USOC tries to cap swimming deals

It will be interesting to see if Phelps speaks his mind on this or his manager. I don't know if you intended this statement to be so ironic in a discussion about swimmers and money. Either way it deserves some credit for, if nothing else, obliterating your argument.

I think you are missing the point. It is not that the USOC doesn't want athletes to be billboards, it is that they want to be the ones to collect the revenue for said billboards. They are taking a signifcant earning potential away from individuals and keeping it for themselves. This is a good thing according to Geek because the result will be reduced entry fees for Masters meets. No, I'm not missing the point. The USOC can do as they wish. It's their meet. If the USOC was deliberately trying to take away the swimmers earning potential, they would be doing something like requiring all athletes at Trials to have the USOC sponsors plastered all over the swimmers caps. You make it sound like a conspiracy! Significant paychecks being altered? I'm going to have to disagree. The swimmers who are lucky enough to have sponsors are paid year-round and also during the non-Olympic years... not just for Trials. And, a majority of those swimmers don't have contracts outside of a swimwear company... not everyone is like Phelps/Visa, Hall/Everlast, Beard/Red Bull. I know this is one of the biggest meets of the year... but in the end... it all comes down to the sport, making the team, and swimming in Beijing. I personally don't care about the small logos that I was talking about in an earlier post... but the USOC obviously doesn't want that type of advertising at THEIR meet. They are the ones who are financially responsible for this meet (and their sponsors) - and all the other costs associated with it, maybe they don't want to be a host to free publicity.... I don't know. Per the original article it says that these rules have been in place for the past two Trials and that no one has enforced it. What are they going to do at these Trials, kick someone off the Olympic Team who snuck in a Visa cap? Probably will give them a fine... let the athletes sponsors pick up the tab. Anyways, all I wanted to originally say is that I thought it would be smart for the USOC to promote swimming as much as they can.

Geek, The cap sponsorship money is quite a bit more than $1,200 a head. Besides..... USOC is stripping one more chance for elite swimmers to earn substantial bucks. Are you correct that USOC has the right to do this..... absolutely yes. But that doesn't make it fair or right and if abused the athletes may finally take a stand against USOC and boycott. I agree with you that this amateur vs. pro status concept is an antiquated thing of the past. It means nothing anymore. Michael Phelps isn't an amateur in the true sense of the word. Why do we bother with this nonsense status anymore. It just gets in the way. Let the elite athletes make some cash and provide incentive to others to do the same and just get the USOC out of the way. This move is a strangle hold on the sport. John Smith

Lefty - do you know a thing about sport's marketing? If the USOC, due to its size and clout, can negotiate large contracts with companies and then use that money to support athletes in various forms, like, say, the high altitude training center, how exactly are athletes being rooked? For instance, a mid level elite at trials who might get $1200 for wearing a cap with a corporation on it will get no TV time but the multi million dollar contract that NBC signed with the USOC might pay for him/her a week at the high altitude camp (or some other perk). Clearly, the $1200 cap won't come close to the ultimate benefit. Big picture, man, big picture. Comrade: Thank you for determining the best way to spend my $1,200. Frankly I don't want the burden of personal responsibility. Rumor is that those capitalists Hall and Phelps are trying to keep the $250,000 they get paid for cap endorsements for themselves. Greedy pigs.

Geek, The cap sponsorship money is quite a bit more than $1,200 a head. Besides..... USOC is stripping one more chance for elite swimmers to earn substantial bucks. Are you correct that USOC has the right to do this..... absolutely yes. But that doesn't make it fair or right and if abused the athletes may finally take a stand against USOC and boycott. I agree with you that this amateur vs. pro status concept is an antiquated thing of the past. It means nothing anymore. Michael Phelps isn't an amateur in the true sense of the word. Why do we bother with this nonsense status anymore. It just gets in the way. Let the elite athletes make some cash and provide incentive to others to do the same and just get the USOC out of the way. This move is a strangle hold on the sport. John Smith Amateur vs. pro went away a long time ago in the Olympics. How long have NBA players been playing basketball in the Olympics? USTA tennis players? Etc. Phelps, Coughlin, etc. are swimming professionals. It is exciting that at least a few can make a living from this sport. Maybe someday there will be a USSP (US Swimming Professionals) organization. But this move is hardly a "strangle hold on the sport." The Trials will go on and only a few athletes will be affected financially. No one will leave the sport because they couldn't get a cap deal for the Trials.

Now you are speaking my language. Geek, I have been writing as if I were you this entire thread. Well, I have done my best, but none are as good as the original. Anyhow, I actually agree with you at about 51%, which is to say after some thought I think I would rather have the USOC collect the money and distribute it for the benefit of the sport. Though I certainly can understand why a few (10-20???) are upset about it. I also disagree that noone will leave the sport because they cannot get a cap deal. The reason swimmers are sticking around longer is because they CAN get cap deals. And other deals as well obviously. I am not in favor of the days when elite swimmers go on to other things by age 22.

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

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.

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.

Just one question what ever happened to amature swimming.