According to SwimmingWorld.com, the United States Olympic Committee has rejected USA-Swimmings new Athlete Partnership plan which, among other things, would double the stipend to post-graduate and professional National Team members from $21,000 to $42,000 a year.
The USOC balked at USA-Swimming’s failure to include any contractual requirements for those taking the increased stipend. They did not, however, close the door on any revised plan that included contractual requirements to promote the sport and support the National governing body.
This was a foreseeable outcome. There still seems to be this idea in the swimming community that just because we put in an incredible amount of work in the pool, we deserve recognition and big financial gains. USA-Swimming in general does not seem prepared to commit its athletes to the promotional and competition-related responsibilities that other professional athletes are subjected to.
I, like everyone else, support as many professional opportunities for swimmers as is possible; however, unlike comments made by some of USA-Swimming’s most prominent coaches, I have a hard time believing that any plan which involves swimmers receiving increased stipends without these increased commitments that the USOC wants will fail in the long-term.
Swimming is at a crossroads. If it hopes to get over the hump, “we practice harder than other sports” can no longer be the answer. The contractual commitments that the USOC wants are what is going to destroy the perception that Michael Phelps is our sport, and that the whole thing will fall apart when he retires.
Hard work in the pool doesn’t produce money. It may produce respect, but it doesn’t produce money and butts in the seats. Interacting with fans, meet commitments (which were also pulled from the original athlete plan), and general promotion of the sport produces money. These swimmers can work as hard as they can possibly work, but if USA-Swimming can’t create a commitment to the sporting public beyond 1 or 2 championship meets in August, the grass roots of the sport is what will suffer.
Imagine if we had a similar situation in the NBA or NFL. If on any given night during the regular season, there was only a 30% chance that Kobe Bryant, or Payton Manning, or any other player for that matter, would show up and compete. And yet, at the end of the season, they still got to play in the Super Bowl. The regular seasons of those sports would become meaningless, and the impact of their championships would be greatly diminished. And then imagine if Kobe Bryant asked for a raise. He would probably be flat-out rejected by the league. That’s exactly what the USOC’s thinking was in rejecting the plan.
I think the USOC was exactly right on its decision to reject the plan in its current form. The sport will never grow as a viable post-graduate career without these top athletes promoting it and making firm commitments to meets like the Grand Prix series.
USA-Swimming’s Board of Directors meet next week, where it’s likely that they’ll at least discuss a revised plan.
Quite the contrary, I think this is a terrible decision. No, I am not a fan of many of Mark Schubert’s policies, but these kids need the money to train! Simple as that. Guys like Jason Lezak are living on meager contracts and no big deals anymore. Other than Phelps, Lochte, Coughlin, Soni, Beard, Magnuson, Vollmer, Peirsol, and maybe a couple of others, most of these guys don’t have suit deals. The APP would help out so much, in whatever form. Imagine you’re Mark Gangloff or Tyler McGill waking up today to find out that you will be paid half as much this month as you expected. Forget politics for a second here – this is men’s/women’s/families’ livelihoods we are talking about.
This can’t become about “if this plan doesn’t pass immediately and in whatever form USA-Swimming wants, these guys are going to starve.”
The problem with passing this plan, in my mind, is that it’s not a plan that will work in the long-term. And once it’s all signed off and official, its going to be a lot harder to fix when they discover that it doesn’t work.
I 100% agree that these swimmers should have the increased stipend. I don’t think that $42,000 is by any means an unreasonable amount for them to be paid, and in fact think that the stipend should maybe even be a little more for many of the swimmers. I, however, think that USA-Swimming is misleading these swimmers by trying to convince them that they should just get the money without having to sign the contracts. Who knows, maybe these swimmers are all for the contracts, and the Mark Schuberts of the world are putting words in their mouths. Maybe this original design was a “see what we can get away with.”
I think this plan needs to be re-written with the contractual commitments included, because THOSE are what is going to grow the sport.
I too am pro stipend, but to be honest to go from 21K to 42K, we need to see a lot of commitment to the grassroots of the sport. I absolutely agree with Braden on this one that there needs to be something shown for the increase in stipend.
As a club coach at the grassroots level telling people they have to pay $53 for splash magazine and the opportunity to swim in meets and nothing else is hard for some people to swallow (let alone afford). With this many people paying that money per year and sponsorships on top of that, I would like to see some more faces at meets across the nation. Not just grand prix meets either, I think something can be worked out where each LSC is put on a rotating schedule where a Pro will make an appearance at a meet during the season with the idea of promoting swimming in that area. Or each LSC has a clinic available with a Pro on a rotating schedule. There would be a lot of people on this payroll, it would be easy to move them around and not impact their training too much.
These appearances could be made, in bulk, the two years following the Olympics and lessen during the third year and very minimal during the season of the Olympic games.
One of my favorite phrases I have been using since I started coaching and I think it is very appropriate for everyone out there who sees this denial as 100% negative, “swimming is a privilege, not a right”. This stipend thing is an excellent opportunity, but lets not forget for one second that NO ONE is entitled to any of this.
