Ed Torres reveals that LA got the Olympic Trials despite offering $100k less in prize money to the athletes.
In this week's WTW we were going to write we didn't have a problem with LA getting the Trials. That was before we found out the athletes are going to get $100k less.
Ed's statement here:
So Max Seigel went with LA after the Board 100% concluded that Houston was in the best interest for the athletes. Now they are coming out with some of the details and its ridiculous.
This is pure speculation but did Seigel get some under the table payments for LA getting it? The entire point for the Trials is to pick the best team and we have President that doesn't have that in mind when making big decisions.
As a husband for a runner that will be in the trials in 2016 this is very disappointing to see.
Disappointing to say the least.
I like the idea of the race being in LA, but I hate to see guys miss out on enough money to pay some bills. Having served on an event selection committee, I know it is not as simple as it is being presented, but the allocation needs to be broken down differently.
I'm supposed more athletes aren't speaking up about this.
If LA is a better place for the Trials in theory it should attract more sponsor $ which should mean more $ for the athletes.
If it's just a better place for people to go hangout that's not a good reason to have the Trials there.
wejo wrote:
I'm supposed more athletes aren't speaking up about this.
If LA is a better place for the Trials in theory it should attract more sponsor $ which should mean more $ for the athletes.
If it's just a better place for people to go hangout that's not a good reason to have the Trials there.
This exactly. Sponsors are by far easier to come by in the southland. There is no reason for less money for athletes. There most be some important information being withheld.
IDK exactly who was sponsor prize money, but it may be that Chevron was more willing to put up money in Houston than Asics is in LA.
Chevron probably has a couple of hundred billion more in revenue than Asics. $100,000 is chump change for Chevron and they have been very generous with the Houston Marathon. Asics probably includes LA in a comparatively more limited US sponsorship/advertising budget.
Hopefully, someone in LA will step up to improve the prize money. There's obviously no shortage of major corporations there for the LA committee to hit up.
As for the decision, Siegel wanted LA but so apparently did the USOC and NBC so it may not be fair to put it all on him.
^^^
IDK who was sponsoring the prize money,
I can think of one reason why the LA Marathon is cheap, aka, giving out less money. Do you know who runs the LA Marathon? It is LA Marathon LLC. Do you know who owns that? Former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. He doesn't really have a great reputation around these parts.
If you are sincere about growing the sport and not just funding 8-10 guys than LA is an obvious choice. Better for TV, sponsors, media coverage. Siegal is no dope- it's better for USATF and NBC and everyone involved save 10 or so people.
The prize purse in Houston in 2012 was 500k total (250k for men, 250k for women). Assuming that the amount Houston offered for 2016 was in the same ball park, LA would be offering 20% less prize money if the difference was 100k (50k per side). Time will tell whether this results in a pay cut for the 2016 winners. If it does, it is pretty inexcusable and USATF should offer to at least make up any difference between 2012 and 2016. I can understand the argument that LA is a more high profile location which might be a benefit to the sport (the benefit of NY's trials is not that apparent). But, USATF should not get that benefit on the backs of the athletes. That is just wrong even if the trials get better ratings than the super bowl. Ends do not justify the means.
Max has to go along with the IOC and IAAF who want L.A. for the Olympics and World Champs. In 2015 the Special Olympics will be held in Los Angeles to get things started.
The Olympics are not supposed to be about money, per se. I could see how the prize money issue was discounted. I don't think NBC (or USOC?) care about the athlete's income. That may not make for a good "story." Also, LA looks better on TV. I bet NBC dictated the location.
______________________________________
AudibleRabbit.com, pace made simple.
The IOC and IAAF do not want LA. I'm not sure where you get that impression. If they wanted LA they would pick LA it has nothing to do with whether the marathon trials were there or not. New York and the NYRR did an outstanding job with the OT. They had the know how and the support of the city. It didn't do much for promoting the sport to the general populace. I see the event getting lost in LA and no one really caring whether its there or not. Who does it matter to? The athletes and their families.
Another point to consider. Just because Asics is the Title sponser for the LA Marathon does mean they are automatically sponsoring and/or throwing in prize money for the Olympic Trials the day before. It is a seperate event, on a seperate day, on a seperate course. I doubt too many more people will run the LA Marathon because of the Olympic Trials Marathon. It may draw a some more specators but other than local businesses, the event will not likely make money off of them unless they can sell them merchandise. Maybe Asics is putting up money, but since they are not an official USATF or USOC sponsor, they may not be asked/allowed to. I recall some kind of sponsorship issue came up with Houston in 2012 because the Trials are a USOC and USATF event. Can anyone provide some detail or correct me if I am wrong?
Asics is prohibited from sponsoring the Olympic Trials unless a USOC sponsor in the same category (Nike) permits an Asics sponsorship.
wejo wrote:
I'm supposed more athletes aren't speaking up about this.
If LA is a better place for the Trials in theory it should attract more sponsor $ which should mean more $ for the athletes.
If it's just a better place for people to go hangout that's not a good reason to have the Trials there.
You make a good point.
Southlander wrote:
It is a seperate event, on a seperate day, on a seperate course.
Spell checker fail!
Los Angeles is building up for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, 2019 IAAF World Championships, FIFA Womens and FIFA Mens World Cup, etc. FIFA, IAAF, and IOC are pushing Los Angeles Mayor Garcaetti after 20 years of giving the USA the cold shoulder due to war and world politics. Garcetti has bulit alliances with the L.A. business community to host dozens of international sporting events, all the more challenging since the Los Angeles City Charter forbids spending taxpayer funds on private business deals.
Los Angeles is building up for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, 2019 IAAF World Championships, FIFA Womens and FIFA Mens World Cup, etc. FIFA, IAAF, and IOC are pushing Los Angeles Mayor Garcaetti after 20 years of giving the USA the cold shoulder due to war and world politics. Garcetti has bulit alliances with the L.A. business community to host dozens of international sporting events, all the more challenging since the Los Angeles City Charter forbids spending taxpayer funds on private business deals.
USATF has made it very very clear they ONLY care about athletes that are realistic Olympic hopefuls. Yes there is a cool start here or there about a breakthrough 4th place finisher but they don't care.
They are not there to grow or promote the sport, support athletes financially or increase viewership. It's to pick an Olympic team.
Ofcourse there's so much wrong with that I don't know where to start. Take golf as just on example with their prize purse. Perhaps our sport needs to hire their CEO.
