Leo Manzano Should Read This Article

"You don't pay for past performance." - Jurgen Klinsmann

You're confusing the issue. This whole "you don't pay for past performance" means nothing in this context. It's a difference between performance -- on a team sport -- and marketability -- in an individual sport. The team pays the player to perform, the marketing pays them on name recognition, which is based on past performance.

In a team sport like football, an over-the-hill ex-star shouldn't get big money for a playing contract to perform on the field. However, A guy who retired 10 years ago but was a star can still make plenty of money selling product (think: Jordan). So a sponsor is happy to pay for past performance for that person to market something.

Running isn't a team sport and contacts are about marketing and nothing more. The up-and-comer with no hardware has ZERO marketability compared to the guy with the medal. We're a fringe sport whose best are only on display once every four years or so.

Of course Leo should be paid for his past performance -- he has an olympic medal. He's far more valuable today than someone no one has heard of who has no medal but might have a chance in four years.

Well put.

But even in soccer, Landon Donovan being on the team would draw more viewers which would draw more advertising dollars and he would sell jerseys.

This kind of money coming in helps pay the coach's salary.

And Manzano is still a draw.

Why did the OP think of Manzano when he saw the article?

Because he has name recognition.

Star wrote:

Well put.

But even in soccer, Landon Donovan being on the team would draw more viewers which would draw more advertising dollars and he would sell jerseys.

This kind of money coming in helps pay the coach's salary.

They'll sell even more jerseys if the US gets to the quarter-finals or beyond.

Anyway, it's completely different. There's no mega contract with international team. Players play for pride plus a chance to market their skills in front of 500 million people.

Well first, Leo was renegotiating his contract in the same year he won the silver medal. He was more in line with current performance than past performance.

If Alan Webb was renegotiating his contract during the same period, I would say he would be more in line with past performance.

As for "Why pay a star for past performance?" Look at what Peyton Manning did for the Denver Broncos. He was injured for a year, cut by the Colts. Why pay him millions? According the Klinsmann, he would not think Peyton would be worth a hefty contract after he was cut. Well, Peyton ended up being the best thing that happened to the Broncos.

Stars are stars for a reason. At one point, it becomes less of an athletic quality, and more of a perfection of the skill. Stars have a certain professionalism that they have acquired over that time which allows them to lead their teams.

Think Kobe. Look how bad his team is without him.

Think Jordan. 3-peat before his retirement and 3-peat after his retirement.

Think Meb. He is "over-the-hill" and dropped by Nike. He won Boston, the Trials, and 4th at the OGs.

As for Leo, his value can be justified pretty quickly. It cost nearly $100k to earn a full page advertisement in RW or RTs. If he gets an article, he can get publicity that is worth $100k for HOKA. Think he will get a few mentions?

Things don't come cheap. Even a banner ad on Flotrack is pricey. Having Leo take a home page with a Hoka jersey is scoring Hoka points.

Kobe will undoubtedly produce over $50M for the Lakers over the next 2 seasons. Will Leo produce over $200k for Nike? Probably not.

google works well wrote:

Will Leo produce over $200k for Nike? Probably not.

Marketed correctly, he probably could.

A billboard in Guanajuato of Leo holding his medal and a Mexican flag with the words "Hecho en Mexico" would probably sell lots of shoes.

I've thought this, too. Although it probably won't happen for whatever reason.

I think Nike is primarily a charity organization when it comes to sponsoring runners but someone with dual citizenship SHOULD be a gold mine. If they produced some running shoes in Leo's namesake and marketed them in Mexico, I do think Leo could produce Ms for any shoe company just due to scarcity of top-level athletes in Mexico.

To that end, I think/thought Leo could have supported himself with that same community. The T shirts were the last thing I would have attempted though.

He may not want to be marketed that way, but I think it would be a good plan.

Everyone in Mexico has family that has moved or worked in the USA. He's a shining example of that.

google works well wrote:

I think Nike is primarily a charity organization when it comes to sponsoring runners

Really? You think Nike pays runners out of the goodness of their heart?

You don't think they have done market research on the cost/benefit of branding with athletes?

If Nike shut it all down now.

And all elite runners got a deal promoting different shoe companies.

Do you think that would have an impact on Nike sales of running shoes and apparel?

It's hard to tell the benefit from one athlete out of many.

But Nike's thing is to shove it in your face with a field full of Nike runners in every race.

I said "Nike is primarily a charity organization when it comes to sponsoring runners" - not exclusively. Your example only works in the extreme case, if Nike withdrew from all running related activity and had zero presence, yes, it would adversely effect running shoe and apparel sales. However, this would not be the case, instead, Nike would scale back it's sponsorships and only keep runners with potential to generate income above their salary.

So yes - IMO Nike does a good bit of it's running sponsorships based on the fact that the company was founded as a running company and the fact that it doesn't cost much to have a stable of runners.

It costs maybe 100k -120k per non-elite runner [including travel, gear, coaching fee, and a 50-60k salary]?. So Nike can eat costs just to support of the running community. (Math: 150 mid-level runners costs max 18 million annually).

A similar situation would be Competitor Group's fiasco with elite runner prize money. Competitor Group realized that the majority of revenue comes from people just wanting the marathon experience, indifferent to what happens at the front of the race. The average person is not enticed to run a marathon by the presence of 2:12-type Kenyans entered. In any case, this ONLY backfired due to activism from the elite runner community (which could happen to Nike), so CG sponsors elite runners as a good faith token of support, not as a profit maximizing decision.

The viewership of track meets outside of the Olympics is low. This is why track meets have so many commercials -- they offer MORE commercials at a cheaper rate during the broadcast. Nike isn't winning over the masses by flooding these races with runners.

The sad fact is that LeBron James being sponsored by Nike probably sells more running shoes than Hassan Mead/Jordan McNamara/Chris Solinsky etc due to brand association.

You guys realize that guys like Mead, McNamara, etc. are paid $12-15K/yr by Nike, right?