Another empty suit talking corporate sideways babble. "i'd love to help this issue, but the reality is........" If he truly has sympathy, as the "new breed of CEO" then create ways to make this happen for the athletes.
Doug Logan, if NASCAR, PGA and all of cycling have allowed it and it has become successful how then is it not going to work for T&F;?? And, why the _____ haven't we done it yet??? We're so far behind on this, why do you think track was basically ruined in the 70's and 80's?
I know one athlete that felt strongly about this topic was Ryan Shay. I remember speaking with him about it when his contract ran out with Nike. During renegotiation he tried to get Nike to allow him to place other logos on their apparel, but they refused. So, he spoke with the "smaller" shoe companies and ultimately signed with Saucony who allowed him to place multiple logos on his jersey.
I got a question about having another logo on the jersey. My understanding of the USATF uniform rule is that you are allowed ONE company name AND ONE logo on the uniform. Why then couldn't that person put Whole Foods on his jersey? The would be one company name and then their respective logo would be the one logo. Their are plenty of examples of that I.E. ZAP Fitness (a company) on a Reebok jersey, Hanson's on a Brooks jersey, and anyother company or running shoe store that sponser's a team. What about Downin's new "TEAM STRANDS". Strands is their company name they are allowed and then Puma is their company logo. How is that any different than the Whole Foods idea?
I'm not at all convinced that more sponsorships, more publicity, more products, more tv coverage, more participants in marathons, more marathons, more rabbits, more "professionalism," in a word, more money in the sport, means that it will be "better" in any meaningful sense. At the elite level, professionalization in the 80's and 90's was accompanied by a plunge in the calibre of our athletes. The prize money that was supposed to help local athletes develop has gone to the Africans. Doesn't anyone see the connection between professionalism and the drug problem? At the sub-elite level, local running scenes have been devastated by professionalism. Look at race results from the late 70's and early 80's -- local 10k's across across the country would have dozens of runners under 34:00, Boston had an entry standard that commanded respect and lured the competetive; there were hundreds of runners under 2:40. I think that the resurgence at the top -- Hall, Sell, Ritz, Kastor, Hanson's etc. -- is due not to corporate involvement or professionalism, but rather because they recapture the spirit of amateurism of the great club system of the 70's. Do these sport "CEO"'s really want track and field to become crass, vulgar circus spectacles like NASCAR, NBA, NFL, PGA, MLB etc. Are we going to start admiring runners for the "value" of their sponsorship contracts? Athletics is a noble, admirable activity when undertaken for its own sake. Has everyone forgotten (or did you never know) that "amateur" means "lover," not "bumbler." I would like to see Flotrack -- which seems to be a genuinely amateur enterprise if there still is such thing -- push for the "right" (or whatever its called) to show more meets. The coverage of the Stanford Invite -- where Flanagen set the AR was the most exciting video coverage that I've ever seen.
well then do it, its your job...are the people that govern this sport putting as much time and effort into it as the athletes who are on top in this sport?!?
there are companies out there that are willing to sponsor athletes too!! my friend actually emailed a small tea company and asked for a logo and if he could put it on a jersey (not for the money but because he likes the company and thought it would be fun to wear) the company emailed him back a large logo and was pumped about the idea, they said if he raced it in and had pictures taken they would give him some money, and free tea and other little goodies, and they would put his picture up on their site (and other ways)
It doesnt take much, companies are willing to sponsor or like the idea, i dont think it can hurt, and sometimes its just more fun, especially for the athlete who only has a small sponsorship deal already (ie. not like ritz or someone like that)
the video was great way to challenge him. this guy has a ton of ways to put things down, but not enough solutions. He has no idea what he wants to do, and thats going to destroy the sport.
I agree with response #8 that USATF needs to be led by younger people who are highly active like Mark from Flotrack to expose all aspects of the sport to the public so that track can become part of American culture rather than just football, baseball and basketball. If you just look at the USATF site, it's this dry no-fun static site. It reflects on the people who run the show there.
