Why do the Brojo's think Koll deserves big $$

She is young (21?), smart, good looking blonde, homegrown, articulate, and she wins from the front. Did you forget about adidas, Reebok, Saucony, Puma, Asics, and more? How old is Goucher? Nike and the rest are looking to the future.

$100k guarantee at Hansons-Brooks.

I say Brooks because they went big for Jenny and it did not work out, so they are clearly looking for that major athlete to spearhead the brand. Reebok is not sponsoring anyone new for the most past as they are now owned by Adidas. Seeing as Adidas did not go hard for Jenny who is in a much more marketable event and has very American road racers which is where Koll will end up, they are unlikely.

As for the others, Saucony already has three major 10k + women and another young upstart. Puma would have to dig very deep to justify spending big dollars, which leaves only Asics who could be looking to replace Kastor long term.

Frankly I still do not see a huge deal like that of JB. If her Guarentee is more than 50-75k per year (which is very good in the running world despite what some may think) I would be surprised.

Brooks may have spent their Jenny money on that Triathlon chick... Christy something (Crissy?)

The Cynic wrote:

I say Brooks because they went big for Jenny and it did not work out, ...

???

So she ran, what, her first race of the season and got an AL, so what is your standard for 'working out'? Has she failed to give her very well considered and much appreciated/highly rated interviews?

[quote]slow mofo wrote:

Brooks may have spent their Jenny money on that Triathlon chick[quote]

Chrissie Wellington is the best female athlete on the planet. Or at least the female athlete who is closest to the best overall in her event.

Most "pro" women perform in their sports at about the level of teenage boys. But Chrissie finished 23rd overall in the 2009 Kona Ironman, beating out something like 70 sponsored pro male athletes.

I think he meant it didn't work out for Brooks to sign her. It's working out fine for NB so far.

Don't know if this is relevant to Brooks sponsorship deals, but here's a story about Brooks trying to broaden their market with rec runners:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/business/media/11adco.html

The headline kind of overstates things: "Brooks, Maker of Elite Shoes, Takes Aim at the Fun Run Crowd" Brooks makes some good shoes but "maker of elite shoes"?

I think their point is that since Brooks is an all-running company they might not be as well known amongst recreational joggers as they are with people who have been running since high school. By "elite" I think they just mean people who run competitively. Remember, the majority of the general population has no idea what elite means or what it takes to get there.

The Cynic wrote:

If her Guarentee is more than 50-75k per year (which is very good in the running world despite what some may think) I would be surprised.

Not considering any reductions, you're off by a factor of ten.

Koll will command top dollar because she is the future of US Marathoning. Deena and Magda are a couple years from retirement, Kara probably has 3-4 years left, and who knows how Flanagan will do.

Koll is only 23 and will probably be a marathoner for by 26. The marathon is one of the few events where shoe companies can actually make a connection to the average runner who buys their shoes.

You missed one. Last years #2 marathoner in the US. I believe that she will end 2010 as the #1 female marathoner in the US. And she is young still. Take a closer look.

Off by a factor or 10? for Koll or in general?

Please enlighten me, drop the names of the athletes in the distance-road races who are making over $500-750,000 per year as you claim. Yes there are some sprinters who still have contracts in this range, but the distance runners both male and females with Guarentees of this amount can be counted on one hand.

Does anyone know, for a fact, how much sponsored runners are making? I always see a lot of speculation on these boards but do the companies, or runners themselves, ever release this information?

Koll is more marketable because she has the range, development, and aggressiveness to be both a world class track racer and road racer.

Koll will a sign for a good amount. She is way faster younger than just about any of her predicessors and she looks like she may have a pretty easy road to the 2012 olympics in the 10k before going to the marathon.

Todays Tom Sawyer wrote:

Don't know if this is relevant to Brooks sponsorship deals, but here's a story about Brooks trying to broaden their market with rec runners:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/business/media/11adco.html

The headline kind of overstates things: "Brooks, Maker of Elite Shoes, Takes Aim at the Fun Run Crowd" Brooks makes some good shoes but "maker of elite shoes"?

I loved/ hated this quote at the end of the article:

“If you look back at the late ’70s it was all about your finishing time in a marathon,” Mr. Sullivan said. “But now running is about being fit, feeling good and empowered, and raising money for a cause.”

Yes, rarely released information which unfortunately is one thing that hurts the sport on the professional level, but at the same time if you knew how little "big stars" were making in comparison to other sports etc it could dishearten many.

Alan Webb's initial contract was stated somewhere I forget where, maybe in SUB 4:00 or perhaps by Nike itself at around 1Million over 4 yrs or $250k/yr. This was exceptionally high back then for a mid distance/distance runner, and still is in the high range now with the economy etc.

The top notch runners are still making their money like they used to even in this economy, and the runners barely getting by on gear and small stipends are still around too, what has really taken a hit is that middle ground.

Because they come from a world of free money? In terms of the "industry," they have always been on the fringes, at best.