Viral tweet shows how pathetic track and field pay is

Mrr82 wrote:

malmo wrote:

A non-point? This is the entire point. Neither Symmonds nor are confused about how athletes are paid, we've walked the walk. You haven't been within several zipcodes close to professional running. You don't have a clue, nor can you read and follow the conversation.

https://twitter.com/nicksymmonds/status/729682822303121410

The metric that Symmonds had posted shows what athletes in various sports have made. The purple bar is their compensation from the sport in salary or prize money. The orange bar shows what they made in endorsements. It's not difficult to follow.

Malmö it is hard to follow because it's false. They are lumping appearance fees with endorsements which is 100% wrong. It's money paid from the sport.

How many sockpuppets do you use man?

It's not hard to follow and it's not false information. But you do have a point about lumping appearance fees together with endorsement - but apperarance fees are essentially a de facto endorsement. Regardless, it doesn't change the crux of Symmnonds argument.

You geniuses are hilarious.

The average elite international athlete makes less than a barista and you guys are arguing how much less.

The sport has major problems and the fans are part of it.

Pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

You geniuses are hilarious.

The average elite international athlete makes less than a barista and you guys are arguing how much less.

The sport has major problems and the fans are part of it.

This

Sorry MALMO, you need to do your research. You can't compare to any NFL, NBA, player or team sport then if you want to do a fair comparison. The money they get is their salary and that happens if they finish first or last.

[/quote]

Please read the link I've provided.

Approximately 50% of our athletes who rank in the top 10 in the USA in their event make less than $15,000 annually from the sport (sponsorship, grants, prize money, etc.[/quote]

Why are you arguing a non-point. You brought up the "prize" money distinction. I was pointing out you and Nick seem to be confused on how some athletes are paid.[/quote]

A non-point? This is the entire point. Neither Symmonds nor are confused about how athletes are paid, we've walked the walk. You haven't been within several zipcodes close to professional running. You don't have a clue, nor can you read and follow the conversation.

https://twitter.com/nicksymmonds/status/729682822303121410

The metric that Symmonds had posted shows what athletes in various sports have made. The purple bar is their compensation from the sport in salary or prize money. The orange bar shows what they made in endorsements. It's not difficult to follow.[/quote]

Malmö it is hard to follow because it's false. They are lumping appearance fees with endorsements which is 100% wrong. It's money paid from the sport.

You are demonstrating that you know less about professional running than a nobody who can use the Internet.[/quote]

I have to agree with malmo on this one. Malmo is NOT even comparing T&F to team sports like NBA or NFL. Read his original post and you will notice that he specifically compared them to tennis and golf, which are definitely individual sports, just like track.

Golf and Tennis athletes are very similar to running in the sense that they get most of their money from endorsements. The only difference is that they receive a lot more endorsements and MANY times more from prize money. T&F athletes receive very little unless you are the absolute winner at a major race. If you come in 5th place, sucks to suck. However, in golf and tennis they distribute the wealth much more efficiently.

also I don't understand how sports like golf and tennis are so much more popular than running. Is it because of the athletes? Or that we only have a major national competition every four years? I don't know.

thedub wrote:

Golf and Tennis athletes are very similar to running in the sense that they get most of their money from endorsements. The only difference is that they receive a lot more endorsements and MANY times more from prize money. T&F athletes receive very little unless you are the absolute winner at a major race. If you come in 5th place, sucks to suck. However, in golf and tennis they distribute the wealth much more efficiently.

Actually the guys that are way low in the golf/tennis rankings make big bucks from prize money (links provided). But the prize structures in golf and tennis go deep. In track, the prize structures are heavily skewed to the top three which only serves to make the rich get richer.

I agree with you on this, but are there any recordings of actual prize money being awarded at major meets? How much does the winner at some diamond league meets get vs. the 5th place guy?

malmo wrote:

thedub wrote:

Golf and Tennis athletes are very similar to running in the sense that they get most of their money from endorsements. The only difference is that they receive a lot more endorsements and MANY times more from prize money. T&F athletes receive very little unless you are the absolute winner at a major race. If you come in 5th place, sucks to suck. However, in golf and tennis they distribute the wealth much more efficiently.

Actually the guys that are way low in the golf/tennis rankings make big bucks from prize money (links provided). But the prize structures in golf and tennis go deep. In track, the prize structures are heavily skewed to the top three which only serves to make the rich get richer.