To bring more money in the sport, we will have to lobby congress to create a center just as they do oversees where post collegiate athletes or other athlets who have met certain standards can train for free. Athletes participating in this program are then required to do speaking engagements at local schools to teach youth about the importance of staying fit and then open it up for kids to sign up for track at a local club
Corporate sponsors base their contract on the amount of eyes that will watch the athlete and thus what they will get in return in terms of revenue dollars. To increase the amount of revenue dollars, I think an athlete should be required to visit local colleges, highschools or other speaking engagements as Nike or Reebok rep to talk about the sport and maybe the new shoe that just came out. This way, the company gets something in return and at the same time, they can risk a higher contract, rather than just some silly stipend that an athlete can't live off. The reason companies are holding on to their money and only give it out to the best of the best is because there's not a big enough running culture yet. Running is still perceived as an Olympic sport. It only gets attention once every four years on a major scale.
Until the running culture gains momentum just like Myspace and Facebook, to where companies are forced to play "our game", we should allow athletes to seek their own sponsorship and wear the representing company's logo on their shirt or cap or backpack or warmup suit. Only on international meets when athletes represent the US, should their uniform be logo-free.
Mark, you should apply for a position at USATF. Show those dry-heads how to do propaganda for the sport.
Well, I was sort of impressed at least by Logan's industriousness to this point. But his answers here are stunningly off the mark and show very little understanding or concern for what an athlete has to do to survive and thrive.
It's going to a long time, if ever, before anything like the "cohesive whole" he talks about is anywhere near a reality. In the meantime, the whole thing could just turn to dust with an attitude like he expresses.
thank you for asking real questions and not the easy ones. it would be so easy to ask generic, 'how are things going' - 'what are you going to do with this' - etc. this are hard hitting and demand actual answers without analogies. thnx.
I want to see team nike vs team reebok in a duel meet. Unfortunately I know this will not happen since Track is unlike the large US sports and is never going to be "centralized". Track athletes compete internationally against international standards, with the greatest honor in the sport(Olympics) being an event the usatf can never franchise, and charge millions for commercials during. We watch football, baseball etc. to see which players can be consistently dominant over their peers and witness the story of how their season plays out. If we asked track athletes to compete every weekend in meets for a season in the US, then they wouldn't fulfill their goals on the world level. Track is about the time or distance achieved. This an inflexible standard that athletes at the professional level can only achieve through scheduling their fitness and planning their own meet schedule. Rashid Ramzi of Bahrain ran his first 1500m last year in the Olympic heats... If a US athlete did this they would have starved for the year, but perhaps had been fresh and ready to run their best. Ramzi then went on the earn the highest honors in the event possible in a gold medal. The system track and field has in the US is the only one that could possibly work for athletes. We need to do all we can to surround athletes with support and the $$$$ (i.e. the multiple sponsorships mark described) so they can compete comfortably and more importantly excel at the level which we have come to expect from them.
I think that the whole thing about the label on a jersey is that within T&F;there are competition rules about uniforms. I'm not so sure how they differ from high school and collegiate rules, but there is a limit to the size of the insignia on a singlet for the swoosh, etc. Or at least there was in High School, that may not be a problem in the Pros. But, does anyone know if it is a USATF rule that limits it? Or is it a contract issue with their main sponsor that they get the proprietary right to be on the jersey based on their contract. If that is the case then athletes should work to make sure that that isn't in their contract, or that they are allowed a certain number of additional sponsors in their main contract. Ryan Hall is sponsored by more than just Asics- he picked up an Oakley endorsement, but, there again he can wear the sunglasses and that is the advertisement, and it doesn't have to go on the jersey.
this guy said nothing, he's out of touch, look at the Hanson model-CEO waste of track monry if you ask me-my opinion we need to de-centralize, let the local clubs work it out
Good point PowerPower! If this is his motive...track and field will never get the enormous exposure it so needs. There are plenty of opportunities to explore. This may be the best time for track and field to take a chance on new outlets for marketing.
