Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but it is clearly possible to be a great athlete and a lousy human being.
MJ seethes with bitterness after Beijing, where Bolt broke his 200 record and the he didn’t get the payday he expected out of participating in the double crossing of Clyde Hart with Wariner
MJ seethes with bitterness after Beijing, where Bolt broke his 200 record and the he didn’t get the payday he expected out of participating in the double crossing of Clyde Hart with Wariner
Not only that but he also has been enjoying in expressing his opinion on Bolt particularly after the games for obvious [self] reasons. Where ever Bolt steps, or what ever he does MJ is somewhere around to give his view on Bolt. That is in my opinion self promotion as an agent and “coaching expert” with clear intention to generate something that is called $$$$. He must be cut so deeply because he was not the one to make $5-10M a year as Bolt will.
Seems that people were able to read through MJ pretty clearly even when he was on top.
I think that having a “face of track and field” is important. We had it with Carl, then with MJ and thereafter with Marion. I think athletics was going downhill in the 2000’s because there were no star names. Let’s bring in the crowds and fill the seats using that one star and, once in the stadium, the public can then enjoy the competition and the remainder of the events. If it takes Bolt crapping on the field to fill the stadia, then let’s do it.
As soon as I saw this thread I thought of this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090522/part1&sportCat=nba
"Other than the money and the hours, the best thing about appearing on a studio show is the ongoing chance to reinvent your own career. Barkley partied too much, didn’t take care of his body, didn’t respect authority, shot too many 3s and reached maybe 76 percent of his career’s potential. Karl Malone did everything right and reached 112 percent of his career’s potential. In the end, Malone enjoyed a slightly better career than Barkley even though they played on the '92 Dream Team at their respective peaks and Barkley became the team’s breakout star. Now Barkley is sharing a TV studio with Chris Webber, one of the biggest disappointments of his generation, a coach-killer for the first five years of his career, and someone who absolutely should have appeared on eight first team All-NBAs instead of one.
Here’s why I mention this: These guys are so good on television that we forget TV Barkley and TV C-Webb would have ripped NBA C-Webb and NBA Barkley for all the things mentioned in the previous paragraph. Basically, they reinvent their careers on a nightly basis and criticize players for the same bad habits they had: shooting too many 3s, not showing up for playoff games, being afraid to shoot, bitching to referees, disrespecting coaches and everything else. Kind of funny. Although you could argue that their mistakes gave them perspective, and if that’s true, then ESPN is in great shape with Matt Millen and Herm Edwards. I mean, GREAT shape."
Steve,
Why is he a Dick for saying that the way the sport is being marketed is not exploiting its strong points. While the show down between Mo and MJ was a fizzer, the publicity that it generated among the general public was far greater either of them was able to generate through their years of dominance in the 100 or 400 where the only question was how much they were going to win by.
I think its reasonable on an individual basis that Bolt charges as much as the market can bare. However what is the rational course of action for the individual agent in the short run is not necessarily the best action for the sport in the short run or long run - if athletic careers weren’t so short it is likely that the behaviour would be detrimental to the individual as well. This is what we see in markets all the time and I think MJ has identified this occuring in athletics - and he’s not the first either; I’ve heard quite a few, top tier but not the very top, voice the same opinions.
Focussing on one athlete breaking a WR or running in a novel event may draw attention to the one race they’re in and get a 15 second clip on the news at 6 once in a blue moon, but it doesn’t expose the general public to the drama of the sport that will sell the sport as a whole. It becomes a freak show that sits along side crocodiles crawling out of peoples loos in new york.
MJ has shown himself to be a prick in the media and on the track, however that doesn’t warrant every article he writes being met with ad hominems and no commentary on the views themselves. I didn’t read anything in the article that resembled MJ having a go at Bolt; if any one was being critisized it was the promoters and marketers.
BTW did any one notice that according to the article that Shawn Crawford ran the last 5m at 20m/s?
Steve,
Why is he a Dick for saying that the way the sport is being marketed is not exploiting its strong points. While the show down between Mo and MJ was a fizzer, the publicity that it generated among the general public was far greater either of them was able to generate through their years of dominance in the 100 or 400 where the only question was how much they were going to win by.