They are watched by many more people on TV. They deserve to get paid deeper and more in that regards. Track has way less money so they pay someone like Bolt 300k so people will show up and watch.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I'm on his side on this issue generally, but does he want pro runners to get paid to race like 3 or 4 times a year? That is ludicrous unless you are a marathoner!

He's not saying that at all. He's saying there should be three to four big competitions, a gland slam circuit if you will, where all the big names show up. All of the other permit meetings would continue as usual. Again, if you follow the sport at all, none oif what Symmonds is saying is difficult to understand.

Mrr82 wrote:

malmo wrote:

Actually the guys that are way low in the golf/tennis rankings make big bucks from prize money (links provided). But the prize structures in golf and tennis go deep. In track, the prize structures are heavily skewed to the top three which only serves to make the rich get richer.

They are watched by many more people on TV. They deserve to get paid deeper and more in that regards. Track has way less money so they pay someone like Bolt 300k so people will show up and watch.

Actually a few years ago the USATF, I think, published television ratings compared to golf, and the results were surprising close. Hopefully someone can dig that report up.

George, Randy et al stop bickering. What ever the exact figures for sports celebrities are T&F Athletes remuneration for on-the-field performance is woefully low compared to other sports. Value to a sponsor is based on O Score How are Q Scores calculated?The methodology behind the mysterious ratings is actually fairly straightforward. Marketing Evaluations, Inc. polls a representative national sample about performers, brands, TV shows, or some other property. First, it asks respondents if they’ve heard of the performer or show. If a respondent has heard of the relevant entity, the survey asks if they would rate it poor, fair, good, very good, or one of their favorites.From there, calculating the Q Score is just a quick bit of division. Divide the percentage of people who peg a performer or show as one of their favorites by the percentage of people who have heard of the entity in the first place, drop the decimal points, and you’ve got your Q Score. Qs are how well know and well liked you are in the general population not just in the followers of your sport or discipline. The sponsor ask how much is it worth to me to have this person associated with my brand. read this

four thirty wrote:

Pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

You geniuses are hilarious.

The average elite international athlete makes less than a barista and you guys are arguing how much less.

The sport has major problems and the fans are part of it.

This

thedub wrote:

I agree with you on this, but are there any recordings of actual prize money being awarded at major meets? How much does the winner at some diamond league meets get vs. the 5th place guy?

On the Diamond League website.

four thirty wrote:

also I don't understand how sports like golf and tennis are so much more popular than running. Is it because of the athletes? Or that we only have a major national competition every four years? I don't know.

A golf major like The Masters awards $10 million in prize money to 50 competitors. The IAAF World Championships awards $7.1 million to nearly 600 competitors.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

A golf major like The Masters awards $10 million in prize money to 50 competitors. The IAAF World Championships awards $7.1 million to nearly 600 competitors.

Actually more get paid at the Masters.

Quote: "The rest of the professionals will receive cash prizes ranging downward from $24,600 depending on the scores."

commonfacebookfriend&follower wrote:

read this

four thirty wrote:

This

In previous posts I've already made the same point, except instead of baristas I've used McDonalds as the comparison.

malmo wrote:

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I'm on his side on this issue generally, but does he want pro runners to get paid to race like 3 or 4 times a year? That is ludicrous unless you are a marathoner!

He's not saying that at all. He's saying there should be three to four big competitions, a gland slam circuit if you will, where all the big names show up. All of the other permit meetings would continue as usual. Again, if you follow the sport at all, none oif what Symmonds is saying is difficult to understand.

I'm only interpreting the actions of Bolt and Symmonds racing schedules last year (like 3 or 4 races). Why Nick needs to retweet misleading stats is beyond me (interesting you selectively quoted my post. Yes, that part was a bit hyperbolic).

I paid good money to watch the world indoors this year. Didn't see either of these mega stars. I'd go to more pro track meets, but I can't afford that many airplane tickets. All other major sports are an easy couple of hours drive away.

commonfacebookfriend&follower wrote:

George, Randy et al stop bickering.

I'm not bickering, I'm actually engaged in the topic. Perhaps you're the one who's bickering?

malmo wrote:

commonfacebookfriend&follower wrote:

George, Randy et al stop bickering.

I'm not bickering, I'm actually engaged in the topic. Perhaps you're the one who's bickering?

I put one post up and now I'm the Head of the Big Bad Bickerer Band.

OK I'll mind my place.

Carrion gentlemen, carrion

Did I say you were the head big bad bickerer? No. You said I was bickering. I was not. I was engaged in discussion. I only asked you if you were, thinking you might be projecting. Which you just affirmed. TYVM