WEJO off the mark on Nick Symmonds' comment

Bump for Stephen on a topic that should be discussed.

My opinion is treat runners like they do drivers in NASCAR. Racing is racing, doesn't matter if it is by foot, horse or car.

Good post Stephan - the problem is that the people who are "supposed" to be helping the "emerging" elites did not get that memo. Look at NYC Marathon. After all the uproar after the "Picky Bars" situation at NYC, both the TFAA and Fleshman spoke up in support of everything that NYRR does for athletes. They went out of their way to distance NYRR from the problem. The fact was (and still remains), however, that an organization like NYRR is in a unique position to protect the athletes, but it chooses instead to turn a blind eye. Why? Well, NYRR, Nike, et al go hand in hand. And, why would Nike want to allow greater access for other sponsors? The same goes for LRC. Neither you nor I are directly paying Wejo's salary. His advertising is and a bulk of that presumably comes from Nike, NYRR, etc. Athletes need a strong unified front, and only time will tell whether that is going to be the TFAA.

Good post Stephen.

There should be a race series with the proceeds going to emerging elites. In my life, I have hundreds of race benefiting causes and cures of all kinds.

One of Wejo's points, though, is that athletes need to be respectful to the race's sponsors, too. I think we all agree that emerging athletes need more support, but we have to be careful about offending the current sponsors who have given so much for so many years who will lose incentive to advertise if their brand isn't going to be promoted as exclusively. The companies aren't stupid, either. If an emerging, unproven athlete gets more money and can make it without as much from an individual sponsor, then they're going to reduce the sponsorship.

The question is how can we get Nike to agree to still sponsor an athlete for the same amount while letting the uniform take on other brands? How can we get ING to shrug it off if their New York City marathon becomes a melting pot of athletes promoting other companies?

Shoebacca - your points seem to off-set one another because you forget that NYC is already a "melting pt of athletes promoting other companies." i.e. Nike, Adidas, etc. The real question is why would it be any more offensive to ING (a financial company) to see a Picky Bars logo than a Nike logo? The real answer is that it wouldn't. The only people who are threatened and the only people pushing this issue are the major shoe companies. They are the ones who have something to lose. i.e. if you have more sponsors supporting athletes then there is more competition (for the sponsors) to sign up the top athletes and the price of sponsorship goes up. That is called capitalism or a free market. People keep mentioning ING, but ING couldn't care less what elites are wearing on their shirts. There are two different worlds of sponsorship (race sponsorship and elite sponsorship) and ING is not involved in elite sponsorship. Finally, there is no issue about asking Nike to allow other sponsors on their singlets. If an elite is sponsored by Nike then they are already at the pinnacle of the sport, and will have a contract with Nike that prohibits them from other forms of marketing. That is not the issue here. The issue here is Nike stopping non-Nike athletes from being able to get sponsorship from other companies.

Shoebacca wrote:

One of Wejo's points, though, is that athletes need to be respectful to the race's sponsors, too. I think we all agree that emerging athletes need more support, but we have to be careful about offending the current sponsors who have given so much for so many years who will lose incentive to advertise if their brand isn't going to be promoted as exclusively. The companies aren't stupid, either. If an emerging, unproven athlete gets more money and can make it without as much from an individual sponsor, then they're going to reduce the sponsorship.

The question is how can we get Nike to agree to still sponsor an athlete for the same amount while letting the uniform take on other brands? How can we get ING to shrug it off if their New York City marathon becomes a melting pot of athletes promoting other companies?

With all do respect, I didn't really get that point from WEJO's comment. He simply states that by being able to have other sponsorships on uniforms, etc, it wont be the answer for runners getting superstar salaries. He states that Lebron James doesn't have to wear McDonalds on his uniform to get big endorsements. I know that professional running isn't as mainstream as the NBA, but allowing other sources of sponsorships creates not only competition for the main shoe companies, but creates more avenues of income for those that might not be able to get a big enough salary with the shoe companies in order to soley be able to devote their efforts to compete well for their sponsors while making an honest living. We're not talking about superstar salaries here... We're talking about a few thousand dollars here or there. For example, if an elite gets paid 20,000 from a main shoe contract, but an athlete approaches them and says, "hey, I'll take a $10,000 cut, but I want to have two more sponsors on my jersey". That could ultimately benefit the athlete if the other two sponsors are willing to pay $10,000 a piece (obviously they would have to be non-conflicting sponsors). In terms of competition for race investors, like ING, I don't see how they would be affected. They still get their advertising on the bib, and as already mentioned, the big shoe names are already on the uniform. The biggest marketing for them is the bib space. Every runner registered for the race gets a bib and sees the sponsor. This wouldn't change. Not to mention, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the companies investing in these races didn't know the IAAF rules.