I think its reasonable on an individual basis that Bolt charges as much as the market can bare. However what is the rational course of action for the individual agent in the short run is not necessarily the best action for the sport in the short run or long run - if athletic careers weren’t so short it is likely that the behaviour would be detrimental to the individual as well. This is what we see in markets all the time and I think MJ has identified this occuring in athletics - and he’s not the first either; I’ve heard quite a few, top tier but not the very top, voice the same opinions.
Focussing on one athlete breaking a WR or running in a novel event may draw attention to the one race they’re in and get a 15 second clip on the news at 6 once in a blue moon, but it doesn’t expose the general public to the drama of the sport that will sell the sport as a whole. It becomes a freak show that sits along side crocodiles crawling out of peoples loos in new york.
MJ has shown himself to be a prick in the media and on the track, however that doesn’t warrant every article he writes being met with ad hominems and no commentary on the views themselves. I didn’t read anything in the article that resembled MJ having a go at Bolt; if any one was being critisized it was the promoters and marketers.
BTW did any one notice that according to the article that Shawn Crawford ran the last 5m at 20m/s?
Bolt has the power at this moment, and is using it to break the stranglehold of the meet promoters, who collude to restrain trade in a variety of ways, from keeping Chambers out to setting pay limits- even no pay- only the pursuit of a remote chance of a large prize in the distance (see Diamond League).
This is clearly a double-edged sword, as previous attempts to promote individuals have often blown up and Bolt’s singular success does nothing to rescue other athletes from under the thumbs of the powers that be.
That said, MJ is still an obnoxious prick and no amount of dancing around can alter the image he has created for himself, and every new self-promoting utterance compounds it.
Even away from the press, I run across people with stories that reinforce that position, from spurned autograph seekers to football players who had to deal with his behaviour in the weightroom at Baylor.
Ok, what should the meet promoters do then? As people running a business should they forego a return they could reasonably expect from their investment?
Surely if an athlete only has a remote chance to win the Golden League JAckpot, yet their manager accepts a no-pay package in order to pursue it it says more about the managers skills than the promoters? Why would the manager accept such a low expected payoff from the deal whem by competing as a non-jackpot conteender and in other meets you can raise that expected payoff.
The promoters can’t be blamed for looking after their own interests or maximising their profits any more than Bolt can be blamed for accepting pay that limits the resources for other athletes - or agents that use the star power of one athlete to leverage the entry of others in their stable over those who are more deserving. In each case each is working in their own best interest.
The problem is that the athletes - through the agents - have only been able to generate limited supplier power causing an assymetry of power in the market and as such have been trapped in a prisoners dilema. Unfortunately the individualistic nature of the sport means that athletes/agents to engaging the necessary in cartel like behaviour is very low.
Basically, I think change can only come from strong leadership from the IAAF. This would require them to actually identify that there is a problem - something which is almost equally as unlikely.
Sure MJ is a dick. But why use that to attack his views rather than argue against the views themselves?
The meet promoters have a cartel- just look how quickly the Berlin Director was kicked into line over Dwain Chambers. Do you think he had the ability to break ranks and pay Bolt what he was asking?
The cartel controls trade by limiting pay, and deciding where and if you can compete.
The power of A level meet promoters has grown because long ago they went to the IAAF to kill off most of the decent paying B meets (the opportunity came in 1983 with the argument that the introduction of testing in the A meets would create a wholesale exodus of athletes to the B meets)
The move to the Diamond League will make pay appear higher to fans while driving average circuit pay ever lower.
An effective athletes union is incredibly difficult due to both the vast numbers of generally comparable athletes available to the promoters and the possibility faced by athlete organizers that something ‘untoward’ might happen to them in retaliation.
In that light, it’s hard for me to imagine how Bolt bypassing this system is anything but good. He might be the catalyst for new and different competition opportunities which others might benefit from.
As for the IAAF, although Nebiolo was roundly criticized, there is no doubt he was instrumental in creating opportunities for athletes in many way.
Since then, the loss of state supported programs and the wariness of sponsors after the fall and vilification of previous superstars has taken a toll.
It is hard to imagine Lamine Diak as the visionary who can turn that around from the inside.
I’m not sure where you got the impression that I believed there was no cartel/monopsony regarding the GL - that was basically the underlying assumption of my entire post.
