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

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?

I see the point you're making, but Boston was incredibly slow this year due to the weather. In 2013, 50th place at Boston was 2:26.

More importantly, it doesn't take much skill to "go fishing". I'm sure it takes a lot of skill to be really good at it, but it takes more skill to have slightest bit of competence in most track and field events, especially pole vault, steeplechase, hurdles, high jump, etc. The average person couldn't complete these events.

Phil Fondacaro wrote:

The only athletics events should be the 100,400, mile, marathon, shot, high jump, and pole vault.

Let's just make it the decathlon and be done with individual events.

different perspective wrote:

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!

This shoe company Nike agrees. Because there is nothing but shoes to sell.

tomdog wrote:

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.

Boston Marathon agrees. There's no money in running, so few people are interested.

You guys are just amazing. You all come up with EVERY. SINGLE. EXCUSE. to keep the sport poor and ignored.

Somehow those fishing people come up with the cash. How about $1000 entry fee for $10,000 payout at a T&F event?

Fishing is boring to do, let alone to watch.

.?...... 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.

If you think that's a lot, you should see what golfers who barely make the cut at top tournaments get paid.

49th place at the Masters (12 over par) paid $27,467 for both players tied at that score. The last place player to make the cut (57th place at 19 over par) still got $23,000.

tomdog wrote:

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.

Thank you for bringing a dose of reality.

Lots of good points as to why fishing and golf bring in more money.

My favorite comment so far is that fishing doesn't take a lot of skill. This is absolutely correct. However actually catching the fish well that is a diff story.

The best point so far are that fishing and golf attract older people which have more money. I mean honestly I hope I have enough money in retirement to fish and golf weekly. I will also hope to still be running and biking but of those which do you think Ill have to spend the least amount of money on?

Next best point is how expensive the equipment is for fishing and golf which is why sponsors fork over all that money.

You want professional track athletes to make more money?

Lets see how about we add beer and betting.

messi wrote:

tomdog wrote:

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.

Thank you for bringing a dose of reality.

That the majority of the sport's athletes are and should remain poor and ignored?

Meanwhile, thousands of hobby joggers are running marathons and spending lots of money to do it. Why isn't the 5k and 10k elite event interest far bigger? Even more people do those.

The burden falls on the USATF who, like you, are quite content with the current system.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

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

If they were paying $10k for 50th place at Boston, you'd have at least 51 sub-2:20 guys on the starting line.

cuz 2;34 is hobby jogging

subfive wrote:

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??

Fishing is a equipment heavy activity. It makes sense that all those companies can put together enough money to have a big purse.

The question of fairness in a capitalistic market system is completely irrelevant. Market forces decide what a product is worth and what someone should be compensated.

The reason why market forces favors winners of bass tournaments over winners of track tournaments was explained well in previous posts.

(1) Fishing is an equipment heavy expensive sport. Sponsors can more easily increase selling this expensive equipment through sponsoring these events.

(2) Fishing is more popular than running track.

(3) Running is not as much of a spectator sport as fishing. Yes its fishing is interesting watch. It interesting to see what someone might be catching (particularly if you are a fisherperson).

But the major point here is that fairness is irrelevant.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SPORT?

A theory: in our subconscious mind we associate the ability to run fast with a negative experience from our evolutionary past. The negative experience is being chased by something that will kill, capture and/or torture you. So why would we want to be reminded of, practice or watch some activity that is associated with, such a terrifying event?

The only positive from being able to outrun a group and "win" is that you did not get killed and eaten. But presumably some loser, likely a part of your family or clan, was killed and eaten. But only because you were able to flee faster than they were.

On the other hand, many other sports are associated with positive events. Fishing= obtaining some food! Many other sports glorify war type acts or skills, so if you are good you win the battle and obtain the glorious benefits. (slaves, women, wealth, food, land, etc.) Football: perhaps fighting over a carcass and winning a piece of it. Any team sport glorifies the coordination of fighting side by side with your family, tribe or clan. (sorry, running away from something as a group as in cross country does not stir excitement).

I do not believe the theory that humans ran prey until it was exhausted and was easy to capture/kill. And it does not make sense that skinny gatherer would run 10k out to obtain some food source, and then run back carrying enough of it to share.

Just a thought. Some may view faster runners as the faster cowards.

Conundrum wrote:

(2) Fishing is more popular than running track.

Please, stop with the free market BS. You aren't even using the concept correctly.

You know, Nickleback was more popular than many bands at one point. Crossfit is enjoying their heyday. Why not running?

There's literally no reason running as a spectator sport could be more popular. Except USATF isn't interested in that. At all.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

(2) Fishing is more popular than running track.

Please, stop with the free market BS. You aren't even using the concept correctly.

You know, Nickleback was more popular than many bands at one point. Crossfit is enjoying their heyday. Why not running?

There's literally no reason running as a spectator sport could be more popular. Except USATF isn't interested in that. At all.

Right now sponsors to bass tournaments get a higher return on their investment than sponsors to track meets. This isn't to say it could never change.

That son is how the market place works.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

(2) Fishing is more popular than running track.

Please, stop with the free market BS. You aren't even using the concept correctly.

You know, Nickleback was more popular than many bands at one point. Crossfit is enjoying their heyday. Why not running?

There's literally no reason running as a spectator sport could be more popular. Except USATF isn't interested in that. At all.

He absolutely used the free market correctly. If sponsoring runners were profitable it would be done. There isn't a conspiracy to keep runners poor. It's boring to watch.

[quote]LI Runner wrote:

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.

Lost more money in Tennis, very little equipment. Although probably on top 50 make a million or more per year with endorsements.

Conundrum wrote:

That son is how the market place works.

Tell me all about the USATF market place. Be sure to include the role of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

I'm not sure why you guys are so determined to keep the sport so poor and mismanaged.