Leer always shows up and bosses his way front running through the rounds then goes out in the final..
But he's also someone that the entire younger running culture loves. He's a bigger billboard personality than practically all other runners. And not in the Nick Symmonds type of way where it's blunt marketing, Leer is just a guy that you want to get a beer with.
Nike drops Leer, yet Tyler Mulder is still sponsored by Nike? He's running slower than the top high schoolers these days yet keeps a contract.
Read it and weep wrote:
oh please wrote:I'll bet Kobe, Tiger, and Lebron have no such reduction clause. If so, surely Tiger would be unsponsered now, right?
Of course I realize that the aforementioned athletes sell stuff whether they perform or not now, and just about no one knows a single distance runner.
Still, the runners are paid basically peanuts...the reduction clause just shouldn't be there.
The future is here, maybe the reduction clauses were not common before they will be now. As any in any profession and athletes now calling themselves professional or going pro, have to be held accountable in their role as a competitive athlete.You are paid to compete, plain and simple. If you are non competitive over a period of time,you are not doing your professional contracted job.Injury can play a part yes and is accounted for, but people slow down its a part of the game. The hardest thing for most athletes is to admit it and when they are told at contract negotiation time, you will be renewed at a lower amount compensatory to your ability today vs past history. Or your cut, we are putting our money into younger faster athletes. Its a bitter pill to swallow, pro's roll with it, some though are bitter and unwilling to accept the reality. We have seen a series of track&road athletes over the last few years become very public with anger towards the shoe companies about being cut.
Yeah like with Meb
oh please wrote:
I'll bet Kobe, Tiger, and Lebron have no such reduction clause. If so, surely Tiger would be unsponsered now, right?
Of course I realize that the aforementioned athletes sell stuff whether they perform or not now, and just about no one knows a single distance runner.
Still, the runners are paid basically peanuts...the reduction clause just shouldn't be there.
If you realize that then why are you saying the reduction clauses shouldn't be there. Nike is not a charity.
something wrote:
oh please wrote:I'll bet Kobe, Tiger, and Lebron have no such reduction clause. If so, surely Tiger would be unsponsered now, right?
Of course I realize that the aforementioned athletes sell stuff whether they perform or not now, and just about no one knows a single distance runner.
Still, the runners are paid basically peanuts...the reduction clause just shouldn't be there.
If you realize that then why are you saying the reduction clauses shouldn't be there. Nike is not a charity.
It tells you Nike plans to treat their employees in the future. Phil Knight just can't get by with the $11B he has extracted from Nike.
Guys, we all love distance running and want athletes in our sport to be paid well for the hard work they put in, but let's remember that no athlete is obliged to take Nike's money/offers. If athletes are getting stuck in these deals it's because Nike is picking them up before anyone else is willing to. Athletes not getting paid enough is not the fault of the shoe companies. If they didn't pay athletes, who would pay them anything?
The problem lies in the fact that the general public does not give a toss about track and field. It is boring to watch. It is not entertaining. It is like watching paint dry. Where does a shoe company see ANY return in a sport like that compared to the likes of basketball, football, or baseball???? We are talking about MONEY and BUSINESS and quite frankly if I was a rationally-thinking CEO that wanted to see a return on my investment I would keep my dollars far away from track and field.
Anyone who spends energy giving out about the shoe companies should really vest that energy into thinking of how to revolutionise the track and field format as a medium of entertainment for the general public and for fans to really get behind. This means ripping up the status quo of track and field and turning it on its head. UFC-style, music, inter-city head-to-heads, hype and build-up. And not run by old-fogies in the IAAF. Millennials need to step up and take the reigns, and make it cool (Nick Simmonds ideas are the closest I have heard to legitimate ways of achieving this).
Until this happens, the sport will continue to die a slow death, athletes will remain penniless, and in 25 years time, everybody will still be whining on this message board about it.
Nike is the only real worldwide supporter of track. Track is a third tier, fringe sport that does not generate revenue to pay its athletes more than they are currently making. Being an elite athlete doesn't entitle you to make money. Fan interest pays the bills. If you don't like the economics of the sport then choose another sport or go do something where you'll make the kind of living you desire.
Will Leer should get a sponsorship from Coors Light. It would be cool to see him (or someone) win a race wearing a "silver bullet" singlet.
jenapharm wrote:
Really? Looks like Leer screwed Nike by running slow
I like the guy, he's nice. I've hoisted a brew and talked with the guy. Injuries.
It's a tough, tough sport, and injuries are so hard on the athletes.
As for his public service announcement, it seems intelligent and logical...he wishes he had known to take that advice himself before he signed a deal.
Maybe he and Phoebe can start an AMA, or a blog of boiler plate advice for athletes.
Maybe Will should become an Agent!?
I feel for the guy, he is a great person.
