USOC tries to cap swimming deals

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:58:17 GMT

Beyond this..... the real issue is that Americans in general are not interested in watching a swim meet vs. a Big 3 event. Until that day comes, swimming will continue to struggle with athlete cash opportunities. The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers. This is the core issue.... the sport doesn't attract $$$.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:57:15 GMT

How much money is in the USOC for swimming: Swimming and Gymnastics are the MARQUEE sports for week one of the Olympics. NBC paid $1.2B for broadcast rights. If swimming accounts for 5-10% of the deal then swimming accounts for $60,000,000-$120,000,000 of the broadcast deal. I think there are 1,000 swimmers going to trials, so that is between $60,000 and $120,000 per swimmer. NBC paid WHO? Not the US Olympic Committee. They paid China and/or the IOC. How much of that money is actually fixed costs? I'm not convinced on a worldwide basis that swimming draws as many TV viewers as gymnastics.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:48:14 GMT

Geek, If you think just having a "manager" connotes success that's funny. Phelps is the highest paid swimmer of all time and his millions are still a rounding error compared to his elite peers in other sports. Secondly, most elite finalists and top 20 world ranked participants struggle with their finances in order to keep participating year after year. Swimming lags other pro sports by miles and miles. Secondly,the goal is to have EVERY elite swimmer placing in the top 8 nationally making cash similar or hopefully one day more than what Phelps is making today. USOC squashing lucrative deals for the athletes (whatever level they are) is pathetic and uproductive to the athletes. The athletes have to take a stand on this and leverage the USOC and/or US Swimming eventually. Nothing positive will come in their direction until they act together on this issue. Beyond this..... the real issue is that Americans in general are not interested in watching a swim meet vs. a Big 3 event. Until that day comes, swimming will continue to struggle with athlete cash opportunities. The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers. John Smith

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:36:03 GMT

I'm sure you're correct re: Gary Hall. But he's still swimming. He's still grumpy and colorful. Just because he doesn't like it - doesn't mean rules should be changed. As for funny money....I don't have any idea how much money is in the USOC for swimming. How much does Speedo, Visa, etc. give? How much does the USOC need to do its job? Do you propose doing a peanut butter spread and give every Trials athlete $100 because they made the trials? Or $1000 if they make the team in addition to travel expenses and all the other stuff? How much money is in the USOC for swimming: Swimming and Gymnastics are the MARQUEE sports for week one of the Olympics. NBC paid $1.2B for broadcast rights. If swimming accounts for 5-10% of the deal then swimming accounts for $60,000,000-$120,000,000 of the broadcast deal. I think there are 1,000 swimmers going to trials, so that is between $60,000 and $120,000 per swimmer.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:19:21 GMT

Hoffman, I can assure you that Gary Hall and others on deck that have been robbed of this opportunity have a slightly different opinion than you. If USOC wants to stick their own sponsors logos on the heads of US swimmers as they have done in the past, then compensate them directly, not with the filtered down "funny" money that Geek has described. Again, if the swimmers don't like it enough, they can boycott. If they don't boycott or get a lawyer then they will have to take the decisions that are handed down to them by USOC whether they like it or not. It will be interesting to see if Phelps speaks his mind on this or his manager. John Smith I'm sure you're correct re: Gary Hall. But he's still swimming. He's still grumpy and colorful. Just because he doesn't like it - doesn't mean rules should be changed. As for funny money....I don't have any idea how much money is in the USOC for swimming. How much does Speedo, Visa, etc. give? How much does the USOC need to do its job? Do you propose doing a peanut butter spread and give every Trials athlete $100 because they made the trials? Or $1000 if they make the team in addition to travel expenses and all the other stuff?

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

aquageek — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:24:04 GMT

That's just what I need, thanks Hulk!

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

knelson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:23:14 GMT

I'm all for pro swimmers signing lucrative deals with swimsuit manufacturers, doing commercial spots, appearances, whatever, but I really don't like the idea of them appearing as human billboards at meets. But I do think this works both ways. If FINA says swimmers can't wear advertisements, they also should not require their own advertisements be worn by the swimmers (e.g., Yakult at World Champs).

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

pwolf66 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:06:01 GMT

Changing the subject totally, I have a DQ question. I'm a judge for our summer league. My goal is to never DQ a kid, especially not a summer league only swimmer. Anyway, we have one pretty fast year rounder (young) who does about six legal butterfly kicks to a single butterfly pull. She wins most of the time and it raises eyebrows because it is so darn weird looking but no one can decide if it is illegal. Anyone have an opinion? I don't have an opinion but I do have the rule. 101.3 - Butterfly .3 Kick — All up and down movements of the legs and feet must be simultaneous. The position of the legs or the feet need not be on the same level, but they shall not alternate in relation to each other. A scissors or breaststroke kicking movement is not permitted. Unlike Breastroke, Butterfly does not a have stroke cycle requirement, so there is no restriction on the number of pulls to the number kicks. A swimmer can do nothing but kick or nothing but pull and still be legal. Paul

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

aquageek — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:06:33 GMT

The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers. Now, this is the one thing you have said in probably 6-9 months that is both accurate and that I agree with. When your entire non-work life revolves around swimming, you forget just how little non swimmers care or even know a single shred about the sport. Changing the subject totally, I have a DQ question. I'm a judge for our summer league. My goal is to never DQ a kid, especially not a summer league only swimmer. Anyway, we have one pretty fast year rounder (young) who does about six legal butterfly kicks to a single butterfly pull. She wins most of the time and it raises eyebrows because it is so darn weird looking but no one can decide if it is illegal. Anyone have an opinion?

