It may be that “she effectively had no choice,” but legally she did.
No one is arguing otherwise "legally." Just as no one except you is arguing that she had some nefarious ulterior motive that "you don't buy" for putting the information out there. Which, by the way, makes me think you have -- like so many incels on this board -- some irrational hatred of Kara or just successful women in general. What's "not to buy?" Shoot, Nike didn't "legally" have to cave to public outcry about the pregnancy-based reductions, but they did. And if Nike wants to sue her for breach of contract, they "legally" can but doesn't mean they should. Immaterial breaches of contracts, and non-enforcement by the other party of breaches of contracts, happen all the time. Get over it, and take your conspiracy garbage elsewhere.
I think it is great to know, but also underscores how ridiculously low paid track stars are and no wonder they have to sign confidentiality agreements. There are of course a few track star millionaires, but many of them don't even earn what end of the bench scrubs NBA players earn and with NBA stars many earing over 30 million a years, most professional track athletes are almost paid the equivalent of professional sports welfare money.
I think it is great to know, but also underscores how ridiculously low paid track stars are and no wonder they have to sign confidentiality agreements. There are of course a few track star millionaires, but many of them don't even earn what end of the bench scrubs NBA players earn and with NBA stars many earing over 30 million a years, most professional track athletes are almost paid the equivalent of professional sports welfare money.
A lot of people do not think of running in the same way as other pro sports. But they are similar in that the attraction / spectacle of the sport IS the athletes and their competition. There would be no one watching the World Marathon Majors if not for the pros. Nor would they watch the World Championships or Olympics if it was a bunch of average Joes. It is great that Kara Goucher and Nick Symmonds and a few others are willing to talk about their compensation. More need to do this.
The non disclosure agreements are intended to keep the cost of the athlete low (negligible) and collect revenue based on their performance, name, likeness, etc. The USATF, IAAF, IOC, etc are making billions and paying athletes less than pennies on the dollar. The way MLB, NBA, NFL got such high salaries was unionizing and collectively forcing team owners to disclose salaries and have minimums.
What the sport really needs is for some big rising stars to unionize and challenge the non disclosures in court. Shoe companies would almost certainly lose, but it takes big money to challenge them. Maybe some rising stars should even skip a pro shoe contract and be a free agent, collect appearance and prize money or take a contract but refuse the non disclosure portion and tell everyone how much they make and what meets they are refused.
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.
Okay, I've read your initial complaint here, and I've read your subsequent attempts to defend this position. And I'm confused about what exactly it is that you think should happen. You're pissed off because there are too many services offering running-related content that you'd like to consume, and you don't want to pay for all of them? Is that kind of like being pissed off that there are too many great car companies these days, and you can't afford to buy all the cars you want?
This thread started because of a Runner's World article that you couldn't access. For the print subscription and unlimited website access, RW currently costs ~$4 a month. If you think RW is crap, don't pay it. If there are articles like this one that interest you (and despite all the complaining, RW still does some impressive long-form coverage of the elite side of the sport), then pay it.
If you don't think it's worth paying for, how do you think RW should pay its staff and publication costs? Maybe they could get more ads, but (a) the ad market has been decimated by the rise of digital search, so ads are no longer as lucrative, and (b) you don't like ads either. As you complained: "It’s ads, ads, ads. Oh, and don’t forget about the multiple pages of hocking the products that are made by the companies that pay for ads. No thanks, not interested."
Okay, you don't want to pay, and you don't like ads either. I guess it's checkmate.
Every other sport I follow makes it easy to consume news and information either for free (which is really ad supported) or in one easy to manage subscription.
I don't need to pay five different websites and six different streaming services in order to see EPL or NFL games. I just have my peacock or cable subscription and everything I want to watch, or most of it, is on there.
I can go to ESPN or any number of European publications and find news about both.
I would say that she probably has mixed motives. She wants to help other athletes, but she also wants to sell more books, right?
Again, so what's your point? I'm sure she wants to sell books. So what. I'm not convinced that giving details on her contracts accomplishes that. The salacious stuff in the book was about NOP and AlSal, not the contract details particularly (except the reductions following her pregnancy). It's a compelling book. She has quite a story, from the death of her father at a young age to her bumpy ride as a HS and college runner to her unexpectedly-successful pro career to all the awful cr@p she had to deal with from AlSal to the drug culture of NOP and being a whistleblower. Read it. "I'm not buying it" about the salary stuff is a stubborn and absurd troll take.
