Today, track & field athletes around the world announced their intent to form an international union to increase their earnings potential in the mega-money athletics and Olympic industry: a move that could be the first domino to fall in growing displeasure with the Olympic revenue model and specifically how it pertains to athletes.
The union has already been endorsed by some of Track & Field’s biggest athletes, including arguably the most popular Olympic athlete in the world Usain Bolt – the World Record holder in the 100m dash – and Sonya Richards-Ross – the 400m Olympic Champion. For reference, this is the equivalent of Michael Phelps, Sun Yang, and Missy Franklin all joining a similar union in swimming.
Among the demands are those typical with any union: collective bargaining rights, and drawing a bigger share of the Olympic pie (specifically through the use of prize money at the Olympics). At the heart of the matter, however, is the IOC’s “rule 40,” the much-debated rule that forbids non-IOC sponsors from using Olympic athletes in their ads during the Games, which is the brief period times every four years where Olympic athletes truly have an opportunity to cash-in on their hours of dedication.
The challenge in unionizing by Olympic athletes, as compared to those in the professional leagues, are many-fold. For starters, in major sports leagues like the NHL (who is currently in labor disputes) and the NFL and NBA (who recently emerged from them), every athlete is more than eke’ing out a living. For many Olympians, any sort of striking action would leave them unable to pay even the most basic of living expenses: a situation which might intimidate them from joining.
Further, the cyclical nature of the Olympics means that these issues could drag out for an incredible amount of time, because financial threats to the IOC are so heavily concentrated in the Olympic year.
In favor of the athletes, however, is seemingly a significantly more manageable leverage. The costs and administration associated with running an elite swimming or track & field event are immensely less than the fanfare surrounding those in the major American professional sports leagues. The threat of NBA players reforming that which already exists is much less than the threat of, say, Olympic athletes creating an independent swimming World Championship event (not to diminish the amount of effort that goes into producing those events).
The other advantage is momentum. Olympic athletes are finally growing the kind of star-power that gives them the kind of mainstream clout to put pressure on the IOC and various other federations. Usain Bolt is a prime example in track; now swimming has multiple athletes who are on A-lists to major events like the MTV Music Awards and New York Fashion Week.
Either way, the funding model has to have changed. There are plenty of arguments about the costs of running an event as huge and looming as the Olympics and the amount of manpower and investment to put on such an event, but if athletes are expected to perform at such a high level and aren’t being fairly rewarded for their efforts, then things were bound to hit a tipping-point.
For reference, athletes in Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL receive between 45-55 percent of the revenues in salary, on average, depending on how far back you look historically. The annual revenue for 2011 of the USOC was $141 million in 2011, and $251 million in 2010. The 2012 figure will likely be in excess of $300 million, as broadcast revenues are recorded in Olympic years.
But the complaints of Olympic athletes go even beyond that. The handcuffs placed upon them with regard to private sponsorships go far beyond what any of those athletes in major sports face. Ultimately, the biggest complaint of the athletes seems to be that they don’t get a big enough share of the revenue generated directly by their sports, but are handicapped in the extra-competitive marketplace from maximizing those earnings.
With many sub-organizations, the structure obviously can’t be identical to that of the above-mentioned organizations (often times, money is filtered to athletes through organizations like USA Swimming), but there seems to be a demand for more efficiently-run governance that leaves a bigger portion of the revenue in the hands of the athletes. The USOC currently represents 38 different sports.
Perhaps a professional club league during the Olympic off years could increase financial gain for these athletes? I’ve always felt this sport deserves more national/international attention. Unless you are attending meets somehow, we only get to see these guys once every 4 years. Not fair for all parties involved.
I would love to see more swimmers make millions and millions. Can only help the profile of the sport.
This is definitely cyclical in nature. Swimmers have attempted to unionize before, the most recent example being the lead-up to Beijing where I believe Pieter vd Hoogenband, Markus Rogan and a few others tried to start it up. I think that there was no ’cause’ to truly fight for, such as Rule 40, to rally the swimmers.
However, as pointed out in the article, this is a cause that only the elite of the elite are truly effected by. In that case I doubt that a ‘strike’ would have much effect of the Olympics. But if unionized swimmers walked-out of, say, World Champs to create their own 16 swimmers/event meet? Or building Duel in the Pool to a week long… Read more »
And to think that we just used to do it because we liked to swim and compete. Swimming ended when you graduated from college. Every once in a while someone like Carl Robie hung on for a year after graduation for the Olympics …. And hustled up expenses from family.
Are you questioning the passion of these athletes? The fact that someone is making bank off the backs of these guys is ridiculous, and their desire to get a large piece of the pie isn’t wrong.
Just because you didn’t have the same opportunities doesn’t make what they are attempting any less noble.
Not questioning the passion. I think Michael Phelps is fantastic and inspiring. Just commenting … It was very different.
…I am quite disappointed in myself for not thinking of this sooner. Great move by T&F, if only swimming could’ve done the same when Phelps was still around.
It won’t be easy for athletes to get more rights from the IOC, but if Lochte, Yang, Magnussen, Adrain, Agnel…formed a union the IOC wouldn’t just let them not compete. The superstars are everything to swimming and without them the Olympics would take a huge dive, literally, in viewership and revenue.
Long live the spirit of “Pre.”
I think an athletes union could potentially leverage rights but not actual payment. I don’t see cash prizes ever being likely at the Olympics and I think the IOC is more likely to just allow those professionals who want to “strike” to “strike” and just allow the next guys in line to take their place. I think another major difference is that player’s unions in franchise sports have CBA’s with their respective organizations, while there is no real reason for the IOC to enter into a CBA. The only plus side for the NHL, NBA, NFL, etc to enter into a CBA is because they have to bargain with individual players anyways and the CBA ensures some stability and standards.