I read the info on most of those links (I love Edie) and then more perspective from Bob Beattie.
Interesting discourse, but too frequently people are quick to say if we had the money everything would be okay.
I do find it ironic that so many people think it's somehow easier for freeskiing and freestyle athletes when they're being asked for $20-30K if they are on the B & C teams.
Those are two VERY good points.
I know people who have been on the board, in some cases got well over a decade, or who served decades ago, who will quickly say "we have always struggled with money. Nothing new." Then, others will say that the real issue may be more to do with how we ALLOCATE the money and spend it. Is the cost of running the organization too high? Some of these conversations, at least for me, raise that issue. I don't have an answer. I think it's a bit of both.
Certainly there has not been a "essential hires only until we fully fund all athletes" action. Obviously the organization is trying to make it clear that EVERY athlete is funded to a large degree. Hence the statements that, on average, it costs $100K plus per athlete to support them.
Good point. Would more revenue, from
sponsors, partners and donors cure ALL? Doubt it.
On the second point, that is also important to keep in mind. The USSSA is the governing body for a wide range of disciplines...some might say even sports. Yet most of us understand or follow one. Some a couple. Fewer follow more. Dan Leever's writing is aimed at Alpine ski racing. One piece of the iceberg.
I find that my alpine buddies are quick to not just focus on alpine racing, but to almost ignore and dismiss the rest. If you have eight kids, you have to love them all {or should!}. I find that parents, coaches and kids who grow up around all of these disciplines get it. And understand that every athlete is struggling to make a higher level of criteria.
Obviously those at the very top, who do get fully funded, also earn the most through sponsors and endorsements. But, I see "alpiners" who think that the sponsorship in X games events is deep and very broadly spread and it is not.
This end of the discussion can get very messy. It goes along with WHY should the USST fully fund athletes like LV, MS and and Ted. They earn millions. They have their own teams with multiple coaches, and staff. The flip side is that under this Project 26 and "Best in the World" measure, they have brought home medals. And medals lead to corporate and individual donors. Same can be said for many other: Shaun White, the women's XC team....all of the freestyle medalists.
I think that cutting funding because you are "too successful" is not where we want to go. I know USST trustees who think those athletes should be making big gifts. Some have in the past. Some choose to do it otherwise, because they actually want to be assured that the other athletes get 100% of the money. The Lindsey Vonn foundation funding is an example.
Dan's area of knowledge is alpine. And while I think it's really healthy to expand the conversation and awareness, I also think that we need to keep his focus on mind when considering things. Same with Edie. Her world has been Alpine. USST athlete, now ski academy parent. She really "gets" that stuff.
So others weighing in to broaden all of our awareness as to the challenges is IMO
a very good thing.
