Attaboy, Nick Symmonds.

So, if people are serious about changing the sport, and we seriously think that the IAAF/USATF is the problem, then why not do this:

In the next non WC non Olympic year, have a group arrange a series of meets... Say 5 or so over the summer. Similar to a diamond league, but without USATF/IAAF sanctioning. Have most of the US high profile athletes agree to sign up. Allow them to have sponsors. Have a point system with prize money. Focus on doing whatever it takes to promote the athlete and the sport.

If it works, and there is fan/TV interest, then everyone has a platform to negotiate from. Run the league successfully for 3 or 5 years or whatever. Fight about whether the marks from the new league can qualify someone for the WC/Olympics. Get some big names left off the Olympic team. Have a couple runners lose their existing sponsorships. Create a bunch of controversy and uproar. Then, real change might happen.

Want to know why corporate sponsorship of individual athletes won't work? Miniscule exposure time.

An elite athlete like Symmonds races what, maybe a dozen times per year? Hell, call it 20 times. At less than two minutes per race, he's competing for less than 40 minutes per year. And because an athlete of Symmonds' stature isn't winning many international races, his image isn't being featured on many TV programs or in publications. So why would a company spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ridiculously small amount of exposure?

Everyone brings up NASACAR, golf, and cycling. Well, the events are longer and there are more opportunities for individual exposure (individual shots in golf, breakaways in cycling, etc.).

Most of Symmond's exposure is in enthusiast publications (Running Times, Flotrack, etc.), so it makes sense for Nike to shell out cash for sponsorship. The people that read these magazines and website are Nike's target audience. Why would Samsung want to put a logo on his chest for 40 minutes a year when they could put a logo on the side of the track for a whole two hour meet at not much more cost?

I am not a fan of USATF, but it is not the orginization...it is the sport. NASCAR is popular because there is beer and chance of a crash. Go to a track meet, and you have wasted your entire day/weekend. The only good meet is Pre Classic. Bring in the best runners, have them go at it, and get them off the track. None of this 12 heats of the 200, so the same 8 to 10 can run in the finals.

So, you're saying that because track athletes don't have the potential to make as much in sponsorship as NASCAR drivers, because the exposure is less, they should not be allowed to make any money at all?Some of you are taking the NASCAR analogy too seriously. "That's a dumb analogy, because runners aren't in cars!" Obviously it's not perfect. The point is that they have a system of sponsorship that is VASTLY different from that in running.

ken not so tremendous wrote:

Want to know why corporate sponsorship of individual athletes won't work? Miniscule exposure time.

An elite athlete like Symmonds races what, maybe a dozen times per year? Hell, call it 20 times. At less than two minutes per race, he's competing for less than 40 minutes per year. And because an athlete of Symmonds' stature isn't winning many international races, his image isn't being featured on many TV programs or in publications. So why would a company spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ridiculously small amount of exposure?

An Engineer wrote:

So, you're saying that because track athletes don't have the potential to make as much in sponsorship as NASCAR drivers, because the exposure is less, they should not be allowed to make any money at all?

Some of you are taking the NASCAR analogy too seriously. "That's a dumb analogy, because runners aren't in cars!" Obviously it's not perfect. The point is that they have a system of sponsorship that is VASTLY different from that in running.

Of course athletes should be allowed to make money. I'm just saying that the potential earnings for a track athlete (especially an athlete in a non-marquee event like the 800) are a lot less than people think. Where is the money going to come from? What is the ROI for companies to sponsor athletes, or plug more money into major meetings (resulting in more prize money and appearance fees)?

Unlike Tennis/Golf where all the majors come around yearly the Olympics does not. Where the Tennis players were able to put together 6 years of abstinence, it would probably take several Olympic cycles to achieve the same effect and by that time no one would care anyway. Let's face it. If all the world champions and the next 10 finishers boycotted London 2012, how many people would really care?? The winners in London would be Gold Medalists and the boycotters would be considered selfish, money grubbing, idiots. Sadly, I believe there are more people who believe that the Olympics are still amateurs than not.

Those that follow horse racing know that the jockeys are fighting this very same battle. They want to have their own personal sponsors when racing. I believe most tracks do not allow this. This is very much like the T&F situation because the jockeys really do not have much of a voice at all. Only the few BIG jockeys (oxymoron right?) make real money, the others don't have a lot of room to protest or fight the system.

If jockeys are successful in getting the right to wear sponsor's logos in races, the T&F athletes should look and learn.

Excellent, excellent post. Spot on.

joho wrote:

Those that follow horse racing know that the jockeys are fighting this very same battle. They want to have their own personal sponsors when racing. I believe most tracks do not allow this.

Is this argument about being able to wear random logos at the World Champs or Olympics (which are national team events) or on the regular GP or Diamond League circuit?

If the former, then athletes are part of their national team and as such should be wearing their national team uniform (just like the Buffalo Bills QB doesn't get to wear his favourite Chicago Bulls singlet during a game).

