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

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.

Check IAAF rule 138 where it states athletes can wear uniforms approved by NGB. Rule 139 even calls for an advertising commissioner to settle disputes.

Agassie wrote:

[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.

There is an audience for tennis. A wealthy audience, so athletes can be sponsored heavily by non-tennis companies like insurance, luxury goods etc. It's not the sport, it's the makeup of the people who watch.

Running doesn't command an audience on that scale. There is no one to market to. Rafa Nadal is a household name, nobody knows who Galen Rupp is.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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

Can you explain why you think the posters on this site are "so determined to keep the sport so poor and mismanaged"?

I didn't read one post that would suggest that.

The IAAF has no interest in securing decent sponsorship, and rewarding athletes.

Athletes are not allowed to cover their vests with multiple sponsors at any meets. This is the IAAFs fault.

I could go on and have in other threads but there is no point.

I'll add that if anyone thinks the financial problem in athletics is due to 'lack of interest' they are severely wrong.

How many people do you think watch fishing?

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??

Why not? Because no sponsor thinks it is worth it. But apparently you think it is, so feel free to pay.

Metric Miler wrote:

I'll add that if anyone thinks the financial problem in athletics is due to 'lack of interest' they are severely wrong.

How many people do you think watch fishing?

You are a bit myopic on this. There are tons of fishing shows on television. Some are pretty popular too.

But nowhere near the number that watch athletics worldwide

Metric Miler wrote:

But nowhere near the number that watch athletics worldwide

But other than the occasional pair of shoes or a shirt, how much money do they spend on equipment compared to people who fish?

According to your logic, there wouldn´t be any money in soccer.

Moderation in most things wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

But nowhere near the number that watch athletics worldwide

But other than the occasional pair of shoes or a shirt, how much money do they spend on equipment compared to people who fish?

A sport makes money by having large audiences and attracting sponsors and advertising.

Metric Miller wrote:

Moderation in most things wrote:

But other than the occasional pair of shoes or a shirt, how much money do they spend on equipment compared to people who fish?

A sport makes money by having large audiences and attracting sponsors and advertising.

A sport can attract sponsors and advertising in two ways, one of which is having large audiences, and the other is how much money the average audience members has, and is willing to spend.

Demographically speaking wrote:

Metric Miller wrote:

A sport makes money by having large audiences and attracting sponsors and advertising.

A sport can attract sponsors and advertising in two ways, one of which is having large audiences, and the other is how much money the average audience members has, and is willing to spend.

Yes exactly and part of willing to spend is how much they NEED to spend to participate in their sport. But these are two separate (but often overlapping) reasons. But if the audience is large enough, they don't even have to need to spend any money on participating in the sport. They don't even need to participate in the sport.

Conundrum wrote:

Demographically speaking wrote:

A sport can attract sponsors and advertising in two ways, one of which is having large audiences, and the other is how much money the average audience members has, and is willing to spend.

Yes exactly and part of willing to spend is how much they NEED to spend to participate in their sport. But these are two separate (but often overlapping) reasons. But if the audience is large enough, they don't even have to need to spend any money on participating in the sport. They don't even need to participate in the sport.

Absolutely. The sponsors don't have to be related to the sport at all, the cost to take part in the sport is totally irrelevant. Not to mention that Nike makes an absolute fortune selling sports apparel so this point is moot.

You just need a large audience (which track gets) and then an organisation running the meet that is willing to have Coca Cola banners around the track etc and some TV coverage. The advertising companies pay the sport to have their adverts shown around the world. Athletics is watched by millions.

"You just need a large audience (which track gets) ...Athletics is watched by millions."

Then why does it not attract sponsorship commiserate with this large audience?

Demographically speaking wrote:

"You just need a large audience (which track gets) ...Athletics is watched by millions."

Then why does it not attract sponsorship commiserate with this large audience?

It does attract sponsorship. The IAAF and NGBs like USATF do not do enough to make room for sponsors to get involved and even actively deny athletes from getting personal sponsors involved.

Look, T-mobile paid Symmonds 21k to get a small logo on his arm for a couple races.

The IAAF is happy with the money it gets right now and doesn't care about the athletes.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

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.

You guys are clueless how this works.

Wrong. Did you not see that Symmonds had to HIDE advertising at the Shanghai DL? That is not the Olympics, guy.