New York Times article on Competitor Group backlash

Where you spend your money wrote:

Which is what the USATF road championships are all about. They have US championships at all sorts of distances (1 mile, 5k, 10k, 12k, 15k, 10 mile, 20k, 25k, marathon, 50k, 100k) as a way of supporting American distance runners because you have to be an American to win.

Other races have American-only prize money but I think saying you have to be an American to win an open race may look too blatantly protectionistic.

The US Championship money is a drop in the bucket compared to how much total prize money in the US is being "outsourced". Protectionist? Please tell us what's wrong with supporting Americans and generating greater interest up front? It could save elite running in the US.

charmin wrote:

The US Championship money is a drop in the bucket compared to how much total prize money in the US is being "outsourced". Protectionist? Please tell us what's wrong with supporting Americans and generating greater interest up front? It could save elite running in the US.

Why doesn't MLB support American baseball players and restrict salaries to only US citizens?

charmin wrote:

The race could choose to have it go to Americans. Why they continue letting it be a free for all is beyond me. Races won by Americans get more attention.

The race is in New York, so why not limit the field to New Yorkers? A New Yorker winning the New York marathon would get much more attention.

You might also ask why the New York Giants have a quarterback from Mississippi, among other transplants without ties to the area.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Why doesn't MLB support American baseball players and restrict salaries to only US citizens?

You're comparing a team sport to an individual sport.

charmin wrote:

You're comparing a team sport to an individual sport.

I am.

Remember when the Decatur Staleys were a company team? You had to be an employee to be on the team. Now they're the Chicago Bears and they'll take anybody from anywhere if they think they'll be good.

How do you think the Norwegians feel? All this money goes into the Bislett Games and goes out to foreigners. Do you think the Bislett Games would be better if they paid money only to Norwegians?

Had I not already signed and paid for a rock 'n' roll marathon, I'd probably not do it, and send a polite letter explaining why. I'm a firm believer in capitalism, but I'd want to let them know why I chose not to participate. If they decide it's still not worth it, that is their choice, but maybe if enough people complain they'll switch sides...

I think if more races would stay with one payout format, situations you describe in Dubai might not happen. Where else would they go?Let's look at golf, they have huge payouts and the prize list for any PGA tourney goes very deep. The PGA also always 'sponsor' exemptions, so an up-and-comer, or someone coming back from injury can get into specific tourneys.Translating that to The Great North Run, they perhaps pay Mo and K. Bekele a certain amount for the matchup. Also, the race organizers can restrict the number 'seeded' runners allowed to race.To further the idea along, in the U.S., you can restrict prize money to US citizens, or again only allow a certain number of foreigners in a race. Not the most popular idea, but it has been done in the past. In essence, it would turn into major and minor tours, similar to the PGA, the FedEx sponsored, major tour and the minor Nike (or Nationwide, not sure who sponsors the minor/developmental tour).As for that Coe vs. Ovett matchup, if all the Euro track meets operated the same, it would probably work, again where else would they go to earn a paycheck?

Hopeful Runner wrote:

Mush wrote:

"Good. Why should my entry fee be higher just so the winner of the race can get a cash prize? Who cares who wins? None of us are running to win as much as we are running for our health, recreation and to better our times. This is NOT a hero-driven sport. I couldn't name a single "Champion" road-runner except the guy from Kenya. Oh wait... they're all from Kenya."

This comment saddened me

What a close minded statement.

How much is an extra dollar or two out of that guy's pocket really going to affect him?

I hate hate hate when people try to justify whatever they are doing with this tact.

It's his money, he can gripe about higher prices all he wants.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Remember when the Decatur Staleys were a company team? You had to be an employee to be on the team. Now they're the Chicago Bears and they'll take anybody from anywhere if they think they'll be good.

How do you think the Norwegians feel? All this money goes into the Bislett Games and goes out to foreigners. Do you think the Bislett Games would be better if they paid money only to Norwegians?

Again, comparing a team sport to a mostly individual sport isn't a good analogy, and they're costs and demographics are different. There could still be international events. It's all the other domestic races that could be supporting Americans. Otherwise you get races and their sponsors questioning what value open elites bring to a race.

the irony is that if you care at all about the cost of entry fees, you don't give competitor races a 2nd look in most cases.

