USATF fires back at Nick Symmonds-USATF will spend more than 50% of its budget and $15 million on elite athletes in 2015

US Soccer has grown because someone had a vision and was willing to invest his own money when things were looking bad. Anyone with a vision for track and field will have to wait 25 years.

I agree there is no way they are anywhere near 50% they are the most selfish entity I have ever experienced as well ! even if they want to twist the numbers and say all the electricity they use at at the their home office is for athletes there is no possible way 50 percent number is accurate haha

Man Overboard wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:Yeah, this actually means almost nothing.

So...are you saying that you know more than USATF's auditors? You've seen some source documents, have you? Where's your proof?

Look, GAAP means next to nothing for an organization determined to operate in a dishonest way. We all know this.

Is there an accounting for a finder's fee for landing a USATF sponsor?

There isn't one in cycling and this is a known perk of being a usa cycling federation officer. Is there any accounting for it at USA Cycling? Doesn't seem like it.

Bullshi! Is rt! wrote:

I agree there is no way they are anywhere near 50% they are the most selfish entity I have ever experienced as well ! even if they want to twist the numbers and say all the electricity they use at at the their home office is for athletes there is no possible way 50 percent number is accurate haha

If we are going to critcize USATF for the 50% claim. Nick deserves some criticism for his 8 % claim.

1st the report was biased and the "researcher" was cooking the numbers as much as the usatf. 2nd the actual number is larger than 8%.

Last the Usatf's mission isn't to pay all of it's $$ to a few elites.

Bum gum wrote:

Nick can throw bombs but whines like a baby when others bring up points.

He should disclose the real issue. He isn't defending other athletes or his current sponsors. He simply wants to sell you suckers more caffeinated gum..that's it. The legit sponsors accept and adapt to the Nike Usatf deal (except oiselle who doesn't know a track meet from a mommy blogger convention). Legit sponsors can a will market WC athletes. But simpletons like Nick think a WC is the best/ only way to push their "house" products ( crap gum, terrible misleading nutrition bars).

By the way all of that would be fine in symmonds was honest about it

I really like how USATF have people posting anonymously on LR.

Nick (and his minions) sure do have the drill down.

When questioned blame the usatf

When asked to clarify blame the usatf

Instead of taking responsibility for your actions blame the usatf

When you fail at marketing yourself blame the usatf

When someone brings the truth blame the usatf

It's called being an adult Nick.

Sure thing Nick wrote:

It's called being an adult Nick.

Blaming and not blaming has nothing to do with being an adult.

How much money goes to the dozens of sunburned, fat old fart USATF volunteers we see limping around the infield at every USATF meet?

Hearsay from Flo Track people tell me that several ex-coaches get 100% of airfare, hotel, retal car, and meals covered by USATF.

Some USATF volunteers don't need expenses paid given they already receive hefty civil service pensions; are wealthy doctors, computer chip designers, real estate moguls; or have a big family inheritance.

But that's just hearsay.

We need an independent auditor to review the detailed distribution practices of USATF.

Athletes are waiting.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We just received the following press release from USATF.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/08/usatf-statement-and-data-on-elite-athlete-spending-usatf-will-spend-more-than-15-million-on-elite-athletes-in-2015-more-than-50-of-budget/

Nice effort on their part, true transparency would be the underlying detail and analysis of effective spending. Who is getting the money big names already at highly salaried shoe company stipends? Are the expenditures for training camps, workshops, sports medicine, medical services really being utilized?

Over $2 million for broadcast/internet of events, what is the cost per viewer? I would guess very high and ineffective.

Coaching stipends, who are the coaches and who do they coach?

See where Im going with this?

So, Nick has little chance to make it to the finals in the 800 (he won silver in a soft year just like little Kara did) and instead of being knocked out and forgotten in the early heats he's going to turn this into a 24/7 show about how he's really a big player in the governance of T&F by martyring himself and he's really winning by not competing? Sheesh...I mean SWOOSH.

Audit detail analysis wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

We just received the following press release from USATF.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/08/usatf-statement-and-data-on-elite-athlete-spending-usatf-will-spend-more-than-15-million-on-elite-athletes-in-2015-more-than-50-of-budget/

Nice effort on their part, true transparency would be the underlying detail and analysis of effective spending. Who is getting the money big names already at highly salaried shoe company stipends? Are the expenditures for training camps, workshops, sports medicine, medical services really being utilized?

Over $2 million for broadcast/internet of events, what is the cost per viewer? I would guess very high and ineffective.

Coaching stipends, who are the coaches and who do they coach?

See where Im going with this?

Yeah. You are too lazy to look it up

The Running Bible, Once a Runner:

"The true competitive runner, simmering in his own existential juices, endured his melancholia the only way

he knew how: gently, together with those few others who also endured it; yet very much alone. He ran

because it grounded him in the basics. There was both life and death in it; it was unadulterated by media

hype, trivial cares, political meddling. He suspected it kept him from that most real variety of schizophrenia

that the republic was then sprouting like mushrooms on a stump."

So much for the "unadulterated by media hype."

This is a dark age for our sport.

This is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison to other sports.

50% of the "budget" and $15m is on elite athletes vs 50% of revenues go to athletes in other sports. I put budget in quotes because from 2012 to 2014, USATF's assets went up from $4.9M to $17M, so revenues were just stashed away.