Thanks for speaking up, Stephan. A lot of us wannabes don't know how things are for guys like you.

The bottom line is that athletes need to be able support themselves in whatever ways they can, and not have governing bodies saying what is and isn't okay. I hope to see change happen.

Stephan, what do you think the average runner can do to make our collective voice heard?

Shoebacca wrote:

The question is how can we get Nike to agree to still sponsor an athlete for the same amount while letting the uniform take on other brands?

You're missing the point. Nike can and should have the ability to negotiate their contracts however they want. It should be between Nike and their athletes.

It should not be the IAAF and USATF setting rules that restrict athletes so severely. They've shut everyone but the shoe companies out of the athlete sponsorship business.

you are right, but he did also argue that more sponsorship on the athletes would create significantly more interest and that it was in fact the condition for the sport's growth. I disagree with that latter view.

Stephan,Thanks for posting. I assume you are referring to the part on the homepage where it says:

LRC wrote:

We feel Symmonds and the athletes' pain but don't think the lack of advertising space on a singlet is the key reason why athletes don't have big endorsements. Sports stars get endorsements and most runners aren't stars. Buick was never on Tiger Woods' jersey, McDonald's never on Lebron's.

-Stephan Shay

For the record, I wrote that not Weldon but I love it how he gets all the flak.

A few points.

1) I wasn't trying to imply that athletes don't have a legitimate gripe. They most certainly do.

Quite honestly, I think unless the race is paying someone a decent amount of money they should have little input on what someone wears (that being said, I thought Fleshman's gripe was engineered and way off base as she was paid a ton for NYC. She didn't wear her tatoo on the Runnersworld cover as Nike wont allow it. If someone is paying a ton, they should have control just like in the NBA).

Along those lines, I was thinking of sponsoring my ex-athlete at Cornell Zac Hine for the Olympic Marathon Trials but why would I want to do that if he can't even wear the original LetsRun.com singlet? It's totally ridiculous

2) I just like to be contrarian and was am constantly trying to kill of the common notion that seems to pervade our sport of: "If only USATF were run well or if only track and field was marketed well, track and field would be popular." That notion isn't really true and I was trying to point this out.

The uniform rule is ridiculous in so many ways. I was making an aside remark which made you and others think we don't have Symmonds back on this issue. We do.

A struggling guy might get $500 or something from a local repair shop for singlet space and should be able to do it.

We've got your back.

-Robert

The goal shouldn't be to make the race or track profitable, it should be to help the athlete. Companies are going to sponsor the guy who is in wrong and on TV, who gets interviewed, etc. You're so wrong in so many places.

Shoebacca wrote:

One of Wejo's points, though, is that athletes need to be respectful to the race's sponsors, too. I think we all agree that emerging athletes need more support, but we have to be careful about offending the current sponsors who have given so much for so many years who will lose incentive to advertise if their brand isn't going to be promoted as exclusively. The companies aren't stupid, either. If an emerging, unproven athlete gets more money and can make it without as much from an individual sponsor, then they're going to reduce the sponsorship.

The question is how can we get Nike to agree to still sponsor an athlete for the same amount while letting the uniform take on other brands? How can we get ING to shrug it off if their New York City marathon becomes a melting pot of athletes promoting other companies?

The thing people need to realize is that USATF doesn't have a lot of money.

Their total budget is up 40% in a few years to something like 20 million. That sounds like a lot but it's not.

In the NBA the players get roughly half the money but there is a ton more money so overheard is met. But let's just say the athletes get half of USATF's total income which isn't realistic. That's 10 million.

40 events. Let's pay 10 per event.

That would come out to

10,000,000/400= 25,000 per person.

But wait, there is all of the juniors/masters etc that eat up expenses.

If we give them 25% that's

5,000,000/400 = 12,500 per person.

But since they don't pay people close to that, they shouldn't be able to restrict their jerseys in a big way.

Now if track were a little bit more popular and got a tv contract and you had $100 million in revenue. Then we'd be talking. Use 20 million on overhead and use 80 million to pay the athletes.

Stephen,

I'm assuming you mean this comment. "We feel Symmonds and the athletes' pain but don't think the lack of advertising space on a singlet is the key reason why athletes don't have big endorsements. Sports stars get endorsements and most runners aren't stars. Buick was never on Tiger Woods' jersey, McDonald's never on Lebron's."