Keep your shirt on. My only points are that she’s not “just” interested in helping other runners and that confidentiality provisions are legally enforceable.
Unionization of professional track stars seems unlikely, given the distinction between statutory “employees,” who are protected by federal labor law, and independent contractors, who are not. Shoe companies and other sponsors would almost certainly argue that these athletes are independent contractors, and thus do not enjoy the same right to unionize—or to discuss their compensation—as employees do.
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!
I doubt they're "set for life" though.
Not bad eh? Silver at Worlds over 10000, 3rd at the NYC and Boston marathon, and several national wins -> a couple of years with over $650,000 p.a. over a decade ago. Imagine what Rupp, not to mention Farah, must have earned.
Unionization of professional track stars seems unlikely, given the distinction between statutory “employees,” who are protected by federal labor law, and independent contractors, who are not. Shoe companies and other sponsors would almost certainly argue that these athletes are independent contractors, and thus do not enjoy the same right to unionize—or to discuss their compensation—as employees do.
They would certainly argue that, but the contracts usually have a base salary and that sounds like an employee. If that argument worked, could they impose pay non disclosures on a non employee? Usually that is reserved for intellectual property. A public company must disclose their balance sheet. Why can they hide what they pay athletes? The only way to find out is in court.
Like most systems where one side has almost all the money and power, they will fight hard to make sure the other side gets none. That starts with making information sharing impossible or illegal.
Contractors can unionize. They would need to know the rules about collective bargaining because they favor corporations (at least in the US). Best bet is getting some big names willing to skip meets if minimum payments are not met for all.
I'm only suggesting this is a possible path to more equitable pay for athletes. I'm not saying it is easy.
Keep your shirt on. My only points are that she’s not “just” interested in helping other runners and that confidentiality provisions are legally enforceable.
Stay in your lane, son. You knew enough to know what a liquidated damages clause is, which makes me shudder to think that you're some pompous law student who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room yet has no idea how this stuff works in the real world. Am I close? Even your comment about liquidated damages is laughable in the context of these agreements as there's no way that there were liquidated damages provisions in them. If you're a practicing lawyer who doesn't have his head up his @ss, you'd know that liquidated damages clauses are exceedingly rare and unheard of for confidentiality clauses. You clearly haven't read any of my posts. I'll say it again: even if the confidentiality provisions do not terminate, there's no way that these are "enforceable" in the sense that Nike is going to have a viable case to pursue damages here.
I'll stand by my earlier comment: your pedantic posts seem to reflect some deep-seated dislike of Kara Goucher. Get over it. And stop smearing her on here with your not-so-subtle digs at her integrity.
Liquidated damages clauses are generally enforceable, unless they amount to a penalty, and are just one way to enforce confidentiality provisions without having to prove actual damages. Another way is to include a clawback provision, which requires the breaching party to return any compensation. A third way is to include a fee-shifting provision, which requires the breaching party to pay attorneys fees and other costs of enforcement. Do you really think that Nike and other sponsors do not include any of these provisions in their contracts?
Liquidated damages clauses are generally enforceable, unless they amount to a penalty, and are just one way to enforce confidentiality provisions without having to prove actual damages. Another way is to include a clawback provision, which requires the breaching party to return any compensation. A third way is to include a fee-shifting provision, which requires the breaching party to pay attorneys fees and other costs of enforcement. Do you really think that Nike and other sponsors do not include any of these provisions in their contracts?
Look, kid, of course I know what those are. I'm saying -- but it's not getting through to you for some reason -- that it's virtually unheard of to have those provisions in these kinds of agreements. So, yes, I really do think Nike does not include them, esp as it would relate to a confidentiality provision. Would be hard to enforce anyway because they can't just make up a number out of thin air ("you breach, you owe us $10,000,000!!". Not happening.). You just googling these terms? There's no way you're a practicing lawyer (I hope).
You’re right, they can’t just make up a number out of thin air; it has to be reasonably related to the anticipated breach. As I indicated, liquidated damages clauses will not be enforced if they amount to a penalty. But I find it hard to believe that Nike has no effective means of enforcing its confidentiality provisions, which is basically what you’re saying. What would be the point of having such provisions in the first place if parties could breach them with impunity? Anyway, that’s my last word on the subject. Thanks for the repartee.