IBJNews

USA Track & Field repeals controversial rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

USA Track & Field has repealed restrictions on uniform advertising that angered athletes across the country, but it remains to be seen whether athletes will take advantage of their renewed freedom.

The board of directors of USA Track & Field, headquartered in Indianapolis, decided recently to repeal guidelines that were handed down last year. Under those rules, only the athlete’s name, his or her club’s name or logo and the manufacturer’s name or logo could appear on uniforms. And those names and logos were to be small, 30 square centimeters to 40 square centimeters.

The repeal means athletes can turn their bodies and uniforms into virtual racecars if they choose to, covering themselves with advertisements.

“This is going to be more beneficial for lesser-known athletes who don’t have contracts with shoe companies,” said David Greifinger, a Santa Monica, Calif., attorney who represents the USATF’s athletes advisory committee.

Shoe companies typically sign top athletes to exclusive contracts, but there are hundreds more who can’t get those deals, either because they don’t rank high enough or because they don’t compete in a popular event.

The repeal comes in time for USATF’s championship road-racing series, which attracts top names in distance running to events across the country with more than $900,000 in prize money. The races, ranging from a mile to the half-marathon, are scheduled in cities across the country this spring and summer.

The first runner to take advantage of the repeal was Oregon-based 800-meter champion Nick Symmonds, who sold the rights to his left deltoid on eBay for $11,000. The buyer was Milwaukee-based Hanson Dodge Creative.

Symmonds offered to wear a temporary tattoo of a sponsor’s Twitter handle under the advertisement, “Your name on an Olympic athlete in 2012.” He won’t be able to wear the tattoo in international competition, which has a different set of uniform-advertising rules.

USATF adopted the rules out of concern for its own contract with Nike, which is worth $9 million under a deal signed in 2009. Interim CEO Mike McNees told IBJ he thought the organization should adopt some kind of uniform-advertising guidelines. Mirroring international guidelines made the most sense.

Geer said USATF’s board repealed the rules because it wasn’t comfortable enforcing another organization’s rules on its own events.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good job
    Good to hear this, if Nike wants exclusivity they should doll out money to more athletes, like all of them and since that won't happen let them get sponsored. Heck I'll wear Nike Officials uniforms if they pay for it, as it is I wear my J.O. Regional polo when I officiate a meet, evan NCAA meets. I'm giving my time but have to buy an officials uniform? I understand some officials don't do any events but I would gladly buy a polo if I were to get compensated after (X) amount of meets worked.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

ADVERTISEMENT