RULE 40, is it BS?

Marco YOLO wrote:

Sally and most runners have a severe lack of knowledge about how sponsorship of big events works (or in fact how the real world works really)

it's easy to complain and offer no real solution.

That explains why Sally is so happy to be in Seattle, a Zone of Happy Thoughts for idealistic people with no clue of how the world works. If people like her have any awareness of capitalism and free markets, they are usually against it. She must be so conflicted, operating a business herself while raging against a big business.

And complaining without having a solution is what all Seattle's May Day and anarchist demonstrations, parades, and riots are about.

totally man wrote:

No one can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in an advertisement

luv2run wrote:

Really? World Cup soccer, US Pro sports do not have anything as restrictive. Those leagues seem to have no issue with sponsors.

Agreed, but they can still use terms like "the big game" or "Sunday's Championship" in advertisements. Also, they can have advertisements with players that are currently or were formally Super Bowl champs.

totally man wrote:

No one can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in an advertisement

Players can say I'm going to the Super Bowl. Players can thank their sponsors whether NFL sponsors or not. Companies can't say that. Super Bowl is trademarked as is Olympics and Olympian. I don't really have a problem with Rule 40 in terms on companies using their trademarks such as Olympics or Olympian. Athletes should be able to thank their sponsors whenever and where ever they want. What is the issue if Meb says Thanks Sketchers for providing me the best equipment to try and get a medal in Rio while in Rio? Or Boris Berian, Emma Coburn, B-Mart, or Jenny Simpson from thanking NB?

Companies such as Saucony, should be able to say Congrats to Jared Ward or Molly Huddle on qualifying for the big even in Rio. If they win a medal. Congrats on winning a medal at the big event in Rio.

I don't understand how Rule 40 can prohibit the use of Rio, Gold, Silver, Bronze or Medal. Those words are common use words, so how can they be trademarked or banned for being used?

We already know that the USOC sent an e-mail that requested Oiselle to remove a picture of Kate Grace because her bib had trademarked logos like #RoadtoRio and Olympic Trials. I understand the need to protect the rights that other big companies pay to be a TOP partner in the Olympics or a USOC sponsor but there's no way that there would be any confusion if an athlete or non-sponsoring partner congratulated an athlete.

Do your homework wrote:

The sponsors can and do use those terms after the blackout period has ended.

The Oiselle people are just sensationalists who don't actually believe in making any kind of meaningful financial contribution to the sport. Are they paying for meets to be on tv? Sponsoring thousands of pro athletes as well as high school,club and professional teams and major and minor events? Sponsoring national federations? Are they providing free clinics and workshops?

They want to leave the heavy lifting to Nike, Adidas, Coke, etc.. then slide in on the backside and toss a few dollars to a few athletes.

How about all athletes just boycott this stupid thing called the Olympics.

luv2run wrote:

totally man wrote:

No one can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in an advertisement

Ok, I am ok with Oiselle (as an example) not using Olympics in its advertising, but to ban "gold", "silver", "bronze" and some others terms is over the top. Oiselle should be able to congratulate its gold medal winner XXXXX with getting a cease and desist letter or dragged into court.

don't worry Oiselle will never have medal winner.

Okay, I'm not the biggest fan of Sally, but you're taking this a little far

Doesnt support the sport? Just because she doesn't view the sport in the same view from an ethics and regulations point, she just doesn't care?

And then you say she only sees track and not the other 27 sports at the Olympics right after you said she doesn't support the sport, that seems a little contradicting

VerminMeat wrote:

It's an issue where I can really see both sides. If I run a company and I shell out the big big dollars to be THE title sponsor I sure as heck didn't do that so all my competitors can then use MY event to advertise THEIR products. This isn't a charity, it's a professional event, with professional business relationships...

...In the end I tend to favor the "bad guys" in this debate because with out Coke, Nike, etc we wouldn't have these big events. Also the smaller companies know when they sign an athlete that IF this person makes an Olympic team Rule 40 exits. This isn't new information.

A middle ground would be nice, but with the money at stake and the very limited window in which these athletes are relevant, I don't see that happening.