Wow. It sound quite simple: He wants a centralized power over all athletes... Isn't every model of this in the world produce NO "middle-class" ? This would hurt the sport overall, it would seperate the "elite" even more, and the "middle class" (aka runners;on the verge) become the "poor" (aka: non-runners).
He's basically wanting to thwart any opportunities for the "on the bubble" sort of runners.
I'm with Anonymous Coward on this! How do we consolidate these efforts to enhance the sport of running? All I heard was "I sympathize" and eyes started rolling into the back of his head. The sport brings in enough revenue through shoes, apparel, registration fees [especially marathons], nutrition! Logos on jerseys for sponsorships can not downgrade the situation that track and field is in right now, it can only be upgraded!
Matthew,
Just off your 2 topics; (and I kind of got off topic in my first post from the top down approach, versus the individual bottom up type)
1) Completely agree with the NASCAR driving/USATF running point you made, just because you run doesn't mean you watch races, the sport needs to be exciting etc.
So to circle back, would have these individual or multiple sponsorships on the local and regional level enhance the normal fan populations' knowledge of the runners and then they get excited? I think about a city like Portland where the is no MLB team, so I don't see the interest in 2 other cities where lived like Denver or Chicago (probably a bad choice to compare against Chicago but you get my point) So you have a few runners sponsored , they compete in local races, then national or maybe a higher interest is gained that might not be there.
2) Agree again for the most part. The only part where I stray is on the equipment part, when I was in high school I was influenced by what the "fast" athletes wore, so I bought Nike. But I'm a small consumer compared to the 4 hours plus marathon type. Though if you go back to the smaller scale then maybe a brand/sponsor can influence these people better than they do already.
The one part the Logan brought up and you did that is interesting is the races giving better prize money and appearance fees. I think it's strong and positive depending on how far this idea and money reaches (i.e. do the athletes like Ritz who got $140K for running New York get $180K OR does the 2:15 guy get $5K instead of $0).
Danny Mackey said: “Logan brings up the term value, it is a 2 way street between individual athlete and USATF. Athletes are the product for the corporation, think of a major athletic company for example....a company makes a great new spike, then they market it to create a mind share within the consumer and the end result is more money into the business. We have athletes that are talented, educated, that perform in the top 1% of a sport in which 13 million Americans (this is from a 2006 study) consider themselves a regular runner (the run 3-4 days a week) and we can't compete with NASCAR, MLB, NBA, NFL, PGA, or even be mentioned in the same sentence? ”
You make good points- and your post keeps getting better and better as you make edits. It's hard for me to keep up. I just want to respond to this quote though. I'm going to use NASCAR as an example because it has risen from a niche sport to one of the largest in the country, in terms of media exposure, fan involvement, and sponsorship dollars. I think it's a good model for where track and field/running wants to go. So some points to think about:
1. People aren't interested in NASCAR because they have their own car that they drive to work in the morning. They watch because it's an exciting race with great atmosphere. People that jog a few miles a couple times a week don't automatically tune into track meets on TV or watch the professional guys run races. More often than not they are in the race the pro guys are in- just 20 minutes behind them. A large population of runners is great because it means that more people are exposed to the sport and have the potential to be interested in it. It has to be exciting and well-produced for these folks to become fans though.
2. After watching a NASCAR race fans don't go out an buy the racing equipment. Nobody goes and gets their own stock car. People don't watch a track meet and go out and get some spikes-- most people don't need spikes/flats when they race their local 10k. Instead they'll watch the meet (with the visa championship series) and get a visa card. Or guy out and buy some nutrilite to drink after their run. Maybe they'll get a nike shirt, but not the uniform those guys wear.
