Will US Speedskating Survive?
USS begins to regroup before the new season starts.
The governing body for long and short track speed skating in the United States is poised to begin rebuilding after a nearly-crippling deficit budget and staff turnover.
Let's see... Spring President's report admits US Speedskating has brought in AND lost more money in the last four years than ever before. Board members agree its "time to look at everything from top down to see if changes are needed." Ya think?
For starters, a recap of the season reveals that a whole $15,000 went to top athletes via incentives from certain competitions. Considering that was spread between 70+ skaters, Apolo and other top competitors received whopping allotments of between $24 and $746 each. I'm sure Joey Cheek's $646 was the deciding factor in his ability to donate $40,000 to non-profit organization Right to Play this year.
Would the fifteen grand be better spent in a way that's less a joke to the athletes and more beneficial to the advancement of the governing body? (Also note that total cash prizes overall for certain competitions are $2700 for 1st through 3rd place in senior events.)
According to some officials' school of thought, the athletes are as much to blame for the budget crises as anybody. Evidently, there has been concern in the last year from the executive committee that skaters are breaching the Athlete Agreement regarding sponsorship dollars. Could athletes' corporate sponsorships really be negatively impacting US Speedskating's ability to conjure endorsements?
The marketing report listed four athletes who ticked off two sponsors that represent around $700,000 of the organization's income. The skaters "refused" to wear team logos - although the presiding Athlete Agreement stated: "Athlete may use Competitive Equipment of his/her choice." Should athletes be forced to sacrifice their performance by wearing only team-sponsored skins instead of the competitive equipment that works best for them?
The USOC slapped USS on the hand with a determination that the organization will not receive funds until a new Athlete Agreement (which expired June 30, 2006) was ratified. Was this what the director's report referred to as "less funds coming from the USOC?"
The Executive Director's report poses another interesting question: "Why are we successful internationally, with our small budget how did we manage to win 40%" of the medals at the Olympics? The politically pleasing answer given includes that a large part of US Speed Skating's resources are focused on elite athletes, and that the sport has a tradition of success that skaters use to motivate themselves.
Actually, according to the Torino Games website, the United States won 3 out of 24 short track medals and 7 out of 36 long track medals. Out 60 medals, the US Speedskating team won 10, or 20% of the total medals. (But who's counting.)
Members felt "the board needs to be more informed in general" when considering resolutions and team-related items.
The board discussed possibly saving money ($100,000 to be exact) by reporting to the ISU that they will not be producing high profile competitions for television. Was this move supposed to encourage sponsorship deals? Less and lower quality visibility of races is not a way to win over corporate dollars. Regardless, the ISU isn't to be taken so easily. They are requiring a letter from a TV producer stating that if USS receives funding from the ISU for a given event, that competition will be specifically produced for television.
A new executive director may be just what the doctor ordered for this flailing organization. Robert T. Crowley and others have recently been hired to lead the organization into what will hopefully be a more prosperous season.
Check out this information as reported in the USS newsletter: Ice Chips Issues 87 & 88, dated July 2006.
