Viral tweet shows how pathetic track and field pay is

What does this mean? Everyone who matters likes the sport structured the way it is? Are you saying the only people who matter are the ones in charge?

It seems clear that the general population of T&F has some problem with the way it is run. We just disagree on the source of the problem.

Your logic isn't good.

The money has to pay for everything else. It has to pay for the 3 other years when no one watches. It has to pay for women's wrestling and curling etc.

I do not want NCAA athletes to be paid. The football $$ pay for track and soccer, etc.

Your logic astoundingly stupid.

You can't compare the 8th best javelin thrower to the 8th best Golf in any way shape or form. Golf has a single event. Let me say that again, because you come on here all the time and don't seem that bright. Golf has ONE single event. Track does not'

Hockey is a teams sport...there is no "8th" best hockey player. If a team wants to pay him a salary. They can.

My logic is sound, rojo.

Every four years track and field pulls huge audiences. These fans do not come from thin air. They are untapped potential. Athletics is one of the most popular sports in the world.

If the sport could put together consistent events that are at least palatable for a small percentage of the people that watch the Olympics every 4 years then it would be making a killing.

As I said, look at the money in boxing, a far, far less popular sport in terms of viewing figures and worldwide audiences makes (tens/hundreds of) millions for it's stars.

The diamond leagues do not have large viewing figures. This is not a case of everyone suddenly going off track and field in between the Olympics. This is because the event is poorly advertised, poorly structured and organized, doesn't always recruit the best names (Birmingham needs to be removed immediately), has poor TV coverage and ultimately does not pull in enough sponsors/doesn't allow more than just Nike and other 'official' IAAF sponsors to get involved.

Athletics is absolutely one of the worst sports at converting large audiences to cash. The problem is not a lack of interest in athletics. It is a lack of interest in the charade the IAAF puts on. Unless you are a die hard track fan it is difficult to even watch let alone follow most of their events.

A small example of how presentation makes all the difference. The 1500m and 3k in Doha was a joke. Completely unwatchable and I knew a lot of those athletes. You couldn't tell who was who when the camera was zoomed out, ridiculous.

Metric Miler wrote:

This is not a case of everyone suddenly going off track and field in between the Olympics.

Yes it is. People watching t&f during the Olympics only watch it because it happens to be on. They're fans of the Olympics, not the sport.

If you care so much about golf being a single event then let's bring up the marathon.

The marathon, like golf, is ONE event. Yet the 8th place finisher is normally making $0. He might make enough to pay the months rent at the bigger marathons.

TAA wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

This is not a case of everyone suddenly going off track and field in between the Olympics.

Yes it is. People watching t&f during the Olympics only watch it because it happens to be on. They're fans of the Olympics, not the sport.

2 billion people simultaneously across the world tuned into the 100m Olympic final because it 'happened to be on'? Was it a convenient time for all the nations that watched it? Tea time? I think not. Did 2 billion tune into the 20m pistol shooting? Or even a big sport like the tennis final?

If 2 billion would watch the 100m final and several hundreds of millions watched many of the other finals, do you not think that even 1% of those people would stick around to watch more regular athletics if it were presented well, perhaps with a team element?

I think it would be foolish to say it was impossible. Even 0.5% would be 40 million people. The potential for advertising is massive.

*10 million lol.

They watch it because it's the Olympic 100, not because they care about the sport. No, 2 billion people didn't tune in for the 20m pistol or the tennis final, but their numbers were way higher than they normally are. Why? Because it's the Olympics. People don't care otherwise.

Explain why the viewing figures for athletics were so much higher than for the other sports that make extremely large sums of money compared to athletics then? Basketball, tennis etc.

Track and field has a worldwide audience. It is one of the most well known sports on Earth, probably inside the top 10. A small percentage of that 2 billion would watch regular athletics events if they were put on in an audience friendly way at hyped up events the other years. It is up to the IAAF to create the buzz.

There is no reason that even a small percentage of the hundreds of millions that tune in to watch athletic events during the Olympics would not be interested in seeing a bit more. There is no logic to explain it other than athletics does a terrible job at selling itself and the Olympics does a much better one.

I'll grant you that the Olympics in general is a big and popular event, but I'm not saying 2 billion will watch the Diamond League. I'm saying 5-10 million might. And that is similar to the viewing figures of the biggest boxing matches.

The Olympics doesn't hand out free sweets to everyone. It is the same sport. Presented differently.

People like Nick, Malmo and Metric fail to understand the fundamentals here.

there isn't a magic pot of money sitting somewhere for track and field that people are holding onto. The money has to come from somewhere.

It comes mainly from licensing, sponsors, selling tickets and tv. That's about it. The same for football, NBA. Now track does a horrible job licensing - there are no Ritz singlets or Farah track jackets, etc. You have olympic sponsors but everyone complains about how much power they have with Rule 40. So you want to dilute their product - guess what less money from sponsorships. Tickets - outside a few areas - live tickets don't sell but there is a maximum that you can sell. TV. the IOC doesn't sell the tv rights piecemeal. they sell the whole event from th 1-2 billion people watch the 100M to the people watching archery. So you have to understand that all those sports have to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, track and field has to subsidize other events.

