"Max, I have nothing bad to say about Nike. They paid me, gave me free product and enabled me to see this country, travel the world and compete at the highest levels in professional running. However, I do feel I should have gotten a higher paying contract after my initial contract was up. Think about it, when other professionals and business people perform well they earn more money, at least this is the way it is supposed to be. The same scenario should be applied to professional running. Well obviously this is not always the case."
Leo Manzano: " I do feel I should have gotten a higher paying contract after my initial contract was up."
Pro News/Info/Results
Distance
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
http://www.runblogrun.com/2014/06/leo-manzano-an-american-love-story-part-22-the-business-of-running-by-max-lockwood.html
"Max, I have nothing bad to say about Nike. They paid me, gave me free product and enabled me to see this country, travel the world and compete at the highest levels in professional running. However, I do feel I should have gotten a higher paying contract after my initial contract was up. Think about it, when other professionals and business people perform well they earn more money, at least this is the way it is supposed to be. The same scenario should be applied to professional running. Well obviously this is not always the case." -
Yeah, but they can be money making pros until age 65, 75, I know an 82 year old who still works cos he loves it.
Pro runners have a shelf life. -
A Duck wrote:
Yeah, but they can be money making pros until age 65, 75, I know an 82 year old who still works cos he loves it.
Pro runners have a shelf life.
Sure, but we're talking about a guy losing his contract at age 28 immediately following an Olympic silver medal. -
yep, and winning a Silver Medal means your shelf life is clearly up. and what was your point Duck?
-
For some reason, I thought Nike dropped him. I was wrong. From the article:
"Soon after getting his silver medal his contract was up for renewal. Leo felt assured he would be compensated for his performance by getting a higher paying contract. After all, he was loyal, had worked hard and more importantly, performed well at the highest level. To his surprise and disappointment, the amount of money Nike offered him was less than what he wanted and felt he deserved. Though I did not get specific numbers from Leo, it is clear, he felt undervalued by an employer to which he was so loyal. Negotiations continued to stall and eventually Leo found himself without a shoe sponsor." -
It seems that what he does not understand is that he was not an employee of Nike but was sponsored by Nike.
Those come with different expectations. A good employee generally gets additional benefits including higher pay as things move along. Someone who is sponsored needs more than just good performance. They need to prove how they can be out there and promote the product they are sponsoring. Unless you are by far the best, performing well is only one aspect of this.
If I am wrong and he was an employee, forget what I said to a degree but the same idea still holds with regards to athletes who are sponsored. -
How marketable is Leo Manzano, to begin with? How many people care enough from Rupp's 10,000m silver and Manzano's 1500m silver to go out and buy a pair of Nike sheos they promote?
-
Retired Steepler wrote:
To his surprise and disappointment, the amount of money Nike offered him was less than what he wanted and felt he deserved.
This does nothing to dispel the notion that he was unrealistic with his money expectations, Nike countered with a solid offer but much less than he expected, Manzano held out thinking they would cave, only they didn't.
Then he found out nobody else would meet his unrealistic expectations, and he pulled out the victim act. -
He seems to understand fine.
He didn't use the word "employee".
He said "when other professionals and business people perform well they earn more money"
Seems right.
The value is not just in future performances but name recognition.
Every race he gets announced as an Olympic medalist.
That's value.
He still made the US team and had the #1 time in the country last year after his contract was up.
He has finished top 3 at USATF 8 years in a row.
And no one would be shocked if he made that 9 years in a row this year.
And even more than that, he is likeable and approachable and gives good interviews.
There is value in that.
Nike made a business decision.
Manzano had to deal with that reality and has done that with class, as expected from him.
I would think he is exactly the kind of guy you would want as a representative to your business. -
HodgieSan wrote:
How marketable is Leo Manzano, to begin with? How many people care enough from Rupp's 10,000m silver and Manzano's 1500m silver to go out and buy a pair of Nike sheos they promote?