I think that he's completely right when he talks about the individual sponsorships being "small potatoes" when taking a long term approach. I think all parties in this potential relationship (WholeFoods, athletes, USATF, track fans, etc) would be better served with more long-term sponsorships of events and venues. Whole foods would get more value from their sponsorship because more eyes would see their brand- it would be guaranteed exposure, rather than just maybe seen by a few people if the athlete performs well. These sponsorships obviously "trickle down" to the athletes themselves in better quality meets providing more prize/appearance money. The more prize money, the more at stake there is in a competition, which increases interest, which in turn increases exposure.
Mark, great interview man, I'm excited to hear more from your discussion with Logan.
I disagree with Logan's point on the fragmentation of individual athlete sponsorship hurting the sport. When you said PGA and NASCAR, right there squashes some of Logan's arguement because those 2 sports are exponentially better off than USATF so how does it ("fragmentation") work for them, but it's not sound business model?
Another example, relating closely with distance running is cycling, look at how much more cohesive and financially secure they are compared to USATF, and then look at their sponsorship methods.
Also the major reason why the sport is doing well now compared to 10 years ago at a development level is specifically because of this "fragmentation" or people taking their own initiative and not rely on USATF to gain sponsorship. Think of Hansons, Zap starting it off, then Team Minnesota and Ritz's group or Mammoth lakes form and boom...NYAC (big money) gets on board and pumps some money into the sport. I may be oversimplifying the discussion here but one would assume the more money in the sport, regardless of to individuals or through a governing body, the better right? Logan brings up the term value, it is a 2 way street between individual athlete and USATF. Athletes are the product for the corporation, think of a major athletic company for example....a company makes a great new spike, then they market it to create a mind share within the consumer and the end result is more money into the business. We have athletes that are talented, educated, that perform in the top 1% of a sport in which 13 million Americans (this is from a 2006 study) consider themselves a regular runner (the run 3-4 days a week) and we can't compete with NASCAR, MLB, NBA, NFL, PGA, or even be mentioned in the same sentence? Running is the highest participated sport in high school. I don't buy that the sport is boring either, or we can't entertain (that's off topic though), so anyway..
In terms of gain sponsorships (a consumer/producer relationship) I would think a free market mindset might work better versus Logan's central governing idea. Though the more you think about it, and I'm not calling Logan a shallow guy, but it is clear to understand why he, and the high ups, at USATF would want the money and sponsorship to go through the top first before the athletes got it. In other words, one could question his motivates based of his mindset in this interview.
In the end though, Logan is calling the shots and he has had success in his other jobs, so he is more than capable, lets just hope the approach works. If USATF can nail down the massive deal for a number of years that he is talking about then we could be golden, but there is still an argument for letting the smaller money into the sport
We need more young, innovative people leading this sport. Look what Mark has done with Flotrack. Flotrack has done more for the sport of running than it's own governing body.
this guy wants a central governing body and it won't work that way and produce better results. More money comes from more competition between sponsors. bring more sponsors into the picture you get more competition and more money. They're essentially trying to hold the sport back.
there's nothing preventing whole foods from doing something like this...
http://team.strands.com/
Athletes cannot afford to wait for organizations like USATF to make the sport marketable. These organizations have failed time and time again to accomplish this. For all intents and purposes, professional running has no credibility in the US - it is an activity for the masses to enjoy, to meet with friends after paying a $120 marathon entry fee.
Until race directors take the initiative to support elite athletes, and usatf gets behind these races in a more comprehensive manner, the sport will continue to die.
Preventing athletes from earning multiple sponsorship opportunities is not a solution. And I do not believe it "fragments" the integrity of the sport. If you look at it in a different perspective, it enhances the value of the sport, in that it allows new avenues of representations. I don't understand how allowing shoe companies a monopoly on the professional athlete is way of creating a cohesive whole.
Until shoe companies have some competition, the athlete will continue to be undervalued, and the sport will follow closely behind.
