GDAWG wrote:I think this is good for track and field. They want with the IOC what the basketball players have (control of their own financial decisions and branding). They see that the basketball players (well, the men anyways, not sure about the women) not have to struggle to put food on the table for their families or work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet.....
Now let me ask the really tough question: how many people "deserve" to make a good living from track & field? Versus people who want to make a good living.
It's a very broad pyramid, and every step you go down the line adds a lot of bodies to the queue, and a finite amount of money can't be divide an infinite number of ways (although I do wholeheartedly agree that the alpha-soup suits could/should do more to pass some of the gravy along).
But at what point is somebody truly getting screwed by the system and at what point is it just somebody dreaming unrealistic dreams?
I mean, I want to write 2-3 columns a week and live in the lap of luxury. But guess what? I don't write that well, so I work 80-100 hours a week keeping my business alive. At some point in your life there has to be a reality check.
MJR wrote: it will allow the industrious athletes & clubs the ability to fund themselves from local sources and have a greater ability to give back to those sponsors in exchange for funding. Its not about butting heads with meet directors, but making connections with regional companies that may treat the athlete with enough celebrity to fund their training in exchange for PR work, etc.
Exactly. Even though most people don't follow t&f on a regular basis, the sport is still popular enough to make this good business for local sponsors. And for many athletes it can make a huge difference.
GDAWG wrote:I think this is good for track and field. They want with the IOC what the basketball players have (control of their own financial decisions and branding). They see that the basketball players (well, the men anyways, not sure about the women) not have to struggle to put food on the table for their families or work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet.....
Now let me ask the really tough question: how many people "deserve" to make a good living from track & field? Versus people who want to make a good living.
It's a very broad pyramid, and every step you go down the line adds a lot of bodies to the queue, and a finite amount of money can't be divide an infinite number of ways (although I do wholeheartedly agree that the alpha-soup suits could/should do more to pass some of the gravy along).
But at what point is somebody truly getting screwed by the system and at what point is it just somebody dreaming unrealistic dreams?
I mean, I want to write 2-3 columns a week and live in the lap of luxury. But guess what? I don't write that well, so I work 80-100 hours a week keeping my business alive. At some point in your life there has to be a reality check.
ExCoastRanger wrote:If they are allowed more freedom to market themselves they will be less dependent on meet directors, global sponsors, shoe company contracts, etc. And the result may be they bring more sponsors into the sport, which seems like it could only be a good thing.
Exactly; and additional sponsors, on top of bringing more money into the sport, also bring more exposure.
I responded to gh's posts, with which I largely agree, and the message would not allow my words as the characters were over 3000 long. Suffice to say that I think the movement to unionise will fail , irrelevant to the health of our sport and lord knows why sponsors would be interested in doling out cash to athletes unless they benefit significantly, in a less popular sport that competes 3/4 months a year in most parts of the world.
If the average run of the mill athlete finds he does not get rewarded he/ she can always do something else, but they compete because they have various levels of ability and they enjoy the sport, I suppose.
Track and Field is not Tennis, Golf, Motor Racing or National pro ball sports and will never attract the same interest, or money.
lonewolf wrote:I have no problem with athletes sporting logos to earn sponsor money.
The problem with a union/guild is there must be a demand for your product/service and some definition of who/whom/what you are trying to influence. I don't see either.
I don't know how much the super stars or"journeymen" earn but my intuition is there is simply not enough money available to afford a comfortable living standard for the number of track and field athletes required to fill the lists of multiple meets with quality competition.
But let the athletes try to bring in their own sponsors and money into the sport and see what happens. There are plenty out there who would take, and may be able to earn, enough to at least survive in the sport longer if not achieve that comfortable living standard.
ExCoastRanger wrote:But let the athletes try to bring in their own sponsors and money into the sport and see what happens. There are plenty out there who would take, and may be able to earn, enough to at least survive in the sport longer if not achieve that comfortable living standard.
Agreed. And what is a "comfortable living standard" anyway? A better benchmark would probably be to "make enough money to be able to follow their passion for a few more years".