Rojo wrote it but I can see how it was attributed to me.

I should write a longer piece on this. I think the point with the quote is uniform restrictions are not what is holding the sport back. I agree with that general sentiment.

Having said that I believe uniform restrictions should be modified and the athletes should get more space on their jerseys.

As you said it might make a different for a struggling athlete.

Having said that I bet there are very few races where struggling athletes run that uniform restrictions are actually enforced. So I don't think it's costing most athletes a ton of money. Yes USATFs is a big problem, but besides that you could show up at nearly every other track race and road race in the US wearing whatever and no one is going to say anything. The LetsRun.com singlet may have always been in violation of the rules (and was for sure before we registered LRC has a club) but I never had a problem with it. Maybe LRC should encourage an athlete to go out and get a sponsor and a nonconforming jersey. If its a marginal athlete at the 1 or 2 meets a year you can't wear it, if it were publicized the company would get more attention. It might be a good way to guerilla market.

The athletes can push for more liberal uniform restrictions at IAAF official meets and even World Marathon Majors. Having said that the reason these meets want to enforce the restrictions is they feel their own sponsors will pay them less. So that may mean less prize money although the athletes could make it up with more endorsements. I think this only affects things on the margins. But $2000 makes a difference to a struggling athlete. Hopefully looser restrictions expands the endorsement pie and leads to more money in the athletes pocket overall even if money from the races drops.

Having said that I think races that pay huge appearance fees to athletes are not taking advantage of athletes. If they want to have uniform restrictions to protect their sponsors then I don't have much of a problem with it. When you accept $50,000 to run a race, they can tell you what to do so we need to pick our battles better.

I think hyperbole doesn't get us anywhere. Athletes need to come up with a plan of what they think is reasonable for uniform restrictions. Athletes "first amendment" rights aren't being violated which I have seen alluded to. To change the system someone needs to get inside of USATF and IAAF and push for change. Complaining about it won't do anything. It's what people have done about the USA qualifying process and it hasn't done anything.

I remember bitching about uniform restrictions I guess 7-9 years ago and I bet the rules are exactly the same. It seems to become an issue every Olympic Trials (when the sponsors of the races actually figure the sport gets enough attention to enforce them). So we need a different tactic. And I bet the shoe companies that control a lot of the top athletes love the current system. Even if the restrictions are changed Nike might say to Nick Symmonds, we're not going to pay you 6 figures a year if you have a McDonald's logo bigger than us on your jersey so for a lot of athletes I contend it's not going to make a huge difference.

I think the USATF convention is next month. I bet there isn't a plan by anyone to address this. That seems like a start. We should figure out what is allowed in golf, tennis and other individual sports. Team sports don't allow individual sponsors at all . (It's not like Tom Brady can wear his Crocks sponsor on his jersey.) Apart from that I'd like to see an athlete go out and get a sponsor from a non-shoe company that breaks the uniform rules.

Wejo, you are surprisingly out of the loop!

A resolution has already been submitted for vote by the general assembly at the Annual Meeting that would require USATF to stop enforcing IAAF rules at non-IAAF permit meets (like our National Championships).

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/display-article?arId=65184

You should read the backstory T&FN links to at the beginning of the article. USATF has stepped up uniform enforcement x100 this year, including Club Nationals which is insane.

First off, my apologies for the mix up on who wrote the headline. To be honest, it was kind of just a shot in the dark. Figured I had a 50/50 shot.

But guys, I am really thinking you are going off on some tangents here. There are many points I feel I need to address.

First off, WEJO, when you say that "complaining about the issue won't do anything", I couldn't disagree more. What are we supposed to do? Keep getting screwed over while we work our asses off? Based on the comments you shared, the issue obviously needs to be brought to people's attention because there are a lot of misconceptions.

ROJO: I appreciate your comments. I get what you were saying about being contrary toward the "if only" retorts. I get that runners aren't going to be paid on the same level as Lebron or Tiger, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to counter either. I was trying to make the point that although it might not make Nick Symmonds go from making $100,000 (hypothetically speaking) to $1,000,000, it DOES make a difference to a lot of runners either emerging or going through a rough patch. Furthermore, in terms of your approximations of how much money the USATF has to work with, I never addressed the issue of whether or not they should be giving more money to athletes. I was mainly addressing how the ability to advertise more than one sponsor on a uniform could open up opportunities to many athletes (contrary to what WEJO states). It's not a matter of USATF giving more money, it's a matter of them loosening the uniform restrictions.

