$600,000 purse for 2016 Olympic Marathon Trials

malmo wrote:

http://www.usatf.org/News/2016-Olympic-Trials-Marathon-to-feature-record-pri.aspx

Huge financial incentive for 2016.

Cool !

That's a pretty decent payday even if you don't finish top-3.

That's a neat post by Malmo. By the way Malmo is just a young kid and can still provide us with the inside scoop.

Orville Atkins wrote:

That's a neat post by Malmo. By the way Malmo is just a young kid and can still provide us with the inside scoop.

LOL.

Inside scoop? It's on the usatf website...

Or were you being sarcastic?

Good to see a decent prize purse. It would be nice to see marathons rival golf in that venture one day.

Happy that our best will be getting paid! And that there's good depth!

Huge financial incentive for 2016.

$80k and qualifying for the olympics? Heck of a prize for our marathoners.

Is that really a lot of money? I didn't have to scroll down the front page very far to see one athlete allegedly paid out that very same amount in bribes!

The Trials marathon needs appearance money like real marathons.

That is about $200k more than was offered in 2012. For the top US runners like Meb and Shalane, it is a pay cut over the appearance fees for Boston/London, but worth it when you factor in the benefit of the Olympic sponsorship bump. For a dark horse runner who makes the team, that kind of money can make a huge difference.

In the best of all possible worlds there would be less of a drop off after the top three. The runners who are 3-10 are usually athletes who do not have much financial support and could see a lot of improvement if they had more resources.

malmowejo wrote:

The Trials marathon needs appearance money like real marathons.

Ummmm, so Ritz & Hall & Michael Wardian will only show up at the Trials if offered a hefty appearance fee? Particularly Wardian.

Is it Gucci?

Precious Roy wrote:

That is about $200k more than was offered in 2012.

2012 OMT in Houston offered more than $250,000 per gender; so 2016 OMT ~$80,000 more.

I think it should be more top heavy, reward the guys and gals that make the team and the alternate.... $120, $80, $60, $40 something like that. I understand the arguement about supporting the up and comers but it is prize money and is placing 5-10 really winning anything?

I would also like to see a prize money list for runners published like it is for golf and tennis. Not appearance fees or shoe contracts, strictly a list of prize money won in races. be kinda cool to see that.

What about inflation?

Dan Lilot @Lilot1TrackMind

· 12h 12 hours ago

I'm thrilled with increased Oly Trials Marathon prize money, but it should be viewed in its historical context. (1/3)

Dan Lilot @Lilot1TrackMind

· 12h 12 hours ago

Previous men winners picked up the following amounts (parenthetical figure is real amount, in 2014 dollars): '88 - $50K ($100K); (2/3)

Dan Lilot @Lilot1TrackMind

· 12h 12 hours ago

'92 - $68K ($111K); '96 - $100K ($151K). '92 Trials also had $199K total for 1-10, worth $336K today. Women MUCH better than ever tho. (3/3)

Considering it is the Olympic trials, the pinnacle of US marathon running (arguably), I can see paying only the top 3 that make the team.

However, one can argue that this race can also be a platform for the lower placing runners to keep going for 4 more years and giving them the money to help them over that period is a worthy reason to go deeper with the prize money.

I like that the prize awards go deep. Wish it would even go deeper.

Far Out West wrote:

I think it should be more top heavy, reward the guys and gals that make the team and the alternate.... $120, $80, $60, $40 something like that. I understand the arguement about supporting the up and comers but it is prize money and is placing 5-10 really winning anything?

Really? I would have said the opposite. The top 3 already get the real prize of going to the Olympics, which will be worth plenty of money in future sponsorships and appearance fees. The 4-10 should get a decent amount as a safety net.

Bureau of Labored Statistics wrote:

What about inflation?

Dan Lilot @Lilot1TrackMind

· 12h 12 hours ago

'92 - $68K ($111K); '96 - $100K ($151K). '92 Trials also had $199K total for 1-10, worth $336K today. Women MUCH better than ever tho. (3/3)

336k prize money in 2016 dollars is greater or less than 600k in 2016 dollars?

I'll give you more time if needed?

Maths exam question wrote:

Bureau of Labored Statistics wrote:

What about inflation?

Dan Lilot @Lilot1TrackMind

· 12h 12 hours ago

'92 - $68K ($111K); '96 - $100K ($151K). '92 Trials also had $199K total for 1-10, worth $336K today. Women MUCH better than ever tho. (3/3)

336k prize money in 2016 dollars is greater or less than 600k in 2016 dollars?

I'll give you more time if needed?

I'll take the high road and not stoop to your level with an equally insulting reply, so I'll just point out that the $600K is for both men and women. The $199K/$336K from 1992 was just for men.

Purses for women (no pun intended) were significantly smaller than for men until recently, so without knowing the 1992 women's prize purse, it's likely that the combined M&W prize money in 1992 was indeed less than that for 2016, in today's dollars, but strictly looking at the men, it's lower than it was in 1992.