ExCoastRanger wrote:But let the athletes try to bring in their own sponsors and money into the sport and see what happens. There are plenty out there who would take, and may be able to earn, enough to at least survive in the sport longer if not achieve that comfortable living standard.
Exactly. Let the market decide what each athlete can earn, not the restrictive policies of the "governing" body.
And if the IAAF/IOC doesn't want to change things for fear of upsetting exclusive sponsors, then it's time for them to start passing the hundreds of millions of dollars they bring in down to the athletes, perhaps in the form of salaries.
ExCoastRanger wrote:But let the athletes try to bring in their own sponsors and money into the sport and see what happens. There are plenty out there who would take, and may be able to earn, enough to at least survive in the sport longer if not achieve that comfortable living standard.
Exactly. Let the market decide what each athlete can earn, not the restrictive policies of the "governing" body.
And if the IAAF/IOC doesn't want to change things for fear of upsetting exclusive sponsors, then it's time for them to start passing the hundreds of millions of dollars they bring in down to the athletes, perhaps in the form of salaries.
I think it is pretty weird to combine the IAAF and the IOC together. The idea that the IAAF is sitting on hundreds of millions seems pretty idiotic. As mentioned elsewhere I was in the IAAF headquarters back in the 'glory' days of Primo when it was in London. And if they had that one percent of that kind of cash then, they sure hid it well. 3 Hans Crescent was hardly palatial.
Of course the IOC is another thing. But if the track people think they can budge anything out of those folks they are whistling Dixie.
And besides this talk of let the market decides is a bit contrary to the oodles folks like Bolt are making now.
The IAAF has some decidedly "palatial" real estate in Monaco (is there any other kind there?).
Having said that, it should be noted that all of the positions of power in the IAAF (President, Council, etc.) come sans salary. Although the "IAAF Family" is clearly treated well whilst on the road.
Conor Dary wrote: The idea that the IAAF is sitting on hundreds of millions seems pretty idiotic.
The IAAF's cut from London alone is expected to be in the $35-$40 million range(they received $28 million from the Beijing Games). Their annual revenue is well north of $100 million
Do your research before you start calling people idiots. I damn sure do before I post.
Conor Dary wrote: The idea that the IAAF is sitting on hundreds of millions seems pretty idiotic.
The IAAF's cut from London alone is expected to be in the $35-$40 million range(they received $28 million from the Beijing Games). Their annual revenue is well north of $100 million
Do your research before you start calling people idiots. I damn sure do before I post.
100 million? I thought it would be more than that. How much are they sitting on? Lots of sports have huge revenue and still lose money.
gh wrote:The IAAF has some decidedly "palatial" real estate in Monaco (is there any other kind there?).
Having said that, it should be noted that all of the positions of power in the IAAF (President, Council, etc.) come sans salary. Although the "IAAF Family" is clearly treated well whilst on the road.
If I remember Primo got tired of the UK press....so off to Monaco.
gh wrote:The IAAF has some decidedly "palatial" real estate in Monaco (is there any other kind there?).
Having said that, it should be noted that all of the positions of power in the IAAF (President, Council, etc.) come sans salary. Although the "IAAF Family" is clearly treated well whilst on the road.
If I remember Primo got tired of the UK press....so off to Monaco.
Press had nothing to do with it. Try Monaco's tax structure. (and also breaking up the British hegemony)
Worth noting those numbers are from 2010, and since they're from the IAAF, you can bet they're long on the expenditure side, and short on revenue(even at $200 million!)
GH- You're thinking Marketing in the in the Macroeconomics sense, not marketing in the microeconomics sense. This will not make T&F a big sport, but it will allow the industrious athletes & clubs the ability to fund themselves from local sources and have a greater ability to give back to those sponsors in exchange for funding. Its not about butting heads with meet directors, but making connections with regional companies that may treat the athlete with enough celebrity to fund their training in exchange for PR work, etc.
Sorry, color me a cynic, but looking at the TFAA roster and the big-namers who are signing on, I can't imagine any of them thinking about the sport at the club level. Nor do I think that "funding at the local level" is remotely on the agenda. This remains, I fear, about the big/almost-big names being able to increase their earnings, not some grand social plan by which every hopeful gets a piece of some perhaps-not-there pie. This is the problem I have with the whole concept.
