so i just got done reading the post about answers to a higher paying pro prize money.
anyone else notice that the sports that pay the most to their pro’s all have ticket sales? until we are all willing for our families to front the bill buy paying admission to watch us zoom by every 2.5hrs. then i don’t think the prize money is going to reach the “sand castle dream” levels we all want to see.
In sports, as with all other television, you are not the consumer. Rather, you are the product.
Prize money will go up when a television program or station figures out how to deliver its product (you) to its customers(advertisers) so that you spend money. If you look at television this way (you being the product and not the customer), many things make more sense.
Until there is a tie between people showing up to see pros who are there for increased prize money and dollars that eventually flow to advertisers, prize money will not increase. Last I checked, most people showing up to see stages of the TdF do not pay, yet the cyclists are often paid well. Difference is people watch the cyclists, and then buy stuff from the sponsors and advertisers.
Gordon
Are you saying that there are problems with the Ironmanlive.com coverage?
.
In sports, as with all other television, you are not the consumer. Rather, you are the product.
Prize money will go up when a television program or station figures out how to deliver its product (you) to its customers(advertisers) so that you spend money. If you look at television this way (you being the product and not the customer), many things make more sense.
Until there is a tie between people showing up to see pros who are there for increased prize money and dollars that eventually flow to advertisers, prize money will not increase. Last I checked, most people showing up to see stages of the TdF do not pay, yet the cyclists are often paid well. Difference is people watch the cyclists, and then buy stuff from the sponsors and advertisers.
Gordon
It also isn’t just a question of putting it on TV. Marathon running is way more popular than Ironman. Boston is usually on TV. Yet check out the prize money;
http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/PrizeMoney.asp
The money for athletes is in shoe contracts and sponsorship, not prize money.
Same for the TdF, the money is not in the prize money it is made in the team salary.
Cyclists make their money in salary?
From what I’ve read and been told, that is not the case at all. Cyclists (not the high end like Lance, Cavendish, Boonen) earn their money in winning races, or getting their riding to win the race. IE, at the TdF the prize money is divided among all the team members.
Cyclists make their money in salary?
From what I’ve read and been told, that is not the case at all. Cyclists (not the high end like Lance, Cavendish, Boonen) earn their money in winning races, or getting their riding to win the race. IE, at the TdF the prize money is divided among all the team members.
If your team wins the TdF you get maybe about 100k USD after it is split. Not bad for 3 weeks of racing I guess.
Thats the whole point, cyclists get 75% of their revenue from prize money, not salary, which is what you wrote.
A cyclist salary is low because they get the chance to win prize money 30-40 times a year. So it makes sense for a cyclist to have a low base salary and basically have to “work” for the prize money.
Hence, why when a teammate whens a race, the riders get the money divided up among the team members.
IIRC Lance’s contract with Cofidis paid him more than 2 million a year before he had cancer. Also, again, IIRC I read somewhere that Landis’ deal the year he finished the tour faster than the other racers was 250k plus bonus’s for winning races, stages etc. Sounds like at least some of the riders make money from sources other than prize money?
Average salary is 190-200k usd, someone like Contador makes 3-4 million. So I wouldn’t say 75%. Even if you are lucky enough to be on the winning team of a grand tour.
Thats the whole point, cyclists get 75% of their revenue from prize money, not salary, which is what you wrote.
A cyclist salary is low because they get the chance to win prize money 30-40 times a year. So it makes sense for a cyclist to have a low base salary and basically have to “work” for the prize money.
Hence, why when a teammate whens a race, the riders get the money divided up among the team members.
Ahhh yes. Much like the stripper that is payed a low salary … the tips can be good … but you must perform well for that to be the case.
Average salary is 190-200k usd, someone like Contador makes 3-4 million. So I wouldn’t say 75%. Even if you are lucky enough to be on the winning team of a grand tour.
