Want to get angry? 50th place at fishing tournament gets $10,000

USATF and Nike won't allow athletes to maximize their sponsorship opportunities via unlimited sponsors.

Stephanie Hightower's left nut wrote:

USATF and Nike won't allow athletes to maximize their sponsorship opportunities via unlimited sponsors.

USATF only restricts them during global championships. In which case they wear USA gear. IF fishing was an Olympic sport they would not be allowed to wear their sponsors either, just the standard USA gear. A sport like the triathlon is a great example. These guys have their attire decked out in sponsors during normal competition but what do they wear at the Olympics/world champs? USA gear without the sponsors.

With regards to Nike, athletes do NOT have to sign with Nike. They can choose to sign with 50 other companies and make their own jersey with all the logos on it for normal competition. But guess who pays more, Nike or 50 small companies combined? Nike comes out on top.

You guys are clueless how this works.

Track has 25 individual events. The money has to be spread around to all events, i.e. this is the equivalent of finishing second in your event on the world stage and getting $10,000. If one wants to have track athletes to get paid events need to be cut. The only athletics events should be the 100,400, mile, marathon, shot, high jump, and pole vault.

I was better at fishing than running - should have kept it up!

How many people do you know have gone fishing?

Now how many have done the triple jump?

Javelin?

3000m Steeplechase?

The 50th guy at Boston this year ran 2:34. You saying that deserves $10k?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

How many people do you know have gone fishing?

Now how many have done the triple jump?

Javelin?

3000m Steeplechase?

The 50th guy at Boston this year ran 2:34. You saying that deserves $10k?

YES! Why not??

getting my fishing pole wrote:

I was talking to a coworkers whose friend is fishing this weekend in a Bassmaster Elite tournament. (Bassmaster Elite is a touring series with dozens of events during the year.) Her friend is in 55th place and is on the cusp of making the cut (top 50 make the cut). She said if he makes the cut he makes a guaranteed $10,000 bucks. I didn't believe it, but it's true:

https://www.bassmaster.com/news/new-2015-elite-series-field-set-fresh-and-familiar-faces-0

Not only that, but these guys are LOADED with sponsors. Their shirts look like NASCAR driver suits they have so many sponsors.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SPORT?

Why would you be angry? Sponsors want to make a return on their investment, and I don't think the 24th guy at Boston is selling many $60,000 BassTrackers.

Why won't people on this board acknowledge that while we might love running, it's pretty boring to watch.

I think you've hit upon the reason in your first paragraph. We may like that running is cheap, but it makes it really tough to get sponsorship $$$. If shoes cost thousands of dollars and getting a top notch pair made a real difference, the elites would all be rolling in it.

THAT'S why golfers make so much money -- because playing golf is expensive. Same here with fishing.

Our top T&F stars are phenomenal athletes, approachable, and interesting. Running can be a very very exciting sport -- that's why we're all here. Why is there no money in it? Because there's nothing to sell!

Phil Fondacaro wrote:

Track has 25 individual events. The money has to be spread around to all events, i.e. this is the equivalent of finishing second in your event on the world stage and getting $10,000. If one wants to have track athletes to get paid events need to be cut. The only athletics events should be the 100,400, mile, marathon, shot, high jump, and pole vault.

Track does not have 25 events, more like 19...

I do get your contention though. I would also keep discus, lj, and 110 hurdles though. I think those hold enough interest on their own to add to the ones you mentioned.

That still cuts the 200, 800, 3000, 5000, 10,000, jav, triple jump, steeple, 400m hurdles, hammer. That's a significant paring down of events in the interest of keeping meets fast and fun.

The distances left out could still be sprinkled into non televised meets for fun, just like how we add the dmr to relay meets.

I have a coworker who wins money in random local billiards tournaments and he does not claim to be good at all (he only plays at the bar after work once in a while). I can't remember how much the tournaments paid out but it was more than any road race in Seattle for sure.

HardLoper wrote:

I have a coworker who wins money in random local billiards tournaments and he does not claim to be good at all (he only plays at the bar after work once in a while). I can't remember how much the tournaments paid out but it was more than any road race in Seattle for sure.

Hi HardLoper!

There is much more money in sports that have/need a lot of equipment;Fishing, golf cycling and triathlon.All these manufacturers want to advertise their products. Hence the boatload of money. Just look at how many cycling, golf, fishing magazines are out there. Never a dearth of advertisements. Unfortunately, running is very basic, requiring hardly any equipment.

different perspective wrote:

THAT'S why golfers make so much money -- because playing golf is expensive. Same here with fishing.

A lot of it is also the target audience. Which demographic loves golf and fishing? Old people. Which demographic has the most money? Old people. Those two sports make a lot of money because they appeal to the richest audience.

Boring to watch? You do realize you're comparing running to fishing, right?

Fishing...

Not even a fair comparison. Your co-worker failed to mention that the entry fee was $5,250 for the Elite tournament and they need a $60,000 boat pulled by a $60,000 Truck, let alone all the fishing equipment. Most tournament anglers do not even break even on a given year. A pair of running shoes and $150 entry fee does not even compare.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

Stephanie Hightower's left nut wrote:

USATF and Nike won't allow athletes to maximize their sponsorship opportunities via unlimited sponsors.

USATF only restricts them during global championships. In which case they wear USA gear. IF fishing was an Olympic sport they would not be allowed to wear their sponsors either, just the standard USA gear. A sport like the triathlon is a great example. These guys have their attire decked out in sponsors during normal competition but what do they wear at the Olympics/world champs? USA gear without the sponsors.

With regards to Nike, athletes do NOT have to sign with Nike. They can choose to sign with 50 other companies and make their own jersey with all the logos on it for normal competition. But guess who pays more, Nike or 50 small companies combined? Nike comes out on top.

You guys are clueless how this works.

No. You are clueless. IAAF has restrictions in all events, too. One logo per singlet and shorts, must be in the top left and be of a certain size.

And fishing is the least demanding sport:

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

I was top 50 at Boston I want $10,000 please pay me in but coins.

spongebob racewalker wrote:

.?...... wrote:

Why would you be angry? Sponsors want to make a return on their investment, and I don't think the 24th guy at Boston is selling many $60,000 BassTrackers.

Why won't people on this board acknowledge that while we might love running, it's pretty boring to watch.

Boring to watch? You do realize you're comparing running to fishing, right?

Fishing...

I wouldn't watch fishing, but apparently people do and those people spend more on stuff than runners. The market has decided fishing sponsorship is more lucrative than running.

Why the OP is angry about it is bizarre. There are endless boring things to watch, running and fishing included.