People watch track in the Olympics because it's tied to the olympics. What is the viewership for the world championships. The IAAF tried to inject marketing/excitement with the World Relays, so to say they are doing nothing is wholly inaccurate.

The conversation is old and tiresome. Nick offers complaints but no real solutions.

Really? I fail to understand the money comes from the avenues you have stated? Is that not what I have been going on about this entire thread? You just illustrated how athletics does a poor job of making the most of it's huge audiences.

I granted the Olympics is on the whole more exciting. But there are plenty of people interested in athletics (maybe a billon). There is a reason the athletics pulled in way larger numbers than the other sports. People like it. IAAF just has no grasp on making the Diamond League attractive.

I just read an IAAF press release that said the diamond league in 2013 pulled in global audiences of 265 million in 2013. That is just after the Olympics (so my point stands as correct about a small percentage of the 2 billion would watch athletics after the Olympics). Where is the money? That is over 20x the figures for the $400 million dollar Mayweather vs Paquiao fight.

The money don't exist cause like I said, and you reiterated, the IAAF does a poor job of selling/advertising/commercialising their sport and signs stupid exclusivity deals and bans people like Nick Symmonds from even having a 9 inch logo on his own damn vest.

I've been at British Athletics meetings where I had to black tape over the bloody logo on my shorts. This is the attitude of athletics from the top down.

sad that drug cheat Sharapova makes so much from sponsors. If you're popular, you get off with a slap on the wrist.

How many start a pga tournament? It's not clear. They cut to 78 players.

They apparently play from mid-October to September of the next year, having multiple events on a given weekend, maybe every weekend. They broadcast from January(!) to October.

The 273rd rank player,J.J. Henry, made over 500,000 if the PGA's site is believable.

How is Track and Field's 273rd 10000 meter runner doing?

How about any given WMM event's 273rd runner?

[/quote]

There is this thing pro sports do called "keep statistics" on player performance. Guess where you can find an 8th-ranked player?

Swimming and gymnastics get good ratings as well during the Olympics and they aren't making bank.

If track was popular the diamond league would not be on beinsports in the US.

A for profit would come on and capitlaizr on it. Sure the sport could be monetized popular but let's face it it's not that popular outside of the Olympics.

Boxing is on pay per view. Charge $59.95 to watch the Olympic 100m and you'll have less viewers.

There should be a triple cast streaming option for the Olympics for enhanced coverage. They are leaving money on the table with that.

Kris Krinkle wrote:

Nick blames Usain Bolt's lack of on-field play on "revenue sharing in t&f".

Lets think about this for a minute.

Lebron James makes $19.3M on-field

Usain Bolt makes $0.2M on-field

Usain Bolt makes about 100x less than Lebron James. How much more revenue does basketball bring in compared to track and field? It seems reasonable that basketball brings in 100x the revenue that track does.

I think this is more a "no one cares about track" problem than a "track and field revenue sharing" problem...

Nailed it. Jesus it only took 4 pages.

Normalize athlete earnings to sport revenue, and Nick's graph looks might different.

Revenue sharing can't be unfair IF THERE IS NO REVENUE.

The discussion moved on to why track doesn't make much money...

wejo wrote:

Swimming and gymnastics get good ratings as well during the Olympics and they aren't making bank.

If track was popular the diamond league would not be on beinsports in the US.

A for profit would come on and capitlaizr on it. Sure the sport could be monetized popular but let's face it it's not that popular outside of the Olympics.

Boxing is on pay per view. Charge $59.95 to watch the Olympic 100m and you'll have less viewers.

There should be a triple cast streaming option for the Olympics for enhanced coverage. They are leaving money on the table with that.

Pay per view makes a lot of money, of course, but it also is nowhere near the whole revenue of a fight.

According to a press release by the IAAF over 250 million watched the diamond league in 2013. Those are big, big numbers. A lot more than boxing matches.

Yet the IAAF is unable to turn their huge potential into a money spinner. Why? Do you not think that many, many sponsors would be interested in getting their logos and name seen by a quarter of a billion people? Of course they would. Nick Symmonds $21k tattoo proved it. But the IAAF, and pretty much athletics worldwide, is afraid of commercialisation.

There is also the issue of making the sport easier to follow and have meets that are better presented and publicised so that fans actually know they are happening, could get behind it and enjoy watching it. I'd bet that if the Diamond Leagues were completely redone and advertised really well then it could bring in even more viewers.

There really is no argument, athletics has a huge global audience, is not some niche sport (despite Letsrun wanting to feel part of an elite group) and has the potential to bring in far more money than it does. ~$8 million in prize money for the whole Diamond League which brought in 250 million+ viewers is a joke.

If this were a business then the marketing dept. would get fired.

You talk of the huge audience for track and field, but it is splintered. 250 million sounds like a lot but this isn't one meet and the meets are a couple hours long. I'ld love to the IAAF's claims audited. Any organization can claim anything.

But if that were the case, why is the Diamond League on a niche Spanish Cable network. You think the only reason ESPN isn't snapping up the Diamond League rights is poor marketing? ESPN or Fox sports need content, but they aren't going to lose money.

I'd love to see how it's packaged sold in other countries who are used to watching 3+ hrs of soccer.