If more races were like Dubai (many are, but just don't have as much money) then your best runners would just pick different races. You wouldn't see the match ups. Wilson Kipsang runs one, Patrick Makau runs one, Geoffrey Mutai runs one, Tsegaye Kebede runs one, etc. It's better to be the top entrant and be sure of a $40,000 win rather than face someone you are uncertain of beating and maybe walkaway with next to nothing (or nothing at all).

But besides that, how would you stop it? If the Prague Marathon wants to spend all its money to get Gebrselassie to run a half marathon, how can you stop him?

Golf is different in that a championship, such as The Masters, has so much more money to spend. The 61st finisher at this year's Masters left with over $17,000 in prize money. And the turnaround is quite different, wouldn't you agree? By my count, Rory McIlroy has participated in 17 golf tournaments so far this year. Berlin was Kipsang's second and final marathon of 2013. The shorter races he competes in (three this year) offer far less value.

Why do you need prize money if you have Mo Farah v. Kenenisa Bekele v. Haile Gebrselassie and Tirunesh Dibaba v. Meseret Defar v. Priscah Jeptoo? The London Marathon will have Mo Farah make his debut versus a completely stacked field that may very well include Kenenisa Bekele and Wilson Kipsang, among others. Is that not better than hoping these stars all decide to London?

You ask where else will they go. They'll go to a different race for lesser money. Coe and Ovett could still refuse to race one another to protect their psyches and preserve their potential year end rankings. Coe could run the 800m and Ovett the 1500m. If you restrict it to a single middle distance race, all it takes is some other similarly funded meeting organiser could tell one or the other that they offer the same or better prize money in their middle distance race just a few days before or after yours. What's to stop them? It could be a last minute decision since there are no contractual obligations. Or you could pay them each an irresistible sum and promote it as the mile to end all miles and receive that much more attention than you would have otherwise.

Following some of the thinking here, Wimbledon would be open only to Brits

There is NO backlash. Only backlash is from hobby elites who refuse to get a real job because they can't win prize money or be invited to run in Europe track circuit.

aside from mistakingly comparing team sports to running, people here are also mistakingly comparing established, wide-supported sports with a niche sport like running.

we can certainly borrow from other sports-marketing strategies but we should not take their business models without considering the differences in the underlying fundamentals of the sports and audiences.

the truth comes out wrote:

Having a Kenyan winner doesn't create heroes for Americans. What is the justification for continuing to pay for a winner from Kenya or Ethiopia? Wonder how they'd feel if the winner was American. I'd rather see the money going towards supporting American runners.

I'd rather see the money going to an American who earned it. Until that happens, I'm fine with the money going to who earns it regardless of their nationality rather than an American who didn't earn it. The last thing our sport needs is to institutionalize a welfare system.

I'll stay out of the debate over whether appearance or prize money is better, and refer to it as "elite athlete money." EAM makes marathons better in every way, and I was never within half an hour of winning any EAM.I invite anyone who doubts this to come to Washington, D.C., where I live on the weekend of the Marine Corp marathon. Last I heard, MCM will not even comp the entries of leading runners, and the race might be won in over 2:20, despite the fact it has tens of thousands of entrants. (I hesitate to refer to them as "runners.") The race generates no buzz and is locally regarded as something akin to a parade. What little media coverage there is might center on an entrant who carries an American flag or juggles during the race. It's hardly regarded as an athletic event any more, and I say this with due respect to Wejo, who won it twice.

Idiot xenophobe. Haile was my hero as a runner and I am pasty white from the Northwest. Why not exalt excellence regardless of nationality by rewarding it?

Let the free market reign

Decrepit Geezer wrote:

Following some of the thinking here, Wimbledon would be open only to Brits

Sooooo far off point.

IF tennis were having problems attracting a tv audience, filling the stands, and Wimbldon was a forgotten event maybe they too would be thinking of ways to increase attendance and get attention. They aren't so your analogy is totally off point.

ataglance. wrote:

Sooooo far off point.

IF tennis were having problems attracting a tv audience, filling the stands, and Wimbldon was a forgotten event maybe they too would be thinking of ways to increase attendance and get attention. They aren't so your analogy is totally off point.

So since more than six million tune into BBC One each April to watch the London Marathon, their elite athlete program is a successful one?