What about at the olympic trials or USA XC, this gets eyeballs but does not go against the overall sponsorship that NIKE has for the national teams to world champs or the olympics. USATF should allow the athletes to wear whatever they please in competition where a USATF issued singlet is not provided/mandated.
This video starts a week long series of videos with USATF CEO, Doug Logan. Here Logan talks about the issue of multiple brands on a runner's jersey. February 9, 2009
PGA and Nascar
In addition to Saucony, I believe his jerseys also bore the logos for EAS and OxySox (photo below).
http://www.frankfurt-marathon.com/uploads/tx_mininews/rte/RTEmagicC_Shay_Ryan-Falmouth07.jpg.jpg
It doesnt take much, companies are willing to sponsor or like the idea, i dont think it can hurt, and sometimes its just more fun, especially for the athlete who only has a small sponsorship deal already (ie. not like ritz or someone like that)
To bring more money in the sport, we will have to lobby congress to create a center just as they do oversees where post collegiate athletes or other athlets who have met certain standards can train for free. Athletes participating in this program are then required to do speaking engagements at local schools to teach youth about the importance of staying fit and then open it up for kids to sign up for track at a local club
Corporate sponsors base their contract on the amount of eyes that will watch the athlete and thus what they will get in return in terms of revenue dollars. To increase the amount of revenue dollars, I think an athlete should be required to visit local colleges, highschools or other speaking engagements as Nike or Reebok rep to talk about the sport and maybe the new shoe that just came out. This way, the company gets something in return and at the same time, they can risk a higher contract, rather than just some silly stipend that an athlete can't live off. The reason companies are holding on to their money and only give it out to the best of the best is because there's not a big enough running culture yet. Running is still perceived as an Olympic sport. It only gets attention once every four years on a major scale.
Until the running culture gains momentum just like Myspace and Facebook, to where companies are forced to play "our game", we should allow athletes to seek their own sponsorship and wear the representing company's logo on their shirt or cap or backpack or warmup suit. Only on international meets when athletes represent the US, should their uniform be logo-free.
Mark, you should apply for a position at USATF. Show those dry-heads how to do propaganda for the sport.
It's going to a long time, if ever, before anything like the "cohesive whole" he talks about is anywhere near a reality. In the meantime, the whole thing could just turn to dust with an attitude like he expresses.
He's basically wanting to thwart any opportunities for the "on the bubble" sort of runners.
OK, sounds great.
How?
Just off your 2 topics; (and I kind of got off topic in my first post from the top down approach, versus the individual bottom up type)
1) Completely agree with the NASCAR driving/USATF running point you made, just because you run doesn't mean you watch races, the sport needs to be exciting etc.
So to circle back, would have these individual or multiple sponsorships on the local and regional level enhance the normal fan populations' knowledge of the runners and then they get excited? I think about a city like Portland where the is no MLB team, so I don't see the interest in 2 other cities where lived like Denver or Chicago (probably a bad choice to compare against Chicago but you get my point) So you have a few runners sponsored , they compete in local races, then national or maybe a higher interest is gained that might not be there.
2) Agree again for the most part. The only part where I stray is on the equipment part, when I was in high school I was influenced by what the "fast" athletes wore, so I bought Nike. But I'm a small consumer compared to the 4 hours plus marathon type. Though if you go back to the smaller scale then maybe a brand/sponsor can influence these people better than they do already.
The one part the Logan brought up and you did that is interesting is the races giving better prize money and appearance fees. I think it's strong and positive depending on how far this idea and money reaches (i.e. do the athletes like Ritz who got $140K for running New York get $180K OR does the 2:15 guy get $5K instead of $0).
“Logan brings up the term value, it is a 2 way street between individual athlete and USATF. Athletes are the product for the corporation, think of a major athletic company for example....a company makes a great new spike, then they market it to create a mind share within the consumer and the end result is more money into the business. We have athletes that are talented, educated, that perform in the top 1% of a sport in which 13 million Americans (this is from a 2006 study) consider themselves a regular runner (the run 3-4 days a week) and we can't compete with NASCAR, MLB, NBA, NFL, PGA, or even be mentioned in the same sentence?