In NBA, 100% of the budget is spent on elite athletes. Who else do they spend money on? NBA spends 55% of operating revenue on salaries/compensation, and the rest is on operating expenses such as broadcasting, arena expenses, admin cost.

With USATF, $5.1M of their $35M of operating revenues was actually spent on compensation for athletes, which is only 16%. The other expenses are for broadcasting, travel budget, sports medicine, etc.. These can't be qualified as salaries.

Nick's point is that athletes lose their marketability by having to choose Nike apparel, yet aren't compensated for it. He is actually right in this case. I will use a different athlete to prove my point.

Emma Coburn could win a gold medal in 2016 Rio Olympics. Obviously, Emma can sell her rights for compensation, as she does to New Balance. Nike wants the rights to have their product on Emma when she stands on the podium, which will even include a pair of neon bright yellow shoes. Nike buys those rights for $20M a year from USATF, yet Emma does not receive a very high percentage of that. Emma is forced to wear that apparel, Nike gains visibility on the podium, and New Balance gets left behind. If USATF is going to sell the rights of elite athletes, then maybe they should get more than 16% of revenues or allow more brand exposure at international competitions.

Rx3 wrote:If USATF is going to sell the rights of elite athletes, then maybe they should get more than 16% of revenues or allow more brand exposure at international competitions.

You made an argument. This is grounds for a lawsuit.

There is no trust in the USATF. This reaction on the part of the running community has little to do with Nick's specific information. I have completed the USATF Level 2 program, timed youth and masters/open meets, and attended elite competitions such as the Olympic Track and Field Trials, Marathon trials and US Championships. The Level 2 program is out of date, the youth meets are borderline child abuse, and the masters/open meets are completely disorganized. All of this despite being run by full time employees. The national level meets seemed to be well run but could certainly be improved in terms of efficiency.

Those problems far outweigh the following but are overlooked because of the hints of either corruption or incompetency in the handling of the following situations.

1. The length of the deal with Nike. The amount of money per year really isn't the problem with the deal. No one should ever be able to commit an organization like the USATF to a contract of over 20 years. The people who signed the contract will not be involved with the organization in 20 years (the zombies officiating the meets though, well that is a different story).

2. The poor handling of disqualifications at the indoor championships and the inconsistent application of rules. Hell in 2012 they just made up a process for breaking a tie and changed their mind like 10 times.

3. Chairperson, turned president, turned president and IAAF representative Stephanie Hightower. Her House of Cards-esq rise is truly unbelievable.

4. Poor handling of PR.

5. The current Symmonds situation. If you strip away everything else the part that stuck out to me was 'official' being in quotes in the form the athletes were asked to sign. If Nick had signed the contract, ignored their asserted directives in non-official situations to wear Nike, he could have gone to court and would have won given that poor contract construction.

I am sure there are a ton of other situations and examples but those are the ones that are glaring to me. They may be the advocate for the sport but they are generally not trusted by the constituency for whom they're supposed to fighting.

Rx3 wrote:

Emma Coburn could win a gold medal in 2016 Rio Olympics. Obviously, Emma can sell her rights for compensation, as she does to New Balance. Nike wants the rights to have their product on Emma when she stands on the podium, which will even include a pair of neon bright yellow shoes. Nike buys those rights for $20M a year from USATF, yet Emma does not receive a very high percentage of that. Emma is forced to wear that apparel, Nike gains visibility on the podium, and New Balance gets left behind. If USATF is going to sell the rights of elite athletes, then maybe they should get more than 16% of revenues or allow more brand exposure at international competitions.

If Emma wins a gold medal at the Olympics, her marketability will increase significantly. She will be able to command higher appearance fees from meets, she will have more speaking opportunities, and she will appear in more media outlets. During all of those events she will wear her New Balance clothing, and with greater exposure I'm sure her agent could negotiate a better deal with New Balance.

So for a couple photos on the podium she's wearing the swoosh. So what? The rest of the year she gets to wear New Balance.

If the funding Nike sends USATF's way get distributed to non-Nike athletes in the form of direct compensation (essentially what you're asking for), watch Nike's support vanish. Why should they directly fund athletes sponsored by their competitors?

No Trust wrote:

There is no trust in the USATF...hints of either corruption or incompetency in the handling of the following situations.

1. The length of the deal with Nike. The amount of money per year really isn't the problem with the deal. No one should ever be able to commit an organization like the USATF to a contract of over 20 years. The people who signed the contract will not be involved with the organization in 20 years (the zombies officiating the meets though, well that is a different story).

The current eight year deal USATF has with Nike brings in $11 /yr. The deal before that brought in $4.5m /yr ('01-'09). The new deal beginning in '17 doubles once again to $20m /yr but instead of an eight year deal the geniuses in Indy agreed to a deal 2.5x as long. Besides the problems noted above, they effectively left 200-300 million dollars on the table (Potentially $40m /yr from '25-'40).

It's a poor deal by an incompetent organization. That they treat their athletes unfairly is not a huge surprise.

The issue is due process and the rights of athletes to choose their own sponsors.

Track and field has about 20 events, if you double that for both genders, you have 40 events. If you took the top 10 in each event that's 400 athletes.

I don't know where usatf spends their 15 million. If you gave even cash to the top 10 athletes in 40 different events, that's $37,500 per athlete. This list doesn't even include college athletes because they can't accept money.

Where is the breakdown where this cash is going? I don't think many athletes feel they are supported 37,500 by usatf