I woke up this morning reading a thread on LetsRun, where the main topic was whether Dathan Ritzenhein should stick with the marathon or focus on the track for a few more years. While the thread is entertaining (to a degree), I wondered, what is more marketable, being the top American distance runner on the track or being the top American marathoner?
From a money making standpoint, it would seem to me that being the top American marathoner is more marketable, especially if you're breaking American records in road race distances in between marathons (shoe contract bonuses), on top of strong appearance fees. Furthermore, what's stronger, two hours of face time on TV or 13 minutes of zoomed out racing?
Seems to me that the marathon wins.
In other sports, top athletes switch teams, often eyeing where they might make more money not only through their contract, but through sponsors. In the distance running world that option doesn't really exist since sponsorship is limited. However, there is value in having a high profile in the sport. Is running track and field for the next year or two instead of the marathon the best business decision for Ritz? That question will remain out there, but it's certainly worth debating.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
1 comments:
There are quite a few factors that have an effect on his marketability. Injury, training/racing schedule (especially in a non-Olympic/WC year) to name a couple. If he can continue to run at this level with the Kenyans and set the AR in the 10k, I don't think his bank account will take a hit by staying with the track. I think a double AR holder is just as marketable as a marathoner given his previous marathon performances. He might be able to get some appearance money if he gets out to a few more road races (Carlsbad, Bix, Peachtree).
Post a Comment