He isn't. That's what he doesn't understand. His medal is an amazing accomplishment.......to a very small group of people. -
Hodgie, if this is actually you (syntax looks different), then you should know quite well that Manzano is 1000x more responsible for creating Nike loyalty with HS kids, who are buying the large percentage of these expensive spikes. Rupp has a fan base for sure, but it is truly minuscule compared to the following that Leo has cultivated. He does a great job connecting with fans, far beyond a simple victory lap with hand slaps, rather he sticks around for great lengths of time, shows up at expo's the day prior, speaks to high schools, etc. Those kinds of things are quite valuable on the whole and so I still don't get the failure to get a contract, "unreasonable" demands notwithstanding.
-
I would say that Leo is definitely more marketable than Galen. I actually find it very difficult to watch a Rupp interview. I almost feel bad for him. He is a great runner for sure but I cringe when I watch him interviewed.
Leo, on the other hand, is refreshing and does great interviews. He is also amazing with the fans for sure. He has the ability to connect well with both the rapidly growing Hispanic community as well as the white community. -
It is also a market share thing.
If Hoka One One gains a lot of business because people now know of it because of Manzano, that would mean Nike's market share would shrink a tiny bit.
It's not just what does Nike gain by having Manzano but how much does it lose by someone else having him.
Maybe it would have been cheaper for Nike to pay him more if this now means losing sales.
Just speculating.
I am very sure that Hoka will gain a good deal of business from this.
At what cost to Nike, I am not so sure. -
Sponsors pay athletes to promote their product and the biggest promotion opportunity is when their brand is seen in a race (on TV), interviews and in the results. Leo is always a threat in any race, but besides his one-off great races, albeit one of them was in the Olympics...Leo has only had 2 consistent seasons out of 7. Consistency as in finishing in the top-5 in the majority of his races.
In addition to:
o In 7 years as a pro, he has only made 2 global championship finals.
o In 7 years as a pro, he has only won one outdoor national title.
o In 7 years as a pro, he has only had had one season ranked in the IAAF top-10.
o In 7 years as a pro, his average race place is about 7th and his average time is about 3:37.
o In the biggest opportunity he had to pay his sponsors back, the one where his photo would have been used hundreds of times, an American sponsor had to figure out what to do about the Mexican flag he was holding. (Not debating right/wrong, it is a choice Leo made)
Notwithstanding all of the wonderful things he has done and the fact that he seems like a nice guy...the facts are the facts and that's what sponsors care about. -
Ah, he used his economic "genius" to decide his market value was higher than what it was worth sponsors to offer him....
-
A different sport, but some context on the impact athletes have on shoe sales.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpowell/2014/05/28/sneakernomics-which-basketball-player-sells-the-most-shoes/
Given that according to SportsOneSource spike sales in the US total about $19M a year at wholesale, how much money is there really to spend on mid-distance runners nobody has ever heard of?
Side note, according to Running USA, only 10% of serious runners knows who Leo is. 69% know Ryan Hall. -
normal person. wrote:
Those kinds of things are quite valuable on the whole and so I still don't get the failure to get a contract, "unreasonable" demands notwithstanding.
Valuable to who? A few hundred people, maybe? -
stick with eharmony wrote:
I bet he regrets carrying that "other" flag around.
lol what a tool
Yup. He forgot about American stupidity. -
jjjuusstt MMEEE wrote:
He is also amazing with the fans for sure. He has the ability to connect well with both the rapidly growing Hispanic community as well as the white community.
And pick up on Miss Texas, something Rupp will never be able to do in his wildest dreams. -
Leo not marketable, you really don't know the guy. He may be up and down but he has a olympic medal. Also I would say because he is so up and down you are likely to talk about and recognize him when he lines up for races. Like another poster said he often stays after signs autographs, goes to expos, and does many other things you don't hear other runners doing. This sport needs more people like Manzano, I guarantee he will add more hardware to his case before his career is over. Also he gets so much PR on this site, thanks to his haters. I don't blame Nike entirely because it is possible that what he was asking for was crazy high. This was most likely a combination of Nike undervaluing him and Manzano overvaluing himself. Guess no middle ground could be agreed on, shame for both.