75% may be a little high, but I’ll say this: Edit: I’m talking about the avg. cyclist. I’m not talking about Lance or Cavendish or Boonen.
A rider gets more revenue from appareance fees and prize money than a salary.
ok maybe not a fair comparison either as something like a grand tour is on tv for 3 weeks straight.
How about Boston, why should the pro triathlete winning IM AZ get the same prize money as the winner of the Boston Marathon which is way more popular and on TV?
Cyclists make their money in salary?
From what I’ve read and been told, that is not the case at all. Cyclists (not the high end like Lance, Cavendish, Boonen) earn their money in winning races, or getting their riding to win the race. IE, at the TdF the prize money is divided among all the team members.
Im almost certain there is a minimum salary for a cyclist on a protour roster of about $50k USD per year… I’d ride my bike all year for that. Not to mention whatever expenses the team pays for.
A rider gets more revenue from appareance fees and prize money than a salary.
It depends on the rider. Most of them probably exist on salary since neither they nor their teams win much. OTOH, when Lance was winning, he was one of the highest paid athletes in the world. The prize money was chickenfeed in comparison to his other income sources and I don’t think he even took a cut of it. Those on the high end but not at the very top probably have a healthy mix of salary, endorsements/appearances, and prizes.
Also, isnt running about breaking the “world record”, IE, there is always some “extra 100k” or whatever to break the world record in that marathon. I’d say the winner of the Boston Marathoner gets paid more than the winner of the IM AZ when comparing each racers total revenue at the end of the year.
so there is a form of off road racing in the dirt bike world called hare-scrambles. like triathlon it’s not very spectator friendly. it is just a bunch of guys out in the woods racing through all the trees, swamps, rocks and dust.
just like triathlon the pro’s could survive if they won AND had great sponsors. the prize money was crap. NOW they have developed a spectator friendly ARENA version, endurocross (in think that’s the name). so much like motocross everything is brought into an arena (logs, rocks, swamp water, mud) and there are bleachers for fans to watch the show. now that there are ticket sales there seem to be more pro’s living off from the races.
i don’t ever want to race in an arena… but i also don’t think i will ever be able to live off the sport either.
(i don’t reallly know what my point was anymore but i am not deleting that and starting over)
Also, isnt running about breaking the “world record”, IE, there is always some “extra 100k” or whatever to break the world record in that marathon. I’d say the winner of the Boston Marathoner gets paid more than the winner of the IM AZ when comparing each racers total revenue at the end of the year.
Certainly the winner of Boston makes more, the question is why should the IM AZ pro get paid more than they do, or closer to the Boston winner. Seems we are excluding the “Lance” type athletes, so breaking the world record does not count. Not that anyone is breaking the WR at boston anyway.
We all love this sport, but its not the most spectator friendly event. For athletes to make money sponsors have to have a ROI, which they don’t in Triathlon. THe only endurance sport which has the capability of going mainstream is cycling.
Of course, this is all thrown out the window when you look at Golf, I’m not sure how that is so popular.
Also, isnt running about breaking the “world record”, IE, there is always some “extra 100k” or whatever to break the world record in that marathon. I’d say the winner of the Boston Marathoner gets paid more than the winner of the IM AZ when comparing each racers total revenue at the end of the year.
Certainly the winner of Boston makes more, the question is why should the IM AZ pro get paid more than they do, or closer to the Boston winner. Seems we are excluding the “Lance” type athletes, so breaking the world record does not count. Not that anyone is breaking the WR at boston anyway.
Interesting, I’m not really sure why that is the case. Whats your theory on why this is the case?
Is it the race organizations? I’d have never thought the winner of an IM race would be anywhere near the winner of a marathon. Although, to me, I’d think a runner makes his revenue from the shoe sponsorship. IE, Adidas giving the top distance runner money to run in an adidas because they would have the best chance of showing off adidias.
I keep seeing ROI, and I’m trying to figure it out.
What does it stand for?