The control exercised by a cartel relies on supply, of which price/payment is a function - not the other way round. Bolts actions do not do anything to change the supply side of this problem; there may be one or two extra lanes because of smaller meets being built around him, but the payoff he is attempting to extract will limit the level of competition he faces, which in turn will limit the appeal of the competitions preventing them from growing, while at the same time limiting the growth of meets at which he does not compete because he has priced himself out of them. The growth of smaller non IAAF meets also face the same problem with reprisals that an athletes union would, in that the IAAF sanctioned meets only have to threaten blackballing to deter participation in them.
But these are just symptoms of a greater problem and what we are essentially talking about is a few people fighting over the scraps, and those with power being in a position to to take the greatest proportion. The argument of the article and what i think the argument needs to be over is how to increase the abundance of financial resources by attracting a greater audience. This may also provide a solution to the problem you have identified, as meets will be able to afford to pay more athletes and there will be room in the market for smaller meets. The disparity in pay may continue but at least it gets rid of the case where all but a few athletes struggle with poverty.
The crux of the article was that the key to appealing to the public is to sell the drama of the competition, which is something that is sustainable, rather than building a brand around a single athlete whose performances will fluctuate from year to year and eventually end. I think this is a reasonable argument which may go to the heart of the problems of the golden league (reward dominance in favor of fostering a competitive grand prix system).
In a related story posted 'In the News" we see that the new Diamond League does NOT include Berlin…
The isseu is really: "Who benefits from the cartel, Diamond League etc? There are clearly other issues that are forcing meet promoters into line, potentially against their own interests at times.
A clear example is Dwain Chambers. The Berlin meet promoter could see that he could stir up sales and controversy by bucking the trend- and he was, no doubt, influenced by the low price Dwain could command because of his lack of options. He was stymied by the others, most likely orchestrated by Diak.
Same goes for paying Bolt the 250,000. On a fast track in Berlin, a gigantic stadium, and the site of the WCs later, are you telling me the additional seats that Bolt would generate wouldn’t pay off for him?
Let’s do the math:
150 euro premium seats = 207usd. So he needs an extra 1300 seats to meet the 250,000 fee plus travel and expenses. Are you telling me that Bolt’s presence wouldn’t generate an extra 2000 or 3000 premium seats plus lesser seating as well??
Even at the minimum difference, the Berlin promoter was forced to give away 150,000usd in additional revenue. Best case, he might have made an extra 350,000. This is just gate and doesn’t include any TV premium or additional revenue sharing that could be arranged through related appearances in Berlin during what would otherwise be dead time. (Promoter arranges fee for Bolt to cut ribbon at bank, department store, appear on TV show, sip from a bottle of milk at the end of the race, etc, etc, for a 15 to 20% commission) I can guarantee from personal experience that this can happen.
Meet director should have taken Bot and Chambers then. Diak et al would have a hard time retaliating with the WCs so close at hand!
The only athletes who had appearance fees in Berlin were the ones who are in contract with golden League (for example Isinbayeva, Vlasic). The argument was that athletes who come anyway because it’s the Golden League. Actually, the start lists in Berlin were not impressive. Berlin’s desicion created a scandal and managers threated to boycott the meet. i guess Berlin calmed down people in changing opinion and refusing to invite Chambers.
However, in turns out that Chambers is 98% sure to run in Paris GL, Diack’s recent quotes support that decision, against the advice of Euromeeting league.
That’s interesting. So Diack is in favour of Chambers competing?
BTW How many fans were there in Berlin?
There was a meeting on sunday morning in Berlin with managers and Diack. According to L’Equipe (16 June), Diack asked to avoid ostracism against Bolt. Pierre Weiss, general secretary said that Euromeeting’s recommendation was not a rule and any meeting is free to invite whomever they want. And this recommendation makes sense only if it’s applied to everybody.
Indeed, Damy Cherry was invited and actually won the 100m hurdles. Recommendation was to ban athletes who were suspended from march 2006 (not sure about the date though).
One funny news i red was from Rome GL organisation, saying that he has not invited Chambers yet because, currently, he has not the level to enter in a Golden League race (he actually holds the European leading mark).
I assume you mean Chambers?
Yes chambers; Freudian slip :o
No Charlie. I’m not telling you that. Disagree with me if you want, but please stop putting words in my mouth.