Run Gum, an emerging business co-founded by track and field star Nick Symmonds, has filed a lawsuit after being denied the ability to have athletes wearing Run Gum uniforms at the Olympic Trials. When I heard about it, to be honest I was confused. I had no idea there was a rule preventing anyone except “apparel manufacturers” from appearing in the Olympic Trials, and it took me some digging to understand it.
In 2015, Nick took a first step in Run Gum sponsoring athletes, which resulted in several people wearing Run Gum jerseys at the USA Championships. It was a win win for everyone because these athletes didn’t have apparel sponsors, (yes, there are many athletes good enough to race at the World and Olympic Trials who don’t have apparel sponsors, and even people good enough to make the Olympics), and they got some money, and RunGum got exposure to a target demographic.
When I watched this happen last year I was inspired. I had always hoped that one day Picky Bars would have enough money to sponsor athletes, and often daydreamed about how we could do so down the road. I hadn’t thought about using Nick’s model before, and thought it could be worth exploring for 2016. And even before Picky Bars, I often wondered why insurance companies, banks, car companies, and the like didn’t scoop up athletes the way shoe and apparel brands do. T-Mobile and Sky and Astana sponsor cycling teams as the primary logo and they don’t make their money on bicycles or cycling gear, so why don’t track and field athletes and training groups seek sponsorship from non-endemic brands? It never made sense to me. When I asked people this question, people would often say things like “nobody cares about track and field” or “the sport is boring” or go on about the need to improve production value and TV time and all that stuff. I mean, sure, there are improvements to be made, but those aren’t the reasons. After all, plenty of non-endemic brands invest in track and field via IOC, USOC, or USATF sponsorships, so I know they are very interested and willing to spend marketing dollars in track and field.
The real reason non-endemic sponsors don’t invest in track and field athletes the way Oiselle, Brooks, Nike and New Balance do is because of rules set by the USOC and IAAF that block them from entering the market place. The rule Run Gum is suing about applies only to the National Championships in an Olympic Year. On those years, only “approved apparel manufacturers” can occupy the little 30 cm2 allowable logo space on the uniform:
From the rules. Click image for more. Coincidentally the rectangle perfectly fits a swoosh. What if your logo is square?
To be approved to use this one tiny logo space an athlete can have on their uniform, you must make the majority of your revenue from the sale of apparel. Which of course RunGum, T-Mobile, Sky, BMW, BP, Visa, Google, Rosetta Stone, or 99% of companies (including those who sponsor USATF, USOC, etc) don’t.
Anyone can physically make a competition kit. But not everyone is allowed to. And if you aren’t allowed to make a competition kit that can be competed in all four years of the Olympic cycle, then you can’t be a primary sponsor of athletes in our sport, because that pesky Olympic Trials will leave your athletes naked every four years. If Picky Bars outbid Brooks and paid someone $40,000 a year to race for Picky Bars, that athlete couldn’t wear our uniform at the Olympic Trials, (or any other meet that falls under IAAF uniform rules from my understanding), which essentially means we would never consider doing that. That means athletes have less companies bidding for them, fewer overall opportunities, and lower salaries due to lack of competition. It’s a pie that can never grow in size. As a business owner and CMO of a non-apparel company, I’m limited to thinking about small scale, creative marketing efforts that make sense for us in the sport of track and field, and those are the kinds of marketing plans that don’t add all that much value for the athletes.
Every brand that isn’t an apparel manufacturer is being kept out of meaningful track and field athlete sponsorship due to anti-competitive rules. The question we should be asking is, why do these rules exist in the first place?
I support Nick and Run Gum in their lawsuit. Even though winning it would result in a rule change that appears small at first glance, it could make a big difference, and set precedent for bigger changes in the future. It’s time to question, and dismantle, the real reasons why “nobody wants to invest money in track and field.” Run Gum’s lawsuit, and changing IAAF Uniform Rules as I proposed with this resolution, would go a long ways towards making the sport more viable for athletes, and more attractive to investors and sponsors.
To Illustrate the point here, this uniform mock up is currently illegal at the Olympic Trials. After hearing about Run Gum’s troubles I wanted to see for myself if Picky Bars would be denied in 2016. A small but significant percentage of our sales in 2015 was apparel, and we’ve been in business five years. I thought there might be a workaround for us that Run Gum may have missed.
Despite adhering to logo size restrictions, as well as limiting to one sponsor as the rules require (also a rule that needs changing, but I digress), my request to even begin seeking approval from the USOC was denied because our “primary source of corporate revenue needs to come from clothing and footwear.” When I followed up on the USOC’s offer to explain the rule to me by calling them, I was told they couldn’t comment at this time due to the pending lawsuit. So I can’t tell you much more than this: these rules are anti-competitive, are not in the best interests of athletes, and I really hope Run Gum wins.
If you are a pro athlete reading this right now, this is why you’re poor despite record sponsorship levels for USATF, the popularity of track and field in the Olympics, etc. We need your support and your voice.
Follow and join the conversation on social #RunGumLawsuit
Lauren,
Another great take! Informative and unfortunately acutely accurate. Maybe a future step is a supportive, organizational meeting (morning to avoid noise) at Wild Duck during the Trials. I can arrange it.
