4 ms·

Is this really that crazy to believe both statements are true? Facilities, as one example, don't pop up out of thin air for free.

by howeyc 10y ago

jdmichal 10y ago
I was mostly quoting for the last sentence, which seems to directly answer the GP's question. I agree that training facilities and such should certainly be included in that number. However, from a couple paragraphs down, it seems like the USOC interpretation might be a bit broader still: > The reason there’s a large disparity between what the USOC says it spends on “areas that support athletes” and what the USOC actually pays athletes, Blackmun explained, is because the USOC includes the salaries of many of its employees who work with athletes or raise money for the organization in the larger figure.
Retric 10y ago
Most athletes don't exactly need a lot in the way of individual infrastructure to train. A marathon takes a lot of space for the event, but training is just some place to run. Further, the host city's pay for the actual Olympic infrastructure. The real issue is each sport may have thousands of hopefuls and there is no way to support them all. However, if they did open the way for discrete individual branding that could go a long way to cover the most competitive athletes. As it stands you get the occasional Phelps who is set, and a lot of broke hopefuls.
- onion2k 10y ago
  Most athletes don't exactly need a lot in the way of infrastructure to train. A marathon takes a lot of space for the event, but training is just some place to run. Professional athletes work with sports science labs to measure every aspect of their movement and breathing, dieticians to perfect their energy intake, materials science labs for better clothing and footwear, etc to improve their performance. There's a lot more required to get to, and stay at, world class level than just running a lot.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Completely agree, but that is mostly shared infrastructure. Top football players and top rowers can go to the same place to check cardio vascular fitness. Motion studies don't cost a lot extra for the 100th athlete to do them. Things like the 'shark suit' really don't advance the sport in any way which is also why it was limited in scope.
    - Someone 10y ago
      I think you underestimate the amount of technology and manpower rich countries invest in modern athletes, certainly in the "non-game sports" (things with a start and a finish, plus events such as the long jump or archery, where one competes more against oneself than against the competition, and where the optimal motion sequence can be trained for) and the manpower needed to evaluate measurements. Fitness and motion analysis are not something they do every few weeks. Endurance athletes have their heart rate measured almost full time, and have lactate measurements taken between set pieces; top sprinters and swimmers have an expert look at video of their starts, turning points, etc. _every training_ so that progress can be tracked and regressions can be caught early; cyclists measure their heart rate and the force they exert on the pedals all the time. Cameras are cheap nowadays; labor is not. The second athlete may be cheaper than the first, but that curve levels off very quickly. That's why, typically, the big sports have their own training centers, but the smaller sports share infrastructure (if your rowing section has ten persons, sharing infrastructure with canoeists probably is a win; if there are a hundred, that's no longer the case; the canoeists will want slightly different setups for their weight lifting, etc.)
      - Retric 10y ago
        There are ~10,000 athletes going to the Olympics and perhaps 5-10 times as many serious competitors that that did not make the cut for one reason or another. Most of them are not on that kind of a regimen outside of a few national programs or exceptional edge cases. PS: I have spoken to people in that outer pool from the US it's really dependent on sport and country of origin. But, in the US most people outside of the very top in popular sports have very little backing.
- notahacker 10y ago
  The higher profile athletes already do discreet individual branding, it's just not on their uniform. Given they can build social media profiles nowadays, it's getting better in that respect. Problem is, as you point out, there are a lot of hopefuls on the fringes of making an Olympic team that have minimal appeal to potential sponsors unless and until they break into the big time. Paying costs those fringe athletes can't possibly manage themselves is where a lot of the federations' money that doesn't filter down to cash payments to the athletes is going.
Bartweiss 10y ago
The article does point out: "Not many members of Team USA actually train there. In 2012, a study by the Athletes’ Advisory Council — a group of current and former athletes — found that just 13 percent of Olympic Training Center usage went to U.S. Olympians." That doesn't actually say how much the Olympians use the facilities, but if we accept that relatively few do then the money isn't going where it's intended even when it is spent on infrastructure.

