Attaboy, Nick Symmonds.

I am thinking of a single event payout as well, using marathon appearance fees as a guideline. An athlete who owns an unbeaten steak spanning years, multiple Olympic and WC medals, and is in his prime, representing an international brand in an international sport is reasonably worth $500K USD per event at a World Championships level event. Even somewhat higher at the Olympics.

Saying that athletes are worth more in no way diminishes the value of meet sponsorships. The two things have distinct values, and the market determines those values. If you're suggesting that the pool of available money shrinks because the athletes take more, I would argue that the pool of money increases as the audience increases, because the sponsors increase as the audience increases. They follow each other.

The limitation of exposure to competing sponsors serves only the IAAF. It's a monopoly play. They're artificially limiting the athlete's ability to profit from their labor. Exactly like the record companies getting between artists and fans, claiming that facilitating distribution is what makes their profit possible. In reality, restricting distribution is what makes the IAAF's profit possible. They make the TV contracts, they make the sponsor contracts, they decide which athletes get to compete, etc. The IAAF controls everything in play.

If you, as an athlete, don't want to respect their rules, how do you earn a dime off your image and ability? If Bekele decided today that he didn't want to play by IAAF rules, how does he make a penny? Where can he race? No where, the IAAF sanctions the meets, and Bekele is not allowed at an IAAF sanctioned meet. Sorry. Okay, Bekele finds a non-IAAF meet. There is almost zero prize money, no budget for appearance fees, no one of quality to race, and Bekele now has no sponsor due to the pressure brought to bear on all the major sponsors by the IAAF. Even the Ethiopian federation has cut ties with Bekele due to the same pressure. What's left for Bekele?

Do you see what I am saying? There is plenty to go around, even multiple times more than there is right now, but ultimately there may be less for the IAAF, which is why they are holding tight.

NICK S MISSES A KEY POINT - HIS PRIMARY SPONSOR NIKE IS GOING TO LAUGH AT HIM AND TELL HIM NO WAY IF HE THINKS HE CAN WEAR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NIKE NIKE DON'T DO SECONDARY SPONSORS

Maybe T&F have their problems because other than sprints no one cares about running in America.

Watching some skinny dudes/girls running around on a track lap after lap after lap is boring to 99 percent of the US population. We get all excited about it because we are runners but outside of our little bubble no one gives a crap.

Glad Nick is speaking up but our sport will never be big in this country.

You both make good points and truth be told you both are 100 % correct in the way you see it.

Bottom line is how do we bring about change.

This dialog goes in circles every year. The governing body structure is set up to protect the powers at large. They are not held accountable.

They are afraid (USATF ) to even hire a CEO who may want change. Status quo.

........ wrote:

Glad Nick is speaking up but our sport will never be big in this country.

These guys were rock stars in their day. Back in the day before being a screw up was cool...

Yes. Make the pie bigger instead of thinking that it can only be sliced into smaller pieces! More sponsors means more money for everybody.

NASCAR is only popular because of crashes. Duh. Steeple is the only track event with that kind of potential.

Does Symmonds still have a tanning salon? Is that the small business he means?

Geez, from the thread title, I thought maybe he knocked up Maggie....

Why are people so quick to associate "the sport" with the professionalization of running. Track/xc is a participatory sport in the US, who gives a f*** how much money a prorunner can make... The real danger to the sport is budget cuts to Highschool programs. If you want to help the sport,'go to a schoolboard meeting and get involved in your local running club.

The sport Is already too gimmicky and commercialized for my liking, all the Runnersworld culture-stuff.

His time in the tanning booth has fried his brain.

Runners running around in singlets that resemble a billboard would look stupid as hell

someone had to do it wrote:

Runners running around in singlets that resemble a billboard would look stupid as hell

Nascar doesn't look stupid. Nor does this guy:

I'd love to agree as Prozac Nation, but I've been banned. Typical letsrun...

Here's a good reply to his post:

http://tonireavis.com/2011/10/04/dear-nick-symmonds/

Toni makes a solid response. I think the example from tennis is especially interesting. The best player, in his prime, gave up 24 opportunities to win the biggest championships in tennis over a six year period for the good of the sport. It worked, but what a sacrifice. Could Bolt do that? Rudisha? Bekele? Vlasic?

Thanks for the link.

So what does Symmonds/Reavis WANT? To be able to put scratch-n-sniff McDonald's tattoos on athlete's biceps? To have a biking-jersey like singlet? Do they really think that's the biggest problem with track today? Do they really think that's why nobody cares about our sport?

asdfsadfsdaf wrote:

So what does Symmonds/Reavis WANT? To be able to put scratch-n-sniff McDonald's tattoos on athlete's biceps? To have a biking-jersey like singlet? Do they really think that's the biggest problem with track today? Do they really think that's why nobody cares about our sport?

He wants other options to achieve greatness and financial compensation outside of the IAAF World Championships and Olympic Games. Right now, if you're not contending for those, you're not on the map.

all that need to be done is to attack the bylaws of the usatf and subiSubmitting Rule Changes

Rule changes for USATF are made at our even year conventions and go into effect at the start of the odd years. However, rule changes do occur in odd years because of need for conformance with IAAF and WMA rules which are changed in odd years, i.e., 2007. Thus the changes for 2008 are the result of changes made by IAAF and/or WMA at their meetings in 2007 and approved for the most part by USATF at the Hawaii Convention in 2007.

•Odd Years

◦Rule changes made: WMA, NCAA, NFHS and IAAF (Supposedly every 4 years but there have recently been changes every two years.)

◦Rules go into effect at the start of the next even year or May 1 for WMA and IAAF

◦USATF to conform with IAAF/WMA

•Even Years

◦Rule changes made: NCAA, NFHS and USATF

◦Rules go into effect: start of next odd year

Suggest Rule Changes

If you have a suggestion for a rule change, please email George Kleeman and include the following information:

1.Original rule number

2.Original tule text

3.How you would like the rule modified

4.Your rationale for the change

Please remember that any rule changes submitted now can not be acted upon until the next rule change year.

t a rule change as a retired union rep this would be a hard thing to do but a very powerful union lawyer could get with many grievants and maybe abitrate there position and im sure the usatf does not follow there own rules that they apply considering who runs the organization