(...besides growing a "boring" sport into a popular mass media spectacle.)
In a word: Sponsorship.
Just watching the Masters, I couldn't help but notice how many golfers had multiple sponsors on their kits. Obviously, most have a club sponsor (this would be the equivalent of a runner having a shoe sponsor) that also provides a uniform. But then many more had other corporate sponsors as well...some related to the golfing industry, others not so much.
Check it out with Adam Scott, pictured below:
Just in this picture, you can see four sponsors: Titleist (that'd be the club sponsor) and Footjoy (a golfing shoe), shown on his hat. And then Mercedes-Benz and Uniqlo (clothing) on his shirt.
Nascar is the same, except even more ridiculous. Compare that to Nick Symmonds:
In terms of visible sponsors, he has a grand total of...one. Brooks running shoes. That's it.
Running is a nominally professional sport that is still governed by amateur regulations.
While other sports allow their athletes to seek out and represent multiple sponsorships, professional runners are limited in the number of sponsors they can display. Seriously. Per IAAF rules (international running's governing body), athletes can only display two (2!) logos.
But it doesn't end there. The main sponsor for most runners is typically a shoe company (Nike, Adidas, Brooks, Saucony, etc.), which usually attaches an exclusivity clause to the runners contract. So even if the runner wanted to maximize their two (2!) allotted sponsors, their shoes are tied by the terms of their shoe contract.
So when it comes to sponsorships, athletes are monopolized by a sole shoe company. That monopolization is then entrenched by the IAAF regulation that allows an athlete a maximum of two (2!) logos.
So what's the big deal? Why is sponsor limitation a big deal?
In short, these limit the earning potential of athletes. In sports such as golf, Nascar, and running, among others, athletes make their money from one of two sources: prize money from competitions and sponsorships. When it comes to running, prize money is often hard to come by. Many races don't pay prize money, and those that do pay only a little (I'm talking a couple hundred bucks, maybe a thousand here and there...nothing like the six- and seven-figure purses that golf tournaments offer).
That leaves sponsor contracts as the other source of income, one that is a more constant and steady source than prize money (think: wages vs. salary). It shouldn't be that big of a logical leap to conclude that more sponsors = more money. And this is something that IAAF rules and corporate contracts preclude for their athletes.
Under these conditions, top professional runners (well, with maybe a few Nike/Adidas exceptions) don't earn nearly as much money as they could. Lower-tier professionals earn even less. Most young runners, recent graduates, and sub-elites earn next to nothing.
Check out these stats on the earnings of track and field athletes. It's abysmal, especially when compared to the high salaries of most other professional sport leagues. Heck, many average people don't even know that you can be a professional runner.
And in the long run, this lack of professional opportunity is bad for the sport. Currently, many talented college athletes stop running after graduation because they can't make a living in the sport, having to work full-time. (It's common sense that a regular job is detrimental to training. That's not to say you can can't run well with a job, but it's certainly conducive to training to focus solely on training)
But it doesn't stop there. Many kids and talented young athletes forgo the sport of track and field in favor of other, more lucrative sports with the potential to go pro and earn money. We all know that very few athletes actually do go pro, but every young athlete harbors dreams and ambitions of being a star. So these youth gravitate toward sports where there is a future, and away from sports where there isn't one. At this point, running is a sport without a future.
In a word: Sponsorship.
Just watching the Masters, I couldn't help but notice how many golfers had multiple sponsors on their kits. Obviously, most have a club sponsor (this would be the equivalent of a runner having a shoe sponsor) that also provides a uniform. But then many more had other corporate sponsors as well...some related to the golfing industry, others not so much.
Check it out with Adam Scott, pictured below:
 |
| Adam Scott, photo from google images. |
Nascar is the same, except even more ridiculous. Compare that to Nick Symmonds:
 |
| Nick Symmonds, outspoken critic of sponsor regulations. |
Running is a nominally professional sport that is still governed by amateur regulations.
While other sports allow their athletes to seek out and represent multiple sponsorships, professional runners are limited in the number of sponsors they can display. Seriously. Per IAAF rules (international running's governing body), athletes can only display two (2!) logos.
But it doesn't end there. The main sponsor for most runners is typically a shoe company (Nike, Adidas, Brooks, Saucony, etc.), which usually attaches an exclusivity clause to the runners contract. So even if the runner wanted to maximize their two (2!) allotted sponsors, their shoes are tied by the terms of their shoe contract.
So when it comes to sponsorships, athletes are monopolized by a sole shoe company. That monopolization is then entrenched by the IAAF regulation that allows an athlete a maximum of two (2!) logos.
So what's the big deal? Why is sponsor limitation a big deal?
In short, these limit the earning potential of athletes. In sports such as golf, Nascar, and running, among others, athletes make their money from one of two sources: prize money from competitions and sponsorships. When it comes to running, prize money is often hard to come by. Many races don't pay prize money, and those that do pay only a little (I'm talking a couple hundred bucks, maybe a thousand here and there...nothing like the six- and seven-figure purses that golf tournaments offer).
That leaves sponsor contracts as the other source of income, one that is a more constant and steady source than prize money (think: wages vs. salary). It shouldn't be that big of a logical leap to conclude that more sponsors = more money. And this is something that IAAF rules and corporate contracts preclude for their athletes.
Under these conditions, top professional runners (well, with maybe a few Nike/Adidas exceptions) don't earn nearly as much money as they could. Lower-tier professionals earn even less. Most young runners, recent graduates, and sub-elites earn next to nothing.
Check out these stats on the earnings of track and field athletes. It's abysmal, especially when compared to the high salaries of most other professional sport leagues. Heck, many average people don't even know that you can be a professional runner.
And in the long run, this lack of professional opportunity is bad for the sport. Currently, many talented college athletes stop running after graduation because they can't make a living in the sport, having to work full-time. (It's common sense that a regular job is detrimental to training. That's not to say you can can't run well with a job, but it's certainly conducive to training to focus solely on training)
But it doesn't stop there. Many kids and talented young athletes forgo the sport of track and field in favor of other, more lucrative sports with the potential to go pro and earn money. We all know that very few athletes actually do go pro, but every young athlete harbors dreams and ambitions of being a star. So these youth gravitate toward sports where there is a future, and away from sports where there isn't one. At this point, running is a sport without a future.
Comments
Post a Comment