Our sport won't be taken too seriously win its most prestigious race has only $55,000 to the winner.

You are right. All prizes should be at least $1,000,000. Now how do you suggest accomplishing this?

Don't pay apperance money.

luv2run wrote:

You are right. All prizes should be at least $1,000,000. Now how do you suggest accomplishing this?

This post was a follow-up of a deleted post decrying the sad state of front-page editing. Its first iteration included a number of grammatical and spelling errors. Now it is down to one simple typo.

From the front page article on the women's press conference...

fano wrote:

Don't pay apperance money.

Yep.

Absolutely. Or, let everyone know how much appearance money everyone is getting. Appearance fees are much more than prize money, so the casual fans think runners earn very little money.

I would like to see an end to appearance fees. Put that money into prize money. Pay expenses, but increase prize money and have it go deeper so developing runners can earn money, too.

You ned appearance fees. When world rankings are a factor in your pay you have to be confident that the money you will receiving from starting a stacked race (like London, or a 100m with Tyson vs. Asafa) will be sufficient to make up for lost earnings if you run poorly.

Is anyone familar with Tennis or Golf, do they pay apperance money for Tiger Woods or Roger Federer to play at the non-major tournaments on the ATP or PGA? I know Woods will get money to play non-PGA events but what about normal PGA events?

WMM should require the elimination of appearance fees for member races. Even though he didn't win the WMM jackpot, Geb picked up too many WMM points running boring orchestrated time trials in Berlin. Competing for WMM points (as well as a larger and deeper prize purse) should be incentive enough, these runners have sponsors to help them survive a poor performance.

I don't think that you get it.

Your world rankng will determine how substantial your bonus is (and if you get one at all) and the difference between a lot of money could be one race where you crapped out (a la Geb at London last year). You have to make it worth their while to risk losing.

the former mobile9 wrote:

I don't think that you get it.

Your world rankng will determine how substantial your bonus is (and if you get one at all) and the difference between a lot of money could be one race where you crapped out (a la Geb at London last year). You have to make it worth their while to risk losing.

That's the difference between marathoning and golf. If Tiger craps out at Augusta, he can go right back next week and make some good $$ at another Tour event, and the week after, and so on. If Lel has a bad race and finishes out of the money it could be several months before he's ready to race hard again, then it's a matter of finding another big money race like London.

That said, I think it's wrong when appearance fees exceed winning prize money by several times.

You go ahead and think that all you want. There are bonuses given for more than just world ranking. If the WMM makes it a condition then there won't be a bidding war of appearance fees among the races in the WMM. If the prize purses and the WMM purse are not enough to "make it worth their while to risk losing" then so what? If Geb (or whomever) doesn't like it then he can just keep running marathons in Dubai.

luv2run wrote:

You are right. All prizes should be at least $1,000,000. Now how do you suggest accomplishing this?

Why not $10,000,000....or $100,000,000?

The first prizes at NYC are $130,000, plus ample time bonuses.

A couple of folks just earned $300,000 apiece for a half marathon in the UAE.

There are places to make big money in this sport.

That's why if your a real athlete you play baseball, basketball, or football (and if you care about making millions). If the road races could attract 80,000 paying fans every week and huge television contracts, then maybe the runners would make more. Its common sense!