WEJO: I guess our views on a "struggling" athlete differ. I will use ONE example that I witnessed first hand. In my last race at the U.S. 10 mile champs, I roomed with a runner named Ryan Vail. Very talented runner who has shown that he has what it takes to run on an international level. The night before the race we had uniform checks. Every U.S. championship race I've been in this year has checked for USATF uniform regulations. Ryan was told that his Brooks symbol was too large and that he must cover it up with his racing bib. Now, whether or not you think Ryan is one of those struggling runners is up to you. However, I am pretty damn sure that $10,000 would make a pretty big impact on his standard of living. Not to mention, if I ran the 5k, 8k, 10k, 15k, 20k, 25k, half, and marathon champs, that is 8 different races where I am affected by the ruling. Not to mention the London marathon and New York City half marathon I ran. Now, I consider myself a "struggling athlete", and I know many other athletes in the same boat as me would consider themselves to be as well. Also, note how I said track athletes. This goes well beyond road racing. Many pole vaulters, jumpers, throwers, and sprinters could benefit from looser regulations, too. Rather than saying it affects the "marginal" athlete 1-2 times a year, how about reversing that. I think the marginal athlete is getting paid $50,000 to compete in a race by the race director.

Your comment about the race directors getting less money from big time sponsors, in my opinion, is a bit of a stretch. As I have mentioned before, many of these corporations don't the know IAFF or USATF regulations on uniforms, and therefore I suspect they would not even notice if an athlete has more sponsors on his/her uniform. You think they know that a Saucony athlete can only have a symbol on their uniform X*X inches? They are paying for the finish line banner, the bib space, the pamphlet space, etc.

Lastly, as the previous poster noted, there has been change in uniform policy. In the last U.S. Cross Country Championship my brother competed in, he was racing in a Saucony uniform, and under that was an advertisement for EAS. This would not be allowed anymore. Allowing more sponsors on a uniform helps the athlete/sponsor relationship. If an athlete can say "yes, i can put your symbol on my jersey", then the company is going to be more loyal to the athlete and feel as though they are representing them the best they can. In return, this could allow for longer lasting sponsorships, rather than the often fleeting deals that track athletes come across.

Point is, a lot of athletes do have a game plan, and I think the more exposure the issue gets, the better the odds are of people speaking up and something being done about it. I think that a change in the regulations would only help our sport grow and develop. You should check out the track and field athletes association at trackandfieldathletesassociation.org The convention is next month, and I think that the only way USATF will address the issue is if enough athletes speak up about it.

You know how many guys are hooping in the streets thinking they are emerging into the next Kobe and are completely delusional and deserve to be impoverished based on the merits of our capitalist system run by Jews which constitute an overwhelmingly small part of the human population seeking to control and manipulate unattainable dreams riding on the backs of slaves? Do you?!

Prove that you are Elite and a Superstar and you will be paid. Otherwise you are worth as much as your ambition which seems to be poverty.

1. Your comment was idiotic.

2. I said nothing about being paid a superstar salary. Maybe next time instead of just skimming over the text, you might be able to make an informed comment? The argument isn't focused on how much money we're getting paid by sponsors, but rather how we are restricted with our potential to have multiple sponsors represented.

Also, superstars like Kobe are not the only ones getting paid in the N.B.A. If every guard in the N.B.A. said screw it because they were never going to get paid like Kobe, there would be 3 guards in the N.B.A... which, I guess at this point, not too many people would care

You miss the point entirely. The other guards in the NBA have already proven their right to be in the NBA. A guy graduating from college first year with crazy dreams of running faster does not qualify as an Elite. When you run Elite times, you are Elite. You are comparable to the millions of everyday basketball players at a recreational gym thinking they are NBA material.

And furthermore, you really need to check out triathletes uniforms. They look silly. You can't tell who sponsors them. I

I'm not sure about it, but in most countries the IAAF-rules are incoporated in the competitionrules of the national federations, so the uniform-rules even comply in non-IAAF permit meets.

Not that I disagree with your point of view, I think that teams should be allowed to wear 'corporate' jerseys. Imagine McDonald's starting a trackteam for 40 runners to promote their new 'healthy burgers' and design a vest with their trademark M and their name on it. That wouldn't be allowed and is a shame to deny athletes a chance to make their living. The IAAF should amend those rules, but I won't see that happening as they and meet-organisers have different objectives regarding sponsorship.