2012 London Olympic Games

nick what a beast! thats all i need to say

@AC: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt: I.e. when he held his tongue (when he almost said they needed to respect athletes more). He's being respectful and keeping his emotions at bay-something we can all learn from. He's clearly smart enough to use discretion. PS: 4.0's mean nothing.

@William Mitchell Wasn't nick a bio chem major and a 4.0 student at Willamette? Not sure, that's just what I've heard. If that is true then he may be one of the smarter people in the room haha. Regardless he has a lot of charisma and I don't think there could be a better voice for the athletes in this case. Can't wait for London!

Nick, absolutely brilliant!!!!

Why don't we have more athletes that aren't afraid to stand up for their rights and push for a change?!?! It's sad.

To Track Coach:
In terms of the X-Games comparison, I don't think Nick is using any of your parameters of success. Yes the Olympics is bigger. Most Olympics have LOST MONEY. No X-Games has ever lost money. Olympics have bigger cost, bigger initial investment, bigger risk for the investors and sponsors. He's suggesting that in terms of marketing bang for your buck, ESPN and Mountain Dew get a lot more out of the X-games than the Olympics produce. Yes, the Olympics make a bigger total bang but the amount of bucks that go in up front are astronomically higher than what Mountain Dew spends to pile up some snow in Aspen.

His point is that there are plenty of very successful and highly profitable sports formats where there are both large major sponsors and smaller individual athlete sponsorship. It's not the crippling disaster that USATF and IAAF suggest it would be. Exclusivity is not a necessity. Obviously it's easier for USATF and IAAF to only have their limited major sponsors and lock the athletes out of any individual marketing deals. Clearly that's all the governing bodies care about and they still manage to sleep at night. Other sports have governing bodies aren't as lazy or selfish.

Way to go Nick, you are the man ! Hopefully we see more of this determination in other athletes as I'm sure most of them feel the same way.

modern day pre!

Nick Symmonds rocks! Nobody owns him. He owns himself, and will market whoever's brand he wants to. Why can't people understand that?

More people would probably have more interest in a sport where there was a greater ability to make a living, and would therefore bring in more of a market to the general public = more money for sponsors and major brands.
What's the confusion here?

I believe Nick is making his money, but he is speaking up for the sport of t/f and for those athletes that train very hard thats not getting that sponsorship or apperance fees. More of the big name track athletes should stand behind this movement. USA has some of the greatest track and field athletes but you wouldnt know it until its an Olympic year.

Stewart x Hightower = Conflict Of Interest

Nick probably slays girls left and right, that's why he's so fast. Anybody have a count as to how many girls he goes through on an average week?

T+F governing bodies don't have a leg to stand on. Other major sports have relaxed their single-sponsor domination and had great success. Somehow NASCAR manages to keep Nationwide happy while still allowing individual cars smaller advertising. That model has been crushing T+F for decades. T+F's governing bodies just look more and more hapless in recent years. Is it that hard to realize when you're the problem?

How much of his complaint is a byproduct of the attitude pervasive in other professional sports? Can't fault Nick for this and he seems to be well spoken in defense of his right to make a living off of his talents (no argument from me there by the way).

With this movement at the top, what we need is a parallel grassroots type movement that popularizes the sport and makes it more appealing to the local communities. When you look at a sport like baseball, you see several tiers underneath the big leagues which help provide a platform for emerging stars and for growing fanbases and track could do something like that. You could have semi-pro athletes, partially sponsored by smaller companies etc competing for city clubs or teams against other city clubs around the state or a particular region of the country. There are a lot of people out there who compete post-collegiately and have an interest to continue that but dont have the means to dedicate significant periods of time to that for training because they are on their own, but if Symmonds' movement were to gain traction, it would open up a lot more options. How many collegiate athletes fade away or stop altogether when they finish college while in reality they could have another 4 or 5 years before they reach the physical prime of their lives?
Just some thoughts from an avid fan that wants to see this sport grow.

Great interview by Ryan, Nick, and CNBC. I had no idea that Athletes did not receive any stipend, or rewards for competing in the Olympic games. With all the money being made, it is ludicrous that they can't even advertise their sponsors. At any point Nick or anyone else needs support to fight for better financial support of athletics, I am down.