Is this really that crazy to believe both statements are true? Facilities, as one example, don't pop up out of thin air for free.

by howeyc 10y ago

Is this really that crazy to believe both statements are true? Facilities, as one example, don't pop up out of thin air for free.

jdmichal 10y ago

I was mostly quoting for the last sentence, which seems to directly answer the GP's question. I agree that training facilities and such should certainly be included in that number. However, from a couple paragraphs down, it seems like the USOC interpretation might be a bit broader still: > The reason there’s a large disparity between what the USOC says it spends on “areas that support athletes” and what the USOC actually pays athletes, Blackmun explained, is because the USOC includes the salaries of many of its employees who work with athletes or raise money for the organization in the larger figure.

Retric 10y ago

Most athletes don't exactly need a lot in the way of individual infrastructure to train. A marathon takes a lot of space for the event, but training is just some place to run. Further, the host city's pay for the actual Olympic infrastructure. The real issue is each sport may have thousands of hopefuls and there is no way to support them all. However, if they did open the way for discrete individual branding that could go a long way to cover the most competitive athletes. As it stands you get the occasional Phelps who is set, and a lot of broke hopefuls.

onion2k 10y ago
Most athletes don't exactly need a lot in the way of infrastructure to train. A marathon takes a lot of space for the event, but training is just some place to run. Professional athletes work with sports science labs to measure every aspect of their movement and breathing, dieticians to perfect their energy intake, materials science labs for better clothing and footwear, etc to improve their performance. There's a lot more required to get to, and stay at, world class level than just running a lot.
- Retric 10y ago
  Completely agree, but that is mostly shared infrastructure. Top football players and top rowers can go to the same place to check cardio vascular fitness. Motion studies don't cost a lot extra for the 100th athlete to do them. Things like the 'shark suit' really don't advance the sport in any way which is also why it was limited in scope.
  - Someone 10y ago
    I think you underestimate the amount of technology and manpower rich countries invest in modern athletes, certainly in the "non-game sports" (things with a start and a finish, plus events such as the long jump or archery, where one competes more against oneself than against the competition, and where the optimal motion sequence can be trained for) and the manpower needed to evaluate measurements. Fitness and motion analysis are not something they do every few weeks. Endurance athletes have their heart rate measured almost full time, and have lactate measurements taken between set pieces; top sprinters and swimmers have an expert look at video of their starts, turning points, etc. _every training_ so that progress can be tracked and regressions can be caught early; cyclists measure their heart rate and the force they exert on the pedals all the time. Cameras are cheap nowadays; labor is not. The second athlete may be cheaper than the first, but that curve levels off very quickly. That's why, typically, the big sports have their own training centers, but the smaller sports share infrastructure (if your rowing section has ten persons, sharing infrastructure with canoeists probably is a win; if there are a hundred, that's no longer the case; the canoeists will want slightly different setups for their weight lifting, etc.)
    - Retric 10y ago
      There are ~10,000 athletes going to the Olympics and perhaps 5-10 times as many serious competitors that that did not make the cut for one reason or another. Most of them are not on that kind of a regimen outside of a few national programs or exceptional edge cases. PS: I have spoken to people in that outer pool from the US it's really dependent on sport and country of origin. But, in the US most people outside of the very top in popular sports have very little backing.
notahacker 10y ago
The higher profile athletes already do discreet individual branding, it's just not on their uniform. Given they can build social media profiles nowadays, it's getting better in that respect. Problem is, as you point out, there are a lot of hopefuls on the fringes of making an Olympic team that have minimal appeal to potential sponsors unless and until they break into the big time. Paying costs those fringe athletes can't possibly manage themselves is where a lot of the federations' money that doesn't filter down to cash payments to the athletes is going.

Bartweiss 10y ago

The article does point out: "Not many members of Team USA actually train there. In 2012, a study by the Athletes’ Advisory Council — a group of current and former athletes — found that just 13 percent of Olympic Training Center usage went to U.S. Olympians." That doesn't actually say how much the Olympians use the facilities, but if we accept that relatively few do then the money isn't going where it's intended even when it is spent on infrastructure.