100% agree
this whole "we demand change' thing had NOTHING to do with local sponsors being given the change to support local athletes, It was ALL about Nike not having the Olympic contract.
Do you honestly think Sanya etc is going to go on strike so a race walker can get sponsored by her local pizza place ?
Conor Dary wrote:Besides as I said linking the IOC and IAAF is foolish.
No; linking IOC and IAAF does make sense. This is more about power than it is about money, and the IAAF has the power it has precisely because it's the international federation recognized by the IOC.
ExCoastRanger wrote:But let the athletes try to bring in their own sponsors and money into the sport and see what happens. There are plenty out there who would take, and may be able to earn, enough to at least survive in the sport longer if not achieve that comfortable living standard.
Exactly. Let the market decide what each athlete can earn, not the restrictive policies of the "governing" body.
And if the IAAF/IOC doesn't want to change things for fear of upsetting exclusive sponsors, then it's time for them to start passing the hundreds of millions of dollars they bring in down to the athletes, perhaps in the form of salaries.
Why is there a perception that IAAF have loads of money ? didn't they nearly go bankrupt a few years ago ?
I'm sure there are some ways of distributing money more widely but the idea that there are 100's of IAAF bigwigs swanning about in the lap of luxury taking money from athletes is nonsense
The IAAF run Diamond League, World Champs, World Indoor Champs, WXC, World jars, World Youth, World Half Marathon, World Race Walking Champs, Combined Events Challenge most of which probably lose money.
They also have all kinds of scholarships, development and research programmes.
There are thousands of people involved in organising all these events, plus travel, accommodation etc etc etc
I don't understand where people think all this extra money that is being withheld from athletes actually comes from
Conor Dary wrote:Besides as I said linking the IOC and IAAF is foolish.
No; linking IOC and IAAF does make sense. This is more about power than it is about money, and the IAAF has the power it has precisely because it's the international federation recognized by the IOC.
IAAF has the power to organize track and field. Which as we know is a bit limited. Meanwhile the IOC has the Olympic juggernaut. And saying the IOC recognizes the IAAF is sort of like Don Corleone giving his blessing and letting you live.
I thought it would be bigger than that. Doesn't look very fancy at all for an international organization. I am sure the IOC has toilets larger than that.
I thought it would be bigger than that. Doesn't look very fancy at all for an international organization. I am sure the IOC has toilets larger than that.
That's just one of three buildings, and it is nothing short of "ornate"; was Göring's digs in that part of the world during WWII.
<<In Monaco, the IAAF is housed in two buildings: the Villa Miraflores for the executive offices of the President, the General Secretary, and the General Secretariat, is located on the Avenue St Michel in the centre of Monte Carlo. The General Secretariat co-ordinates and advises on the activities of the Association.
The operational headquarters is situated at 17, Rue Princesse Florestine near the port.>>
Besides that, where should the IAAF be? Any European capital is going to be costly. I suppose Symmonds thinks the IAAF should sell the Nazi house and move to Hoboken, NJ.
Conor Dary wrote:Besides that, where should the IAAF be?
Considering the penurious conditions most T&F athletes work and live under, setting the HQ in the most expensive city on earth is a major "Fuck You". Pretty much anyplace else would be better.
Conor Dary wrote:Besides that, where should the IAAF be?
Considering the penurious conditions most T&F athletes work and live under, setting the HQ in the most expensive city on earth is a major "Fuck You". Pretty much anyplace else would be better.
And it is not like they just moved there. More like 25 years ago.
And these penurious conditions? Come on. For most athletes it should be a part time job. No one's career is that long anyways. I have been around long enough to remember when it was impossible to make a living in track, to a period about 30 years ago when it was relatively pretty easy, thanks to AW and the road racing scene, to now where for some it is very lucrative and for most....
Besides that, where should the IAAF be? Any European capital is going to be costly. I suppose Symmonds thinks the IAAF should sell the Nazi house and move to Hoboken, NJ.
