Flashes of Panic

“Appearance fees” are a favorite bete noir of Toni Reavis, a well-known television commentator for road races. Toni’s theory is based on the “athletics would be more popular if the top pros were earning millions” theory I’ve discussed here, and postulates that because appearance fees, which are not public, make up such a large fraction of a top athlete’s income, they hold down (public) prize money, and thereby hold back the marketing of those athletes as high-earning pros.

I tend to agree with Toni on this score, but I think the situation is more complicated than this formula suggests, and for a few minutes I’d like to prick holes in it in the name of strengthening our ideas of what needs to improve in terms of marketing our athletes as professionals.

First, the basics: track athletes have three major income streams. Sponsorship contracts (which generally have a large performance-based component), appearance money (how much event organizers will pay them just to show up), and prize money. Athletes in the big team sports, as I’ve discussed before, also have the sponsorship contracts, though they’re not as large a part of their income; their largest income stream is their team, and that should be compared to the appearance money, because like appearance money, they get it whether they win or lose.

In the team sports, however, both parts of the income stream are relatively public and transparent. Fans know what kind of income the players are getting from the teams, and they don’t know, in general how much more or less the players earn if they win or lose. And the interesting part, to me, because it means that for the team sports, at least, how much the athletes are earning has little or nothing to do with how interested they are in the game.

Is it possible that by focusing on the money, we’re selling short the inherent excitement of the competition, the thing that made us all fall in love with the sport in the first place (assuming, of course, that you’re one of my readers who’s a track fan)?

So here’s my thought experiment. Instead of following Toni’s proposal and doing away with appearance money, let’s do away with prize money. Make it all appearance money, and put it on the table. Maybe a consortium (call them a “circuit”) of five or six races—a marathon and three or four lesser distances—puts together half a million dollars to get a commitment from Catherine Ndereba for all the races. If she runs well, they pony up again next year. Repeat for thirty or forty more pro athletes at all levels of the pay scale to build fields. Maybe you build some performance bonuses into the contract, but it’s not strict race-by-race “prize money.” The fans know they’re seeing expensive pro athletes. The athletes have both a predictable income for up days and down days—but also an incentive to perform to the best of their ability, because those who slack off won’t be invited back.

One advantage to this system is that it’s compatible with the existing system. A few road races could pursue this model while still being able to compete for the best athletes; alternative compensation models already exist in the system, like Wisconsin’s Bellin Run (no appearance money.) It’s not too far from the Japanese corporate model, except that it is postulated on the money coming from the races, not from sponsors.

That leads me to the two drawbacks of the system. One is track meets: too many events, too many athletes, and not all of them merit the same price tag. Certainly football linemen don’t make the same cash as star quarterbacks, but how do you balance discus throwers against hurdlers? Men against women? Making those distinctions public (because they’re already being made in private, in the athletes’ sponsorship contracts) might open a can of inequality worms.

And finally, where does the money come from? Would the current pool of prize money and appearance money be enough to fund an announced-appearance model? Do meets or races have enough revenue to make this work?

But before we follow a path of abolishing appearance money, maybe we should spend a little more time considering the opposite course: putting it on the table and taking away the prize money.