If the latter, then they are wearing their sponsor's gear. Look at any Diamond League start line and everyone is outfitted in Nike, adidas or Puma. Even if you can't see the logo, most people can still recognize what company it is (just like you don't need to see the country name at the Olympics to recognize whose gear they are wearing).

One of the biggest problems here is that tack and field really missed its historic chances. Trying to market and create popular success today is far more difficult than it was decades ago because Americans (and others) now have far more entertainment options. Trying to increase market share in TV rating--which is really critical to this whole debate--is far more difficult now. If track and field had been governed by people that understood marketing and publicity in the immediate post WWII period, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, and 1970s, it could be huge today. Not only did they have no one really versed in marketing and publicity in the 1950s and 1960s, most associated with the sport thought these activities were unseemly and unethical. They had absolutely no interest in it at all. How many full time employees did the AAU national offices (which included far more sports than just track and field) have in this period? Very few indeed. we all know Ollan Casell was in charge of much of this. The AAU was an intentionally amateurish crowd of track enthusiasts who had no interest in professional promotion of the sport. Just think if the NFL had had no Rozelle or the NBA had no Stern (he was a bit later)? If the three major team sports had been run like the AAU in the 1960s-1980s none of the three major sports would be where they are now. Just think if track had actually marketed during the USA-USSR track meets and the national championship meets in the 1950s and 1960s? Track got far more coverage (take a look at the NYT in the 19650s and 1960s) then even though it was essentially an unmarketed commodity. (Dead AAU leaders would cringe at the thought of track as a commodity.) But this ship of opportunity passed by years ago. It's not that the USATF and the IAAF could not do more and better. But we have to acknowledge that the job is now a far more difficult one. I hate to say it, but the likelihood of ANYONE being successful heading the USATF is remote.

Another problem is the general structure most Olympic sports. Team leagues require a structure and control by owners that has always been absent in track. The governing bodies had control of the sport but they are not controlled or influenced by owners who can insist that they do marketing and publicity like baseball, basketball and football or lose their jobs. The large track clubs can complain and at times have influenced decisions--as have athletes at various times for that matter. Tom Jennings and the PCC wrestled money out the the AAU in the mid 1970s for example. But it occurs within a far different business structure than team sports who have the capacity for far more coordinated and well financed spending on promotion.

If you like track enjoy it, but don't count on any superman coming along to give it a major rise in prominence. (You should also check out the pictures of Jack Kelly Jr. when he became AAU head in the early 1970s. "Super" Jack donned a Superman costume at the convention. If Kelly had been successful in many of his goals track would be in far better shape today. But most in the crumudgeonly AAU opposed his reform efforts.)

dr

revrun1640 wrote:

I am not a fan of USATF, but it is not the orginization...it is the sport. NASCAR is popular because there is beer and chance of a crash. Go to a track meet, and you have wasted your entire day/weekend. The only good meet is Pre Classic. Bring in the best runners, have them go at it, and get them off the track. None of this 12 heats of the 200, so the same 8 to 10 can run in the finals.

I agree with this, Track meets going on for 12 hours with a 5 minute pause in between races is not something exciting for tv. They should have a bunch of 1 hr track meets with ~ 5 good events, put it live on espn once a week with all the good americans. have something like 100 - mile, 400, HJ, sp, 5k, 110 h, have men do 4 events, women 4 schedule it to run for 1 hr. then it would be good for tv and live spectators.

Also, all the sprinters, who draw most of the attention to the sport (gay, powell, bolt, and now blake) need to stop being p*ssies and actually race each other very often.

gambit inside grantion wrote:

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

true, only the government can violate the bill of rights

The Stache wrote:

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.

Writes well?? You are fvcking kidding me!! He has the writing style of someone who isn't clever but who desperately wants to sound it.

Dragged not Drug wrote:

The Stache wrote:

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.

Writes well?? You are fvcking kidding me!! He has the writing style of someone who isn't clever but who desperately wants to sound it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Desperately wants to sound it". Now there's good writing!

I think you've raised some good points. Track and field will always be a niche sport to an extent, but I think if we could shed the institutional obstacles that currently exist, we could have a more visible sport in the way that cycling is in Europe. This would not make running like the NFL, but it would provide more opportunities to our elite (but not star) athletes.

Yes, cycling has big problems too (most of the money going to race organizers, teams constantly forming and disbanding from the constant need for sponsors) and the sport revolves around several long-duration marquis events. But, there is WAY more opportunity in terms of financial support for up and coming riders that simply does not exist in running.

It's sad that most of our All-American runners who want to pursue the sport leave college and end up bumming gear sponsorships from the local running store while they work crappy jobs to make a living. Sure, most cyclists get paid crap, but most semi-professional runners would drool over $15,000 to $20,000. With this they could train full-time or at least work part-time.