And I get those that say Nike is not a charity...if a runner is injured for a few years etc., they basically subsidize the entire sport so other shoe companies can cherry pick a handful of athletes to sponsor...and then those athletes...can complain and retroactively bite the hand that fed them.
It's a no win situation.
Many have said they shudder to imagine track and field if Nike just quite endorsing athletes...period.
It's just ironic as hell, these athletes tweet out all these thank you's to NIKE when they are getting a garage full of shoes, textiles and swag sent to them.
(Remember Nick Symmonds tweeting out pictures of his garage full of new Nike boxes and THANK YOU NIKE'S? "Without Nike I wouldn't have been able to pursue my dreams... Yadda." And then pissing on them later.
Get it together kids.
They just announced on the Flotrack feed that according to the Portland Track Festival entry sheets his affiliation is with the Very Nice Track Club... it was only a matter of time he and Nike parted ways. He's an unorthodox character in the sport for sure but I hope he's got a few more good races in him, he seems like a nice guy
You could say Leer might be a very nice guy.
I can understand that the professional side of track is reliant on Nike funding, but I don't see who wins with aggressive, sleazy contracts that prey on young athletes who don't know any better. Eilte runners are our heroes, they inspire us, and are champions of the sport. If Nike at least appeared to believe in athletes like the fans did by signing them to straightforward contracts, it would bring them a lot of good press with consumers. And I'm not suggesting that distance runners should all be getting paid big bucks, but having contracts that invest in athletes long enough to allow them to get over the serious injuries etc would send the right message. I have trouble imagining Nike struggling to pay 25k to a top-tier 1500m runner having a down year, so the reduction clauses just seem petty and malicious to me. And they certainly don't make me excited to buy Nike gear.
jjjjjjjjjj wrote:
It would be cool to see him (or someone) win a race wearing a "silver bullet" singlet.
...but then he'd actually have to win something.
Why does it link to nike's webpage everytime it is mentioned on this website? Terrible.
Hunk wrote:
I can understand that the professional side of track is reliant on Nike funding, but I don't see who wins with aggressive, sleazy contracts that prey on young athletes who don't know any better. Eilte runners are our heroes, they inspire us, and are champions of the sport. If Nike at least appeared to believe in athletes like the fans did by signing them to straightforward contracts, it would bring them a lot of good press with consumers. And I'm not suggesting that distance runners should all be getting paid big bucks, but having contracts that invest in athletes long enough to allow them to get over the serious injuries etc would send the right message. I have trouble imagining Nike struggling to pay 25k to a top-tier 1500m runner having a down year, so the reduction clauses just seem petty and malicious to me. And they certainly don't make me excited to buy Nike gear.
I think the bigger point is why you would structure a contract with reductions instead of bonuses. It would be easy enough to have a lower base with the possibility of bonuses if you make a US Team, break certain times, etc. vs. having a higher base and reducing you if you fail to make a US Team, break certain times, etc.
IDK the answer, but I can speculate. Do agents repay anything when an athlete gets retroactively reduced? If not, the agent has a conflict of interest with the athlete because the athlete is taking all of the risk of reductions while the agent has already pocketed the agent's cut of the unreduced amount. Or is this a way to take advantage of young delusional athletes who all think they will break the American Record and never get injured? So they take the risk of getting reduced because they under underestimate the chances of failure?
Having reductions seems like a strange structure anyway, and one that is likely to breed resentment by athletes. It would be easier for an injured athlete to accept that they won't earn a bonus vs. having to pay back money they might have spent. Here's a story from 2012 where Brooks says they don't have reductions "we don’t want an athlete to run scared or have ill will towards their sponsor because they feel their contract isn’t fair."
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2012/11/jesse-williams-1108/Seems like a valid consideration.
jjjjjjjjjj wrote:
Will Leer should get a sponsorship from Coors Light. It would be cool to see him (or someone) win a race wearing a "silver bullet" singlet.
The only runner to get a "non-traditional" sponsorship deal was Brandon Bethke with Quiksilver.
Bethke = true visionary.
Perhaps he could win some beer miles while sponsored by Coors Light? However, it is NOT necessary to win in order to be sponsored. It is necessary to sell product and improve product awareness. C'mon, I'm trying to be creative...
Employees wrote:
something wrote:If you realize that then why are you saying the reduction clauses shouldn't be there. Nike is not a charity.
It tells you Nike plans to treat their employees in the future. Phil Knight just can't get by with the $11B he has extracted from Nike.
Bill Bowerman urinated on Phil Knight multiple times.
John Gulbunney wrote:
Employees wrote:It tells you Nike plans to treat their employees in the future. Phil Knight just can't get by with the $11B he has extracted from Nike.
Bill Bowerman urinated on Phil Knight multiple times.
Do you know the exact number of times?
I was just wondering what the urination on Phil Knight count was.
Is there also an emesis on Phil Knight count?
There should be a count on that as well.