U.S. Nordic Combined Keeps on Plugging; USSA’s Bodensteiner Explains Decision

13 comments

• 

  cuxc

  April 18, 2014 at 11:41 am

  I understand that the amount of funding expected from the USOC for 2014/15 is going to be less than for an olympic year (maybe a lot less), and that budget cuts will be needed for all sports, but why doesn’t the USSA look at cutting their administrative costs during these years to help offset the lower amount received by the USOC?

  Maybe it’s just me, but when an executive at a non-profit receives more money per year than then entire sport of nordic combined would receive (and presumably every sport except alpine), there may be a way to find extra money…I’m not discounting the leaders of USSA at all, as I think they are doing a great job with the limited resources available, but maybe there salaries should be cut for a year, or at least allocated after all teams have been funded.

• 

  Big Joe

  April 18, 2014 at 12:11 pm

  Something tells me neither the USOC or USSA will articulate how much money is being stolen from NC and ski jumping. I predict a mealy-mouthed “we do not allocate the money that way” answer. And sadly, LB will get away with it once again. The relationship between USOC and USSA is too cozy. Anyone remember where Jim Page went after the ’87 blood doping scandal?

• 

  tclaynm

  April 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm

  There is no question that the NoCo and ski jumping teams should be given their fair share of the USOC money. That is robbing from Peter to pay Paul if USSA just gets to pocket the whole thing and drop those other programs. Unreal!

  That would be like your local government saying that they were dropping providing road maintenance services but will continue to collect the taxes that had previously been allocated for the services, and that hopefully some other entity would step in to take up that responsibility. It’s a brilliant loop-hole if it is allowed by USOC, but it’s incredibly underhanded and unfair.

  If this had been coming on since 2008, why didn’t USSA develop a “transitional exit strategy” that helped NoCo bridge the gap for their own funding??? Now, they’ve really kicked them in the nuts with an instantaneous drop and no time to become self-sufficient for next season. To add insult to injury, the injustice of this situation is exacerbated by the fact that they didn’t have this strategy in place during the 2010 Olympics, when NoCo’s stock was at an all-time high and they would have had the opportunity to capitalize off of it.

  I’m beginning to wonder what valid role USSA should even play in any Nordic sport. I don’t want to throw stones, as I am just an armchair observer, but it does seem like USSA’s time has come [to an end] with managing Nordic sports. And I get it. Alpine skiing has that rock star glamour and money behind it…everybody and their dog goes Alpine skiing.

  For example, look at biathlon — they have managed to thrive without USSA and I think the rest of the Nordic sports should secede from the Union and develop a separate governing body that more appropriately represents the needs of the Nordic sports, staying flexible with various funding (i.e. shooting sports sponsors’ money going to biathlon, helmet sponsors’ money going to jumping, etc…). With the secession should go the USOC allocation money for the Olympic sports.

  But, just to be clear, I think the USSA has done some good things with the cross-country program. It has grown in popularity and the level is increasing all the time. While that is more attributed to the local clubs initiatives and hard work, not USSA per se, something has functioned well enough for the system to be successful. It just seems to me that the time has come for Nordic sports in the USA to separate from the mother ship. But, the question is…are corporate sponsors interested enough in Nordic to make it salient? I think the answer is yes if we can continue building as we have been, and have the positive role models that the current crop of cross-country, Nordic combiners and jumpers (and biathletes) have produced (i.e. Fast and Female, etc.). If you take all of that stuff that has been built up in the various programs and present it to prospective corporate sponsors, I think there is a very attractive sponsorship opportunity.

  OK, I realize that I’ve spouted on long enough and shouldn’t presume to have all the answers. All of this is easier said than done. This all takes a lot of corporate knowledge, salesmanship and footwork to accomplish and I shouldn’t get on my soapbox if I’m not willing to help out. To do my part, I will continue promoting the sport with events and coaching locally…and as usual, without the help of USSA…

• 

  Martin Hall

  April 18, 2014 at 2:53 pm

  This following article will help answer some of the questions–it is lengthy, but worth the read;

  How Well Are US Athletes Supported by the USOC? And 11 Other Olympic Questions…

  By Nathan Ikon Crumpton

  September 18, 2013

  Without the athletes there’s no Olympic team, no $5 billion in IOC revenue, no multi-million dollar TV contracts, no Team USA, and no Games.

  So let’s take a look at how American athletes fare from all this money that’s being generated from the sweat of their labors.

