers you want for a much lower price than magazines used to be able to charge.
Some publications tried the donations route (and some still push it, like The Guardian), but overall it turns out people are less likely to donate to corporations than they are to individual creators. None of these publications wanted to bring in paywalls, but eventually they couldn't survive without it.
In the Runner’s World article linked to in the home page, she says that she “just” wants to help other runners to know what to ask for. Also, shouldn’t she be concerned that the sponsors will sue her to enforce the confidentiality clauses?
Disclosing sponsorship details is a personal decision, and not all individuals may choose to do so.
Some people prefer to keep financial information private or may have contractual obligations that prevent them from disclosing specific details.
Ultimately, the decision to disclose sponsorship details rests with the individual involved and can be influenced by various factors, including their personal values, legal obligations, industry norms, and the desire for transparency.
In the Runner’s World article linked to in the home page, she says that she “just” wants to help other runners to know what to ask for. Also, shouldn’t she be concerned that the sponsors will sue her to enforce the confidentiality clauses?
Once again, another paywall site that we can’t even read the article to make an informed decision.
Want to read about Goucher’s pay she got as a runner? Runner’s World. Oh wait, you have to subscribe.
Want to read about something the New York Times wrote about a runner? Have to subscribe.
Want to read about something some random online publication wrote about a runner TWENTY YEARS ago? Have to subscribe.
I’ve been a track and field athlete and fan for 44 years now. There is more information out there now than we could have ever dreamed of decades ago. There are also just too many entities wanting money to make it anywhere near realistic to access everything for the normal person.
I’m beyond the point of annoyed.
You are right. RW, NYT, etc. should pay the money out of the generosity of their hearts to reporters, editors, copyeditors, layout and design, distribution, etc. all so you get free content. Or maybe their staff can volunteer!
“Sponsorship contracts are one of the most secretive things in the sport of track & field. Basic details such as their value and length, widely available in major professional sports such as football or basketball, are hidden behind the walls of nondisclosure agreements.”
Written by Letsrun’s Jonathan Gault. See full article series here:
Why would anyone listen to know-nothing Gault. who has 1) never been a pro runner 2) has no close relationships with pro runners and 3) is a lack for Nike.
What I want to know is why in the hell did Adam Goucher have a student loan?
To quote directly from The Longest Race: “His running scholarship hadn’t been enough to cover his expenses in college, so he’d done odd jobs, including as a janitor. Even then, he still had loans to repay.” (p. 26)
What I want to know is why in the hell did Adam Goucher have a student loan?
To quote directly from The Longest Race: “His running scholarship hadn’t been enough to cover his expenses in college, so he’d done odd jobs, including as a janitor. Even then, he still had loans to repay.” (p. 26)
Far fewer track athletes get full scholarships than you would think. Alan Webb didn't get a full ride. When I was coaching my good athletes would get a combination of scholarships to get them through - partly need based, part academic, some private scholarships, and whatever was left was athletic or loans. Very, very few track guys get full athletic scholarships.
What I want to know is why in the hell did Adam Goucher have a student loan?
To quote directly from The Longest Race: “His running scholarship hadn’t been enough to cover his expenses in college, so he’d done odd jobs, including as a janitor. Even then, he still had loans to repay.” (p. 26)
Just to add to this: I'm just going off memory and could be wrong, but I vaguely remember reading that he didn't have a full-ride when he first got to CU. And he definitely didn't have any family money (a bit of a hardscrabble upbringing) so even though he was in-state and had maybe a partial (if he had anything at all), he would have needed money to cover some of it and/or pay some living expenses.
Of course she had a choice. You’re not suggesting that she signed her contracts under duress, are you?
dude (I assume you're a dude), give it a rest. There are all kinds of examples in every walk of life of people signing contracts where one side is the 800 pound gorilla and has all the leverage. Just because no one held a gun to her head doesn't mean that she effectively had no choice, nor does it make it right for Nike to require such terms. This is similar to the then-pervasive and punitive reduction clauses and the lack of pregnancy-exceptions.
For people too lazy to read the article Kara was making $35k base to start in 2001 and bumped up to $325k a year after 2008. If she ran well in a marathon the prize money, sponsor bonus, appearance fees, etc would total more than her annual base pay.
Kara appears to be an astute business woman - negotiated a higher appearance fee and lower agent fees. I have no doubt that she and Adam are financially set for life but she is swinging madly to stay relevant in the running community
That's great remuneration for someone who never won a marathon in her career. Nice to be white, I guess!