That last part, Erik, is what I think we lose sight of. After all, I had to give up coaching full time because it didn’t pay the bills, but USA didn’t increase my stipend. I had to get a corporate job and now coach after I get off the day, putting in 60+ hours a week in addition to the time I spend writing just to stay involved in the sport. Many (if not most) coaches around the country have to do the same thing. Nothing about this sport is a right.
Until these swimmers put in the commitment that will attract more sponsors to the National Organization and more fans to the meets, that 53$ is subsidising the sport without getting anything in return except a magazine subscription that is honestly subpar at best. That would be like the Houston Youth Basketball Association having to pay a yearly fee to the NBA! The business model is flawed.
Part of the problem with rejection is not only the lack of stipend increase but also coverage. The 21k right now if only for the top two in the country. Then take Michael Klueh for example. Third in the U.S, 13th in the world, so he would be receiving 42k under the APP. Now, he gets nothing. This is a post-collegian, trying to stick around for 2012, most likely to compete in a major meet next summer, and he has no sponsorship or any sort of way to pay his bills. I think the new stipend should be put in place then the contract on top of that for more money. Pro football players get more than 21k a month from their team! They need to set new standards for athlete support to keep athletes in the sport.
And it’s not like there’s time to debate. These are people who are reconsidering their future in the sport because they will get nothing from USA Swimming, as opposed to the 42k they expected. Madison Kennedy and David Russell are two others in the same situation as Klueh.
I don’t think that USA-Swimming can corner USOC and the rest of the organization that way though. They should have known that a plan without any commitments from the athletes wouldn’t fly, and they shot themselves (and those who they represent) in the foot by presenting a plan that wasn’t going to fly. USA-Swimming had plenty of time to come up with a good plan, and they instead decided to roll the dice on this one. It flopped. The USOC doesn’t have to pass it just because USA-Swimming did a poor job of making it. Just another example of failed leadership at the top of our sport. It didn’t take all that long for this plan to be rejected by the USOC, if a better plan is presented, then I’m sure it won’t take that long for it to pass, either.
The part you’re missing with the NFL comparison is that the league and its membership doesn’t subsidize the athletes. Without the fans, NFL players would be in the same boat. The reason the NFL’s success has exploded is because the league and its athletes do an incredible job promoting the sport, not through fees from the Punt, Pass, and Kick contest, but through the fans. The NFL has a million fans (quite literally) who are willing to spend 100$ a person to go to a 3-hour football game. I don’t know a single person who would pay half that to go to a 3-hour swim meet, especially one where they’re not really sure if Phelps, Lochte, Coughlin et al. are going to swim at.
If these swimmers quit the sport because they don’t feel as though they’re making enough money, it amounts to a strike in a league like the NFL. The difference is that when this second tier of elite swimmers walk out, and we stop subsidizing their training, everyone else in the sport SAVES money. In the NFL, when players walk out, people LOSE money. These athletes have no leverage here, because they are not the public face of the sport. Hence the need for a promotional commitment.
But again, all of that aside, USA-Swimming can’t present a garbage plan and expect it to decide. If anything, the USOC is protecting the rest of us from the tyranny of the sport’s elite.
Let me ask you this David. Let’s say there was a temporary plan put in place, where the athletes all made $42,000 (pro-rated) for the next 2 months while USA-Swimming and the USOC negotiate the terms–in other words gave the athletes a fair living wage while the issue was settled. Which plan would you favor: the one without the contractual commitments to appear at meets and promote the sport, or one with them? If your answer is the latter, then why should the USOC push through an inferior plan just because USA-Swimming did a poor job crafting it?
This is not about the athletes needing more. I think, again, that we are all in agreeance that they need more than the 21k they make, and that they need to make it soon. I think the big disagreement is over whether doing whatever they want all year and showing up at a National Championship meet once a year is enough to deserve more than 21k.
Agreed Braden, you want a raise, tell me why you have earned it and what you are going to do if we give you this raise. The leadership in USA Swimming is really letting its grassroots suffer by only thinking about the elite with a plan like this. Could you imagine what were to happen if all the parents of all the age groupers in the US cared or found out that these elite swimmers were going to get their salaries doubled and weren’t going to do anything for the sport in return. Especially if they knew how much of their yearly fees go to the NT, how much the NT director makes and if any of the increased fees were going to these swimmers salaries.
I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of our $53 membership fee, where does it all go?
Braden said, “swimming is at a crossroad” I have to disagree, swimming never was a big spectator sport. Big time individuals definitely will draw a few more views because of the story lines they create, especially now a days with the sports talk radio mentality of today. But at the end of the day lets be honest with ourselves, the only people who care about or watch swimming are swimmers themselves or the people that are their friends and family.
With that being said the only way to get swimming over the hump is from within. USA swimming needs to become self sufficient. I think we all agree that if swimmers get paid enough to continue to focus on training as a “professional” we’re going to have more, faster swimmers., its simple math. Here’s how…..