Happy 2016,
Peanut
Thanks Lauren – great explanation and hope Nick wins his lawsuit!
To me, The USATF as a national governing organization (and gatekeeper to international events such as the Olympics and World Championships) should be held to a high standard as it regards the individual freedoms and liberties of it’s members who are not employees, but independent professional athletes. And because they do not pay the athletes a living wage those athletes depend on their ability to market themselves and their sponsors at such related events. Therefore, attempts to restrict their ability to make a living by anti-competitive behavior run counter to our established principles and are inherently harmful to the athletes and the sport itself. Restraint of trade (below) is a high legal standard to meet. But the principle interest of a national athletic governing body should not be setting rules or entering into contracts which negatively impact the financial health of it’s athletes based upon a short-sighted impulse that restricts non-proprietary sponsorship opportunities.
Wikipedia:
The 1911 decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States[14] relied on Taft’s rule-of-reason analysis. In that case, the Court concluded that a contract offended the Sherman Act only if the contract restrained trade “unduly”—that is, if the contract resulted in monopolistic consequences. A broader meaning, the Court suggested, would ban normal and usual contracts, and would thus infringe liberty of contract. The Court therefore endorsed the rule of reason enunciated in Addyston Pipe, which in turn derived from Mitchel v Reynolds and the common law of restraints of trade.
Yeah, except the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act granted all USOC-affiliated sports a monopoly like the one the NFL and MLB enjoy.
USATF has zero interest in developing revenue on the athlete side. Their policy decisions make it clear the average athlete more or less pays to perform at national elite level while the federation is busy securing broadcast revenue.
Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act really, really, really needs to go away. FWIW, Ted Stevens is infamous for being a “pay-to-play” Senator that never got caught.
This restriction goes way back to the amateur days. The purpose was not to favor the apparel companies, but to make a exception for uniforms that happen to have a small visible logo on their clothing (for example, your polo shirt might have had an Izod logo, or your jeans might have a small tag sewn in the inseam or a leather patch on the beltline). This allowance originally had nothing to do with sponsorships–it was a practical rule because many clothing items had visible logos, and would have been unnecessarily restrictive and cumbersome to restricted competitors to logoless apparel, or to have to cover with duct tape.
This restriction goes way back to the amateur days. The purpose was not to favor the apparel companies, but to make an exception for uniforms that happen to have a small visible logo on their clothing (for example, your polo shirt might have had an Izod logo, or your jeans might have a small tag sewn in the inseam or a leather patch on the beltline). This allowance originally had nothing to do with sponsorships–it was a practical rule because many clothing items had visible logos, and would have been unnecessarily restrictive and cumbersome to restricted competitors to logoless apparel, or to have to cover with duct tape.
Up to 5x 280(PR) for the Back Squat.WOD: 4.75 rds + 5 squatsI vote snatch because I think its harder to master and is a beautiful balance of power, strength, flexibility, cogniinatdor/aoility, accuracy and balance. What a combo in one lift!
The thing that burns me up about the Symmonds’ lawsuit is that it even exists. Last year, it was inconceivable that the USATF would not allow Nick to represent my country in the World Championships over his refusal to sign that agreement form. His argument for not signing was reasonable, and very American. He won the 800m at Nationals, and he was the best representative for all Americans. Instead, our best runner did not participate in Beijing because of a technicality over what an athlete wears outside of the competition? USATF missed the bigger picture of putting the best American forward. Go Nick – you have the support from this American track fan.
Lauren,
When the IAAF rule on uniform logos and competition was developed, which was 1992-1994, Reebok was the IAAF sponsor. Of course it was made with big players in mind, as they are the ones that could provide the bucks for the global sport.
I would love to see the time when domestic kit could have 8 logos, and global 2-4. The result of that would be key brands like Nike, adidas, Saucony, NB and others probably lowering their support for smaller or less stature for their logos. If an athlete or federation could remedy that with more sponsors, fantastic.
I believe that the issue comes down to packaging and marketing. It continually frustrates me that a sport which is truly universal, which has been part of all cultures for 4-5000 years, can not reach out to sponsors like global football.
I believe we are not looking at the wrong issue. If you want control of the sport, or to open the sport, then find well healed, supportive global sponsors. He or she who has the money really runs the sport.
Larry
Thank you for this article. What a ridiculous rule! We need to change this. We need to make it feasible for a track athlete to make a living through sponsorship. This rule is keeping a lot of sponsors out of Track.
If they get more money to the athletes maybe more people will go into track and field and not other sports. Get a petition going .
The point is to get the money flowing through USATF, not the athletes. Most athletes are so driven they will run for free, more or less.
What about if you created another company “Picky Bars Apparel”? This company would be only to sell apparel. It may not have a lot of sales, but it would be an “Apparel Only” company whose logo should be permissible. A lot of companies have several mini-companies for tax and administrative purposes.
Thank you so much for writing this article. I found it very interesting.
Brilliant analysis! Thanks for sharing! Let’s go get some equity for athletes!