How many elites abandon their sponsors now?

It's still shit pay for a professional athlete. Does this include costs for coaching, gym, healthcare benefits, and retirement programs? I'm surprised how low the pay is considering the commitment and resources required to perform at an elite level.

MaineTrain wrote:

After reading through Berian's NB contract, and seeing how big of a deal the 'No Reductions' part is, you have to wonder how many elites are going to be rethinking their current contracts.

I'm sure there's more than a few second- or third-tier Nike guys who are getting killed by reductions every year. What's stopping those guys from seeking out different sponsors (ie New Balance) if they think they can get a sweeter deal?

Personally I think shedding light on elites' contracts is a good thing: I guarantee some sponsors screw over their athletes simply because they don't know what the guy next to them is getting.

If you sign a contract without shopping around, without reading it or without talking to others. You get exactly what you deserve.

I imagine they only got one offer & shopping around only works for the top guys. You really think a low level pro has negotiating clout against Nike!

RE: Abandoning their sponsors now.

Funny!

With the trials coming up, they had better "abandon" now, before they get cut.

Contracts are charity. Given the paltry state of attendance at most meets and overall interest in running events, sponsorship money is better spent on advertising.

Angry Willy wrote:

RE: Abandoning their sponsors now.

Funny!

With the trials coming up, they had better "abandon" now, before they get cut.

Contracts are charity. Given the paltry state of attendance at most meets and overall interest in running events, sponsorship money is better spent on advertising.

Not according to the paperwork submitted by Nike in the lawsuit against Berian

Angry Willy wrote:

RE: Abandoning their sponsors now.

Funny!

With the trials coming up, they had better "abandon" now, before they get cut.

Contracts are charity. Given the paltry state of attendance at most meets and overall interest in running events, sponsorship money is better spent on advertising.

Obviously no one in their right mind would abandon their sponsors at this point in the year. But perhaps a B or C-level guy doesn't make the team and is tired of only getting $X when they could get $Y + better benefits with another shoe company for equivalent performances.

Barring ethnicity, country of origin, etc, would two 1:45:00 guys be getting the same deal with the same company?

Its very curious how shady professional contracts are in our sport.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

I imagine they only got one offer & shopping around only works for the top guys. You really think a low level pro has negotiating clout against Nike!

Agreed. Those guys just breaking onto the scene are barely getting a dime. I doubt they would get multiple offers at the same time.

It's just stupid how it only applies to T&F Athletes.

You think Lebron has reduction clauses? Steph Curry? Jordan Spieth? Of course not.

Trevor Edwards needs to change things fast. He's stuck in old ways and old thinking. Nike needs a new visionary in Marketing and Brand.

Sadly, there are no other brands that can afford the exodus of Nike athletes should they choose to sign elsewhere, so Nike has all the leverage.

Trevor Edwards should have reduction clauses in his personal contract and he'd be losing tons of $$ since Under Armour is kicking his @ss with marketing assets and market share gains.

Super Symmonds and his Run Gum legal team will go sue Nike because it's not fair for them to expect their athletes to perform at a certain level

Network Engie wrote:

It's still shit pay for a professional athlete. Does this include costs for coaching, gym, healthcare benefits, and retirement programs? I'm surprised how low the pay is considering the commitment and resources required to perform at an elite level.

Probably not.

Coaching would be tax deductible as a business expense.

Some would qualify for USOC/USATF elite athlete health insurance (although it is not all that great or at least was not at one time).

So other than semantics what is the difference between high base salary and reduction clauses versus lower base salary and more performance bonuses? If I'm involved I'd pick the latter, it just sounds better.

CGBatch wrote:

So other than semantics what is the difference between high base salary and reduction clauses versus lower base salary and more performance bonuses? If I'm involved I'd pick the latter, it just sounds better.

The Berian reduction clauses could result in nearly zero pay. Be top 3, but don't miss Penn or Pre and get hit with a 40% pay cut. Here are the first 8 of 12 Berian reductions. They are additive, so miss two get spanked twice.

1.Being outside top 3 in the US- 25% reduction

2. Being outside of top 10 in the US- 40% reduction

3. Not competing in Penn or Pre= 25% reduction

4. Not competing in 6 meets in a year= 50% reduction

5. Not competing in 8 IAAF meets in a year- 40% reduction

6. Not competing in 10 IAAF meets in a year- 30% reduction

7. If athlete doesn't make 10 personal appearance for Nike- 25% reduction

8. If athlete doesn't make 10 online appearance for Nike- 20% reduction

--but miss Penn or Pre--

Network Engie wrote:

It's still shit pay for a professional athlete. Does this include costs for coaching, gym, healthcare benefits, and retirement programs? I'm surprised how low the pay is considering the commitment and resources required to perform at an elite level.

All but retirement, YES IT DOES. Depends on the contract. I know that Zap and Hansons pay for all of that. BTC and NOP and BAA all pay for that. So do The Beasts.

What do C- or D-level guys like Craig Lutz or Zach Ornelas make? Like $15,000 or $20,000 a year?

Poor Man's Altitude wrote:

Super Symmonds and his Run Gum legal team will go sue Nike because it's not fair for them to expect their athletes to perform at a certain level

Imagine if Tom Brady had it written into his contract that he would get a reduction if he didn't throw 50TD passes in a year. Imagine Clayton Kershaw getting a reduction if he didn't pitch 200 innings with an ERA under 2. Imagine Lebron James getting a reduction of he didn't average 30 pts. a game.

These athletes get contracts based on PAST PERFORMANCE. They don't get their salaries cut because they don't meet some arbitrary numbers that their sponsor selects.

how much could a guy like wheating possibly be making at this point assuming he has reductions?

It's semantics up to a point, but the reductions seem to be mostly about forcing the athlete to make appearances to promote the brand, not so much about how they perform on the track, so incentives for performance wouldn't really be the same as reductions for not making x appearances.

Reduced below zero wrote:

The Berian reduction clauses could result in nearly zero pay. Be top 3, but don't miss Penn or Pre and get hit with a 40% pay cut. Here are the first 8 of 12 Berian reductions. They are additive, so miss two get spanked twice.

1.Being outside top 3 in the US- 25% reduction

2. Being outside of top 10 in the US- 40% reduction

3. Not competing in Penn or Pre= 25% reduction

4. Not competing in 6 meets in a year= 50% reduction

5. Not competing in 8 IAAF meets in a year- 40% reduction

6. Not competing in 10 IAAF meets in a year- 30% reduction

7. If athlete doesn't make 10 personal appearance for Nike- 25% reduction

8. If athlete doesn't make 10 online appearance for Nike- 20% reduction

It would be better to cast in in a positive way, as bonuses on whatever the base level that remains after all the above.

1. Make top 3 in U.S. = 25% bonus

2. Make top 10 in U.S. = 40% bonus

3. Compete at Penn or Pre = 25% bonus

4. Compete at 6 meets in a year = 50% bonus

5. Compete in 8 IAAF meets in a year = 40% bonus

6. Compete in 10 IAAF meets in a year = 30% bonus

7. Make 10 personal appearances for Nike = 25% bonus

8. Make 10 online appearances for Nike = 20% bonus

Doesn't that sound better? Like, work hard and reap the benefits? Positive instead of punitive?