When big-name sponsors are being stingy with funds, any misallocation of those funds is glaring. Yet Wokish grifters keep multiplying and thriving, and they're not an impoverished group to start with
Butler's article was very interesting. It made me reflect that the maternity leave kerfluffle and subsequent change to Nike's contracts with female athletes probably only or mostly benefited those at the very top. Nike - and all the others - really should be providing health insurance to athletes they sponsor for more than, say, 10K. Though they probably just figure the cost for benefits like these and slice off the bottom 10% of athletes to pay for it. Snell is ridiculous and offensive. But for Nike, does it really make sense to sponsor a faster runner over, say, Quigley? How does it benefit Nike to sponsor no-name fast-but-not-the-fastest athletes over someone in the next speed tier with a huge social media following? It must, or they wouldn't do it. But I'm actually surprised that social media presence and general cache haven't trumped pure times already for those below the very top. I guess you never know who's going to go from fast to fastest, and Nike is making sure that whoever that individual is, they're sponsored by Nike.
Everything about her is Yuck. I don't get these companies or her followers at all. I also think this is a function of the dangers of "social media fame." the whole thing seems like a scam but no one wants to say it for fear of of being ostracized. I'll say it. She's Yuck. There are really good and inspirational stories in the back of the pack. This isn't one of them. This is a scam.
Let's be fair here. Woksters, while pathetic, are not the reason most pro runners aren't getting rich. Most pro runners have NEVER made an adequate living at their sport, even in the glory days of the... 70's, I guess? As much as running enthusiasts like you and I might deny it, it's something inherent in running that doesn't attract the eyeballs necessary to make the big bucks.
Butler's article was very interesting. It made me reflect that the maternity leave kerfluffle and subsequent change to Nike's contracts with female athletes probably only or mostly benefited those at the very top. Nike - and all the others - really should be providing health insurance to athletes they sponsor for more than, say, 10K. Though they probably just figure the cost for benefits like these and slice off the bottom 10% of athletes to pay for it. Snell is ridiculous and offensive. But for Nike, does it really make sense to sponsor a faster runner over, say, Quigley? How does it benefit Nike to sponsor no-name fast-but-not-the-fastest athletes over someone in the next speed tier with a huge social media following? It must, or they wouldn't do it. But I'm actually surprised that social media presence and general cache haven't trumped pure times already for those below the very top. I guess you never know who's going to go from fast to fastest, and Nike is making sure that whoever that individual is, they're sponsored by Nike.
Everything about her is Yuck. I don't get these companies or her followers at all. I also think this is a function of the dangers of "social media fame." the whole thing seems like a scam but no one wants to say it for fear of of being ostracized. I'll say it. She's Yuck. There are really good and inspirational stories in the back of the pack. This isn't one of them. This is a scam.
Let's be fair here. Woksters, while pathetic, are not the reason most pro runners aren't getting rich. Most pro runners have NEVER made an adequate living at their sport, even in the glory days of the... 70's, I guess? As much as running enthusiasts like you and I might deny it, it's something inherent in running that doesn't attract the eyeballs necessary to make the big bucks.