It works in other sports, I don't see why Track/Olympics is as restrictive as it is. Example, PGA Golf, you have title sponsors for nearly every tournament with the exception of the majors. Heck of a lot more money on the line every week than in Track/Olympics. No matter what the golf tournament title sponsor is, players are allowed to wear the logos of their sponsors and plug away as they see fit. Same with NASCAR, which for example has a race called the Coca Cola 600 as well as a race called the Coke Zero 400. Yet any of the pro tour drivers can compete even if they are sponsored by say Pepsi or Monster Energy Drink or Mt Dew or any other beverage company.

Even if Rule 40 were revoked, companies are going to want to sponsor big events. If the event is shiny enough, draws enough eyeballs, it's worth putting your marketing dollars into it. Other sports prove that every week.

Do your homework wrote:

The sponsors can and do use those terms after the blackout period has ended.

When does this blackout period begin and end?

I'd like to point out that during the blackout period no one is permitted to post anything about the games but advertisers. So, no one posts anything about the games but advertisers. Seems like a great idea.

Leave it to the IOC/USOC to try and copyright common speech.

d2xccoach wrote:

It works in other sports, I don't see why Track/Olympics is as restrictive as it is. Example, PGA Golf, you have title sponsors for nearly every tournament with the exception of the majors. Heck of a lot more money on the line every week than in Track/Olympics. No matter what the golf tournament title sponsor is, players are allowed to wear the logos of their sponsors and plug away as they see fit.

Is track very different? Athletes can wear Nike, adidas, whatever at the Nike Pre meet, at the Mueller Diamond League, but they wear a national uniform at the Olympics, just like golfers wear a uniform at the Ryder Cup.

VerminMeat wrote:

They want to leave the heavy lifting to Nike, Adidas, Coke, etc.. then slide in on the backside and toss a few dollars to a few athletes.

What is this heavy lifting you speak of? Do you mean that 10's of thousands of dollars a multi-billion dollar org like Nike might pay an athlete?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Do your homework wrote:

The sponsors can and do use those terms after the blackout period has ended.

When does this blackout period begin and end?

I'd like to point out that during the blackout period no one is permitted to post anything about the games but advertisers. So, no one posts anything about the games but advertisers. Seems like a great idea.

Leave it to the IOC/USOC to try and copyright common speech.

Are you seriously this stupid.

No one? really? Rule 40 explicit tells who the rules apply - Mostly participants, coaches and agents.

You can tweet about the Olympics all you want to your 6 followers.

Just because she "see's" track or "cares" doesn't mean she supports the sport. She doesn't sponsor any track meets, doesn't sponsor any road races or other events, she doesn't provide free gear to kids track clubs, she only takes from the sport. She charges people to be her marketing department and then uses their money to "sponsor" athletes.

Brooks has a couple of meets, so does New Balance, Adidas. Heck even Skechers sponsors a couple of marathons. Nearly every shoe and apparel company supports more than just a few marginal runners.

Even Nick's disgusting helps RUNGUM has a few small events.

Does it hurt John Hancock financial if a runner thanks her sponsor at the end of the Boston Marathon on television? Of course not. There's no reason to believe that an Olympic athlete thanking their sponsor at the end of an Olympic event would hurt the official Olympic sponsors.

Did you see the rule40.com stuff in Eugene? I didn't but I saw it on twitter from a few athletes. The website is cool rule40.com

I hope that this rule goes away one way or another. Athletes suffer the most and who cares about the companies

The analogous situation in golf is the Ryder Cup or Presidents Cup. The equivalent of the events you use as examples would be normal track races.

Thanks for drinking Sally's Kool-Aid!!

It's one way of preserving the age old notion of amateur only Olympics. I kind of like it. Besides, the pros still get paid for their performance by their companies.

Oiselle should come out with a "Rule 40" shoe.

The rule is too strong, but paid sponsors should get preference. And if you dont' pay to get in the front door, you try a side door like she is now.

I have no problem with what she's doing, but I don't think she's been dealt a horrible injustice either.