Nick Symmonds fires back at USATF- Budget figures do not show any indivdual athletes receiving an actual salaries

If Nick only has to courage to fire back with Instagram and Twitter, and not use a legal challenge , why should I care.

No. USATF's claim was they "pay for athlete development." Which they wanted everyone to understand it as "we do pay athletes. Since we pay them to be at WC, whatever we want them to do at the WC is okay." USATF doubled-down with their shill Abrahamson publishing some numbers they have to suggest Nick's claims were false. Now Nick is rightfully saying the numbers do not mean what they want them to mean.USATF operates so poorly and is so corrupt that there is no way they can execute retelling simple facts. I believe they could not stand the scrutiny of their income without yet another mismanagement/theft/skimming scandal starting. So, go ahead USATF. Prove Nick wrong. Keep at it. Let's see the revenue/expenditure details.

i think OP means wrote:

OP is saying USATF should form and pay a group of athletes to be Team USA

22 or so events events two genders and up to three athletes per event means a team of about 130 athletes getting enough to survive on say $100,000 to 125,00 per year plus benefits package health 401 etc.

Now a Coach wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me as to what the OP is trying to say?

Perfect timing. Nick's challenge will be heard in court and affect the US Mary Trials, US Olympic Trials, and 2016 Rio Olys.

You have it backwards. It is up to Nick to prove USATA is wrong. In a legal setting, not Instagram.

The Judge will decide. Not Phil Knight.

learn to deduce dummy wrote:

captain obvious: you are slow but there's hope yet. though I am not wasting more time on you after this...

by your reasoning, the NFL and NBA tell their pros to sign an agreement that stifles their sponsorship obligations and expression (just like USATF) AND these athletes make millions while wearing whatever they want?!

how can that be? hmmmmm.. (coz it doesn't happen einstein).now spell check my writing minion, like the anal 2nd grade tattle tail u ahre, and leeeve thuh reasoneeeng to the adulttts...

POY

Track and field is an amateur sport.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Track and field is an amateur sport.

Hi Stephanie.

This would be true if Symmonds would not be able to be sponsored by Brooks or lose income from competing at Worlds and comply with USATF rules, which is not true. This was Nick trying to get attention but got to far in and he was to stuborn to back down. He knew he would get a lot of backing because most despise Nike and USATF.

?????????????? wrote:

This would be true if Symmonds would not be able to be sponsored by Brooks or lose income from competing at Worlds and comply with USATF rules, which is not true. This was Nick trying to get attention but got to far in and he was to stuborn to back down. He knew he would get a lot of backing because most despise Nike and USATF.

Brooks would have a HUGE lost opportunity being photographed at the WC in Brooks gear. But, apparently Brooks gave him an out.

The last minute, vague letter is TERRIBLE practice for the well-being of the sport, but since the sport is renaming itself "USA Swoosh and Field" it's all legit.

I agree that Nick was doing some calculations, but USA Swoosh and Field is only adding fuel with their misinformation and cannot possibly execute shutting Nick's story down at this point.

Brooks didn't give him an out, they probably gave him a bonus for making team, even knowing that he would have to wear USA Swoosh And Field gear. Nike athletes follow the same rules in other sports that have different sponsores. The vague letter is probably put out to discourage athlete to trying to bend rules to gain attention. Do you think that if Brooks or anyother company would like it if they shelled out big $$$$ to sponsore team and athletes walked around in competitors gear?

Now the deal with USATF is an necessary evil, without it a lot of athlete would not even get chance to compete.

"The NFL, NBA, etc. do not pay athletes. The individuals clubs pay athletes."

NFL, NBA, MLB... all guarantee salary minimums that must be adhered to. so they do pay the athletes with this gaurantee. So USATF should also make pro minimums that teams / sponsors / meet directors must pay.. want more, get an agent.

What does your post have to do with his? His point remains true: Symmonds has shown no proof that wearing Nike at WC affects his earnings at all.

I am curious. For a major event like the World Championship or the Olympics, who pays what for the cost of attending?

1. Visas

2. Airfare

3. Transportation

4. Lodging

5. Food

6. Registration

7. Resources at the meet (facility use, etc)

I understand that USATF does not and to a degree probably should not pay the athletes a salary, but then their expectations should be lowered based on what they will actually pay for. For example, if they paid for the whole trip, then ok we can consider the whole thing a team event. But if they are only paying for the pomp of the actual meet, banquets, and such then they should only expect to dictate your attire for those events.

Again, I am curious for those professional athletes who actually run international circuits and participate on world teams, what does USATF pay for?

Don't take your sponsors so lightly. It's your sponsor who got you to the champs, NOT uSATF, AND NOT Nike.

Kdk wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:

Brooks would have a HUGE lost opportunity being photographed at the WC in Brooks gear. But, apparently Brooks gave him an out.

The last minute, vague letter is TERRIBLE practice for the well-being of the sport, but since the sport is renaming itself "USA Swoosh and Field" it's all legit.

I agree that Nick was doing some calculations, but USA Swoosh and Field is only adding fuel with their misinformation and cannot possibly execute shutting Nick's story down at this point.

What does your post have to do with his? His point remains true: Symmonds has shown no proof that wearing Nike at WC affects his earnings at all.

It is certainly the case that sponsoring Nick Symmonds would be of greater value to Brooks if Symmonds could wear Brooks clothing whenever competing for the US National team, and that some of that greater value would be paid to Symmonds. I don't have an easy way to quantify the amount, but it's certainly something.

Nick's bittersweet IG post:

https://instagram.com/p/6VZ0flt5xZ/?taken-by=nicksymmonds

#letclaytonrun

Kdk wrote:

What does your post have to do with his? His point remains true: Symmonds has shown no proof that wearing Nike at WC affects his earnings at all.

Hmm. Let's see.

1) Nick photographed during interviews for international press at the hotel before the event in Brooks, NO WAIT Nike attire.

2)Nick photographed/interviewed after WC event, at some hotel with international press. Seems like a great time to be in Brooks gear. Oh, wait...

Good for Nike, bad for Brooks in more than one way.

pop_pop! wrote:

Kdk wrote:

What does your post have to do with his? His point remains true: Symmonds has shown no proof that wearing Nike at WC affects his earnings at all.

Hmm. Let's see.

1) Nick photographed during interviews for international press at the hotel before the event in Brooks, NO WAIT Nike attire.

2)Nick photographed/interviewed after WC event, at some hotel with international press. Seems like a great time to be in Brooks gear. Oh, wait...

Good for Nike, bad for Brooks in more than one way.

That's not "bad" for Brooks. It's neutral for Brooks. They get neither more or less money. Furthermore, you still are replying with irrelevant statements. What does any of that have to do with Symmonds' earnings next week?