”
1. People aren't interested in NASCAR because they have their own car that they drive to work in the morning. They watch because it's an exciting race with great atmosphere. People that jog a few miles a couple times a week don't automatically tune into track meets on TV or watch the professional guys run races. More often than not they are in the race the pro guys are in- just 20 minutes behind them. A large population of runners is great because it means that more people are exposed to the sport and have the potential to be interested in it. It has to be exciting and well-produced for these folks to become fans though.
2. After watching a NASCAR race fans don't go out an buy the racing equipment. Nobody goes and gets their own stock car. People don't watch a track meet and go out and get some spikes-- most people don't need spikes/flats when they race their local 10k. Instead they'll watch the meet (with the visa championship series) and get a visa card. Or guy out and buy some nutrilite to drink after their run. Maybe they'll get a nike shirt, but not the uniform those guys wear.
I disagree with Logan's point on the fragmentation of individual athlete sponsorship hurting the sport. When you said PGA and NASCAR, right there squashes some of Logan's arguement because those 2 sports are exponentially better off than USATF so how does it ("fragmentation") work for them, but it's not sound business model?
Another example, relating closely with distance running is cycling, look at how much more cohesive and financially secure they are compared to USATF, and then look at their sponsorship methods.
Also the major reason why the sport is doing well now compared to 10 years ago at a development level is specifically because of this "fragmentation" or people taking their own initiative and not rely on USATF to gain sponsorship. Think of Hansons, Zap starting it off, then Team Minnesota and Ritz's group or Mammoth lakes form and boom...NYAC (big money) gets on board and pumps some money into the sport. I may be oversimplifying the discussion here but one would assume the more money in the sport, regardless of to individuals or through a governing body, the better right? Logan brings up the term value, it is a 2 way street between individual athlete and USATF. Athletes are the product for the corporation, think of a major athletic company for example....a company makes a great new spike, then they market it to create a mind share within the consumer and the end result is more money into the business. We have athletes that are talented, educated, that perform in the top 1% of a sport in which 13 million Americans (this is from a 2006 study) consider themselves a regular runner (the run 3-4 days a week) and we can't compete with NASCAR, MLB, NBA, NFL, PGA, or even be mentioned in the same sentence? Running is the highest participated sport in high school. I don't buy that the sport is boring either, or we can't entertain (that's off topic though), so anyway..
In terms of gain sponsorships (a consumer/producer relationship) I would think a free market mindset might work better versus Logan's central governing idea. Though the more you think about it, and I'm not calling Logan a shallow guy, but it is clear to understand why he, and the high ups, at USATF would want the money and sponsorship to go through the top first before the athletes got it. In other words, one could question his motivates based of his mindset in this interview.
In the end though, Logan is calling the shots and he has had success in his other jobs, so he is more than capable, lets just hope the approach works. If USATF can nail down the massive deal for a number of years that he is talking about then we could be golden, but there is still an argument for letting the smaller money into the sport
http://team.strands.com/
Athletes cannot afford to wait for organizations like USATF to make the sport marketable. These organizations have failed time and time again to accomplish this. For all intents and purposes, professional running has no credibility in the US - it is an activity for the masses to enjoy, to meet with friends after paying a $120 marathon entry fee.
Until race directors take the initiative to support elite athletes, and usatf gets behind these races in a more comprehensive manner, the sport will continue to die.
Preventing athletes from earning multiple sponsorship opportunities is not a solution. And I do not believe it "fragments" the integrity of the sport. If you look at it in a different perspective, it enhances the value of the sport, in that it allows new avenues of representations. I don't understand how allowing shoe companies a monopoly on the professional athlete is way of creating a cohesive whole.
Until shoe companies have some competition, the athlete will continue to be undervalued, and the sport will follow closely behind.