We keep wondering how the sport can be profitable given the limited marketability of current events (track meets, xc meets, big marathons), but if there were better opporunities for making a profit by marketing through the athletes themselves the sport itself might change. What's preventing there from being elite sponsored teams at major marathons such as Chicago, Boston, or New York? Teams stacked with marquis athletes with heavy corporate sponsorship. Team Nissan vs. Team Saucony vs. Team 5-Hour Energy. This would create much more drama for the lukewarm fan then the commentators harping on the record attempt by some faceless East African (no disrespect intended) .

Just some thoughts. But I don't think we should be constrained in thinking that the sport would continue to follow its current stagnant path if organizational barriers were removed.

broski wrote:

Track meets going on for 12 hours with a 5 minute pause in between races is not something exciting for tv

What invitational track meet currently on tv lasts this long? Anybody with a broadcast deal knows the paying public is there for three hours tops.

Sam in Berkeley wrote:

What's preventing there from being elite sponsored teams at major marathons such as Chicago, Boston, or New York? Teams stacked with marquis athletes with heavy corporate sponsorship. Team Nissan vs. Team Saucony vs. Team 5-Hour Energy. This would create much more drama for the lukewarm fan then the commentators harping on the record attempt by some faceless East African (no disrespect intended) .

First and foremost, the Olympic Games and World Championships prevent this. In a given year, the major championship is the only thing that matters. Ask Jenny Barringer. Morgan Uceny won more races, killed it at US Nationals, ran faster and will get ranked number one in the world, but you don't think she'd trade that for Barringer's season if it meant being World Champion?

Because performing at the major championship is all that matters, doing well in anything else leading up to it doesn't matter. It's all just preparation for the big meet. How could you possibly make teams and expect people to stick to the team schedule if it in any way inhibits their ability to be in peak form at the Olympics next summer?

Track and field is an individual sport and doesn't lend itself well to the team structure outside of a scholastic setting. First, you're not going to have Team Saucony vs. Team Nike because their budgets are worlds apart. The team sponsors can't prevent the athlete from pursuing his or her individual deals or else you're right back where we are now. All of the NFL's official uniforms are still produced by Reebok, but Tom Brady still gets to have his own Nike deal. It's not that much, but it doesn't matter, because the Patriots pay him a ton of money. That money comes mostly from tv sales.

But let's say you were able to form a league based in the US without the problem of sponsorship. What do you do when Kara Goucher feels like Salazar is not longer the guy from her. She's locked into a contract with the team, right? What if they don't want to trade her? You're then saying that she has to sacrifice her Olympic preparations for the goals of the team. That's obviously distinct from all these team sports where the top goal individual player is for the team to win the team championship.

If you want to make a league, be prepared to make succeeding in the league more valuable than winning the Olympic Games. Tell Kobe and LeBron they have a choice between winning an Olympic gold medal for winning the NBA Finals and guess what they'll pick: the one with more money.

It was on this thread or a different one that someone said that the top male 100m runners were pussies for hardly ever racing one another. They're not pussies; they're businessmen trying the maximize they're earnings. If you're Bolt in Brussels, you're going to get paid a little less to race the 100m compared to racing Blake in the 200m, but you know that what you could potentially make by being ranked number one in the world over 100m is worth more than however much extra you would race by running the 200m (and risk losing to Blake) it's a simple business decision. The top sprinters will be happy to race eachother all season long. Just pay them $1 million for the first race, and add a million for each following race in the season. They'll be happy to race. You just have to pay them enough to make it worth their while.

lookwhoisinfront wrote:

all that need to be done is to attack the bylaws of the usatf

Your analysis of how to change USATF rules is more or less correct, but the uniform rule in question is not a USATF rule and does not appear in the USATF Rule Book. It is an IAAF rule that is now applied on US soil to most of the major USATF National Championships, the two Diamond League meets, and several of the other big meets that are televised.

Um, yeah wrote:

Is this argument about being able to wear random logos at the World Champs or Olympics (which are national team events) or on the regular GP or Diamond League circuit?

If the former, then athletes are part of their national team and as such should be wearing their national team uniform (just like the Buffalo Bills QB doesn't get to wear his favourite Chicago Bulls singlet during a game).

If the latter, then they are wearing their sponsor's gear. Look at any Diamond League start line and everyone is outfitted in Nike, adidas or Puma. Even if you can't see the logo, most people can still recognize what company it is (just like you don't need to see the country name at the Olympics to recognize whose gear they are wearing).

I think most elites are more or less fine with the uniform restrictions for the Olympics and World Championships. I mean maybe they would like to be able to wear a sponsor t-shirt during post-race interviews or something, but I don't think too many of them are arguing that they should be allowed to add logos to the Team USA jersey.

As far as the latter, the current IAAF uniform restrictions (which are applied to pretty much any meet on TV) make it pretty much impossible to have any sponsor displayed but a track club and/or a shoe/clothing manufacturer.