Love them or hate them, you need to bring back the suits. plain and simple! Hear me out, all the purist who love swimming so much this is your chance to help your beloved sport through your “crossroad”! Everyone complained about prices of the suits, well last time I checked the new legal suits are still very pricey and dont last anywhere as long as the rubber ones. The suits are the answer to generate money for more athletes to get sponsorships so they dont have to rely on the old school USA swim organization. This is the way to become self sufficient financially. The other side of the suits being back into the sport is the publicity they got, remember any publicity if good publicity!!!! I had so many people i knew ask me about the suits, these are friends of mine who are not swimmers. I seen the suits mentioned on countless TV shows and other national media outlets. More records will be set, people love to see records broke, more viewers and butts in seats. Thats gonna get more people interested and this will open up other potential for generating revenue outside of the self sufficient model they need to be running.
If you guys think swimming has a chance of being a dead sport then why not evolve like all the other sports out there? Swimming needs to go for it, go all in. Its possibly as big as its ever gonna be right now thanks to phelps. So it can stay like this and once Phelps retires it’ll fade away and resume its anonymity besides during the olympic years. Or you can set some regulations on the suit technology, establish some standards and get the level of excitement up and generate income for the potential stars of the sport. and worse case if the suits and amount of world records scare people away, then you’re right back to where you started…nothing to lose so much to gain.
sorry for making everyones eyes bleed with this novel haha!
You make some good points Eric. Swimming never has been a huge spectator sport. At the same time, swimming has never asked for $42,000/year salaries for its top athletes. Bringing back the suits still passes the cost on to the age groupers. The problem is that I don’t think most age groupers (and more importantly their parents) give to licks about the National Team members’ salaries, but they certainly don’t want to subsidize them. Be it right or not, this is where the meaningful resistance is going to come from.
Anywho, I think we’re again taking the argument back to a place where it’s “do these guys need to be paid or not paid.” That’s an entirely different debate (which I am on the paid side of). I think that in return for that pay, we need to see them more of them; at free or low-cost clinics for different LSC’s, at more meets in the states, etc. etc. If we’re going to pay these guys as representatives and the faces of USA-Swimming, they need to be representatives and the faces of USA-Swimming!
Agreed on all points Braden.
“Someone owes Dagny Knutson an apology. She was sold the Olympic Dream. You could say that someone owes Dagny Knutson a $26,000 apology, but in reality she’s lost much more than that. At this time last year she had hundreds of thousands of dollars, in the form of scholarships, in her lap. She passed on those college scholarships to chase the Olympic Dream. Her chase has led her across the country and you can be sure she was banking on that $50,000 to support her dream.”
Garrett McCaffrey wrote this today. Not good what’s going on, even though they made some improvements today. (Full article: http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/25038.asp)
I may not be honed in on the exact issues in the behind closed doors meetings, but I am going to take a different approach. IF this is about money, then the MUST be a way to generate the money. Sure sponsors are willing to shell out dollars to top athletes because a million more people watching them swim in your suit will go otu and buy them. This $21,000 or $42,000 comes from where, the USA program? Where is the cutoff? Is it the top 50 swimmers in an event? top 25? Top 5? National team only? Maybe I am off base here but I don’t know if USA swimming can afford a jump from $21,000 to $42,000, especially when swimmers will realize there is more money in it and more people will attempt this.
I think USA swimming must market the sport better. Think of Soccer, and it places those signs on teh side of the field, giving them full-time advertisement in a game, which also allows them to have the games without breaks. Swimming needs to turn to television to make money. Where would the NFL be without Fox, ABC (and daughter network ESPN) and CBS shelling out money to have the rights to show their games? Swimming is lucky to get just a few meets a year on TV. I wrote a letter to ESPN suggesting there would be a gold mine putting a reality show around Phelps and Lochte for the next 2 years leading up to the Olympics. Show them training, show some of their background life (of course, the athlete and coach would have to approve), but the main point is that swimming would get face time in the National spotlight. Everyone knows Michael Phelps in the country, but very few know what he actually does to make him so successful. Look at Reality shows like “Hard Knocks”. I’m not really a fan of the show, but it gives you an insiders peak at what really goes on during NFL practice, and has been a hit.
What I’m saying is, you find a way to market USA swimming better, and you won’t have to worry about the money. USA swimming has a window right now, 2 years, before your 2 (Phelps and Lochte) possibly 4 (Natalie Coughlin & Dara Torres) will most likely retire from the sport. Then what?!?
Apparently, the big hang-up is that the athletes and their agents didn’t want to give USA-Swimming name-and-image-use rights to promote their meets and the organization.
Those are all good ideas. And while they’d definitely generate money for the top tier (who are really unaffected by this APP), they’d also increase exposure for the sport and that second-tier (though still elite and world class) group of swimmers like Clary and Schneider, who are totally anonymous beyond the swimming community.
I’ve seen programs that you’ve described done following around HIGH SCHOOL athletes going through the recruiting process in Chicago, including Eddy Curry. I would think they could get something together for freaking Michael Phelps, no?
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/raw-footage/Content?oid=904649