Attaboy, Nick Symmonds.

bump

Agreed 100%!!!

he makes solid points, writes well, and fleshes out his legitimate concerns from an insider's point of view without being a whiny baby. Very good letter.

No, his post is stupid and childish. Does he really think that track is dying because Pepsi can't slap their logo on a racing singlet so it looks like a nascar jacket? No, track is dying because USATF is inept at EVERYTHING: marketing itself, running meets, etc. It's so corrupt and everyone knows it. So what, the IAAF/USATF change the rules so Nick can wear a Budweiser patch over his right nipple, who cares? That's not going to change anything. No business is going to see that as a viable advertisement venue.

OVERREGULATION is not what is killing track. It is CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM, and it extends to the highest levels.

I thought it was going to be about drugs

If NASCAR can be popular doing more laps for a longer period of time while the athlete sits in a car, then I think this is a sign that track and field could learn a thing or two about sponsorships and advertising.

Here's the thing you have to consider: track and field would get more coverage if sponsorships expanded. The advertisers want to be seen. Getting the races on television and the patches on their shirts go hand-in-hand, as advertisers want to be seen.

Agreed. USATF and the IAAF need to allow athletes to find and promote their own corporate supporters. Maybe NASCAR isn't the best model (but a good one), and we should be looking at how triathletes and cyclists advertise on their uniforms.

T&F needs to look at NASCAR and Golf as a model.

Honestly I think we need more "US only" meets. People in the US dont want to see 12 east africans and one US runner do run laps and then cheer for 7th place. That doesnt translate to the public.

Using the "crawl before you can walk" idea I think we have a few meets where we compete vs each other THEN you start worrying about racing the best in the world, not the other way around.

NASCAR drivers have incentives to be at each and every race. First, their sponsors put up good money to see them on the track every week. Second, they are racing for points and going for the championship at the end of the year which is a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY. Kinda like Diamond League point system.

Track can't exactly emulate NASCAR of course but more sponsors mean more money. More money means more, and better, athletes. Which brings more fans, more meets, better venues, TV etc....

Money talks.

His First Amendment argument is hilarious, though. USATF violates his 1st A. rights? Quit the damn club then!

The most provided-for and overpaid track athlete in our country. No matter how much he wants to be, there isn't a 'Prefontaine-fight' of amateurism for a guy not close to a medal making $150,000 guaranteed a year.

joho wrote:

Track can't exactly emulate NASCAR of course but more sponsors mean more money. More money means more, and better, athletes. Which brings more fans, more meets, better venues, TV etc....

It's not quite that straightforward.

More logos (especially by rival corporations) slapped on athletes mean less incentive for Nike, Samsung and ING to pay the really big bucks to be title sponsors (the people who Symmonds acknowledge are keeping the sport alive).

Make the title sponsorship worth less and you might end up with more meets folding or at least reducing prize money.

Um, yeah wrote:

It's not quite that straightforward.

More logos (especially by rival corporations) slapped on athletes mean less incentive for Nike, Samsung and ING to pay the really big bucks to be title sponsors (the people who Symmonds acknowledge are keeping the sport alive).

Make the title sponsorship worth less and you might end up with more meets folding or at least reducing prize money.

It's not quite that straightforward. Your argument is eerily similar to that of the bankers in 2008 when they were whinging for their multi-million dollar bonuses and begging for a bailout. "If we don't get the sponsorships from the biggest sponsors, we'll lose the whole sport! Those sponsors are too big! Without them, we'll fail!"

Good. Let's find out. IAAF, you can go fvck yourselves, USATF, you can go fvck yourselves, and track and field will go out and seek its own fortune. It won't take long for a new international governing body to spring up, provided the market is allowed to operate freely. As it was previously stated, USATF is not a professional league. Other than the Olympics and National Championships, they have no sway over athletes who wish to break the "contract" and compete in whatever meets they can find. It may take a generation of athletes willing to risk being excluded from national and Olympic competition, but that will pass quickly if a majority of athletes get on board. At some point, as it has in basketball, an Olympic medal may even become an afterthought to professional considerations. That would be something.

I've long been for abolishing USATF. Still am.

silly little boy wrote:

The most provided-for and overpaid track athlete in our country. No matter how much he wants to be, there isn't a 'Prefontaine-fight' of amateurism for a guy not close to a medal making $150,000 guaranteed a year.

Wasn't he fifth at the WC's? That's close. I remember him winning a few DL's this past summer, too. He's earned the clout to speak his mind.

You need to pay attention to the sport, little boy.

I'd say you are really stretching things with this comparison.

Let's say you are Nike and you've just paid several million dollars to have your logo displayed at the World Championships.

Now adidas comes along and pays Bekele $5000 to cover himself him their logo, just like NASCAR. When he wins the 5000 and 10,000 (we'll assume the Bekele from a couple years ago), whose logo will get more face time on TV and in the papers? Which sponsor got more value for their money?

If you are the sponsor who got less value, why would you continue to pay that kind of money for what you ended up getting?

Oh, you mean like the pro track series that existed the 1970s? How's that working out for you? Free market at work, baby!

Aquafina is right.

Look what happened to the Indy 500 and Indy Car racing when most of the drivers were foreign. They fell off the face of the earth!

The U.S. fans will not support athletes they cannot relate to.

Well, if you use reasonable numbers, your scenario is not so clear.

Nike pays $3,000,000 to have its logo displayed at WC. It's still everywhere in the stadium, on all the same uniforms, the athlete bibs, etc. They still get the value they paid for.

Let's assume Bekele is not a Nike contracted athlete, and he is free to seek his own sponsorships. He contracts with Adidas for $600,000 to wear their logos due to his exceedingly good record of winning 5000m and 10000m races, and also contracts with 12 other companies, selling an additional $400,000 of ad space on his outside hip, arm, and back. Bekele will get very limited exposure on TV when he is racing and when he wins compared to Nike's logo, which is probably still visible in the background, on the broadcast video overlay, etc.

This is no different than an Adidas athlete winning a race today, it's just that they are often restricted from showing large logos that would distract viewers from the major sponsor, and may even prevent viewers from knowing what company the athlete is sponsored by.

In my example, it's clear that the real value is held by the athlete. The IAAF, by preventing the athlete from owning the revenue stream, is profiting by artificially limiting the ability of the athlete to capitalize on the value of their image.

Athletes are worth a lot more than you are giving them credit for.

Phhht.

I get it, you're in Oregon and you want to be Pre...

Go for it, get all preachy and self righteous. Little guy going against the establishment. What's not to like?

common wrote:

Well, if you use reasonable numbers, your scenario is not so clear.

True, but then is there any reason to believe your numbers for Bekele?

Athletes are worth a lot more than you are giving them credit for.

Possibly. In my example I was thinking of a single-meet payment, rather than annual contract.

However in saying athletes are worth more, you are acknowledging that the meet sponsorship is worth less.

One could make the argument the IAAF is bloated and due for some belt-tightening, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in their interest to obtain the most money they can from their sponsors and that means making the sponsorship as valuable as possible, including limiting exposure to their competitors.