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Paul Smith — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:57:44 GMT

As I recall the US Women's Soccer team threatened a boycott (at the urging of Billie Jean King who said it was the ONLY leverage they had) of the Atlanta Games in a dispute over potential bonus money to be paid for a medal vs, what the Men's team was to receive. Like I said....there is still some sort of denial about swimming being a professional sport vs. the good old days of amateur competitors. Until the elite athletes like Phelps organize (something Brunelli has been trying to do the last year) and make some sort of stand nothing will change.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Chris Stevenson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:45:31 GMT

Unlike Breastroke, Butterfly does not a have stroke cycle requirement, so there is no restriction on the number of pulls to the number kicks. A swimmer can do nothing but kick ... and still be legal. As long as they surface by 15m, of course. Funny true story: it was my son's very first race in his first ever summer league swim meet; he was 7 at the time. It was 25 freestyle. Just before he swam, he coach tells him "just kick hard and you'll be fast!" So he dives in, surfaces...and proceeds to kick (only) the entire race. No one could say he didn't listen to his coach. My wife and I were in tears, we were laughing so hard.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

ande — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:34:39 GMT

floswimming lists this article as Quick while the swimmers are distracted with Trials, let's take away all their rights!

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:48:47 GMT

I may be totally wrong, but don't professional athletes (of any sport) have to go amateur to compete in the Olympics? Anyways, Speedo and other companies have spent so much $ developing new suits to help our swimmers go faster - I really don't see the problem in letting the swimmers wear their apparel at Trials. Or, if the swimmer is represented by another company, I don't see the big deal to have their logo on their cap that is no bigger than a TYR or Speedo logo (like the pic of Gary Hall's cap)... but I wouldn't want to see anything like Amanda Beard holding a Red Bull on the awards stand. Doesn't the NCAA have similar rules for logos?

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:06 GMT

I agree with Matt. Can anyone say "sponsorship opportunity for USMS"? If Starbucks knew of the amount of performance-enhancing caffeine consumed by the Smith brothers alone, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to sponsor us...

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:26:26 GMT

I am sure you could have one made. Perhaps leave out the "c" in Starbucks to avoid some sort of copyright infringement lawsuit. Or call it "Fourbucks" which seems to be catching on...

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:25:31 GMT

You need to look more closely at this decision before you make comments. The USOC is a private organization and can set its own rules. Athletes realize that when they elect to compete. They don't have to like the rules. If the USOC has entered into private contracts with companies to advertise, and thus fund, a percentage of their operations and generate overall income for the Olympic movement, then all athletes will benefit. To get the full impact of Geek's post, I suggest listening to the Bolchevik Anthem in the background. I am little uncertain about this statement, because the only support I have for this claim is the entire history of humanity, but when a small group of people control the financial well being of the masses, the small group does not benefit the masses in an equitable fashion. Tell me Geek, should the USOC distribute its new found cash to each according to his needs?

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:05:51 GMT

I am sure you could have one made. Perhaps leave out the "c" in Starbucks to avoid some sort of copyright infringement lawsuit.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:01:09 GMT

I agree with Matt. Can anyone say "sponsorship opportunity for USMS"? Just remember, you saw it here first. I have no such cap. But I would like one.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:31:07 GMT

Fortunately USMS has no such rule, so I can continue wearing my Team Starbucks cap: "I Swim a Latte". :cool: That's pretty cool if it's true Gull!

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:50:11 GMT

Fortunately USMS has no such rule, so I can continue wearing my Team Starbucks cap: "I Swim a Latte".

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:36:06 GMT

With the swimmers who are lucky enough to score contracts with companies.... is there something specifically written in their contracts about wearing their items at Olympic Trials or big meets - do they get paid more if they do this (or less if they aren't able to)? If the meet requires swimmers to tone it down, then I don't have a problem with it - rules are rules. Speedo, Nike, TYR, etc. should respect the meet regulations and not penalize their athletes (if that is what is happening). I am unaware what they do at other sports Olympic Trials... same rules? On a personal note, I honestly wouldn't mind if someone had a big TYR or Nike logo on at a major swim meet... it's competitive swimming and those names are what assist us in our endeavors. Swimming is in the limelight once every 4 years... why not get as much attention as we can during that one week?

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:04:15 GMT

Just one question what ever happened to amature swimming.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:20 GMT

The USOC has their own multimillion dollar sponsors, which is why they don't want the athletes wearing caps with corporate logos. It has nothing to do with preserving the purity of the sport.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Allen Stark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:22:22 GMT

Re:amateur swimming,when I started swimming Masters(1974),if you swam in a Masters meet you could never again swim in a USS meet.The reasoning,coaches could swim in Masters meets,coaches were professionals therefore,Masters swimming was professional.

RE: USOC tries to cap swimming deals

Former Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:10:25 GMT