  1) How much of USOC’s funds are allocated to directly supporting athletes?

  Earlier this summer the United States Olympic Committee (the “USOC” for short – the only 501(c)3 non-profit sanctioned by Congress to represent the United States at the Olympic Games) released its IRS 990 tax return for 2012. This allows the public to view and analyze its financial information for the past 4 year “quadrennium Olympic cycle” (or “quad”).

  So let’s start with the athletes: how much of the USOC’s expenses go to them?

  All of the following services are included in the figures for direct athlete support:
  •“Athlete performance pool – support training” (i.e. stipends)
  •“Elite Athlete Health Insurance & Other Medical Benefits for Athletes”
  •“Operation Gold – awarding top place finishes”
  •“Tuition assistance to pursue a college degree”
  •And “Special grants not already included above”

  The 2009-2012 direct athlete support expense totaled: $81,622,014.

  The 2009-2012 expense budget for the USOC totaled: $795,917,076.

  That means that 10.3% of total expenses were in direct support of US Athletes.

  USOC 2009-2012 Direct Athlete Support Table

  (Click here to download complete spreadsheet analysis)

  2) So where does the rest of the money go?

  According to Charity Navigator, an independent non-profit organization that rates other charities’ effectiveness, the USOC still directs 76.2% of its expenses towards “Program Expenses,” from which the 10.3% for athletes is derived. (The USOC earned 3 out of 4 stars on Charity Navigator‘s rating system for finances, accountability, and transparency.)

  Here’s a 2009-2011 USOC Athlete Advisory Council (AAC) chart showing the average annual breakdown of expenses: GRAPH DID NOT COPY—(-use the above 2009-2011 USOC AAC Chart as the address to find it)

  usoc expenses breakdown( this will also work)

  3) So what is “USOC Member Support?”

  Most of the money goes to “member support” which means the individual National Governing Bodies (NGBs) and other institutions that provide services to the USOC.

  For example, the largest recipient of USOC funding in 2011 (a non-Olympic year where summer and winter sports have more balanced expenses), the largest recipient of USOC funds was the US Ski & Snowboard Association NGB, with $3.45 million in grants. Following them were USA Track & Field with $2.72 million, US Speedskating with $2.52 million, USA Swimming with $2.49 million, and US Shooting with $1.75 million.

  In total, in 2011 17 NGBs received over $1 million in grant money from the USOC. And 37 NGBs or other organizations received between $100,000 and $1 million.

  However, it is important to remember that each NGB is its own independent non-profit organization, and can receive funding from its own sponsors and fundraising efforts. For example, although the US Ski & Snowboard received $3.45 million from the USOC in 2011, their revenue for that fiscal year was over $24 million.

  4) So at the NGB level, how much of their expenses go towards direct athlete support?

  That depends on the individual NGB. According to a USOC AAC analysis of Summer Sport funding in 2011, the expenses earmarked for direct athlete support vs. the total USOC grant to the NGB are compared in the graph below:

  NGB expense breakdown cred

  (As a related side note, the AAC presented an independent finding on direct athlete support, and calculated that ~6% of the USOC’s expenses were for direct support of US athletes, although those calculations did not include the EAHI [health insurance] expenses.)

  Most athlete stipends, which are reserved for only the top ranked athletes, are in the $400 to $2,000 per month range. Or $4,800 to $24,000 per year, which is below minimum wage for many considering how many hours go into training for the Olympics. And those are the fortunate ones to even receive stipends.

  5) What about the Olympic Training Centers?

  The Olympic Training Centers (OTCs) are an interesting case. Some would consider OTCs a form of direct support for US athletes. They are, after all, state of the art facilities where some US athletes live and train. With 3 OTCs nationwide (Lake Placid NY, Colorado Springs CO, and Chula Vista CA) they cost around $23 million per year – or roughly $100 million per quad – to operate.

  However, according to the USOC AAC, only 13% of US Olympic Sports use the OTCs.

  And of that 13%, only a small handful of those athletes get funded housing. Getting bed space at an OTC can prove an arduous task for an American athlete, especially since the USOC has made an effort to earn money from these world class training facilities by renting out beds and training time.

  At an OTC, it’s common to see athletes from various other countries living and training there since they’re willing to pay, in some cases, over $100 per night per person. And the prospect of making money from an OTC is more attractive to bottom lines than funding a lower ranked US athlete.

  Furthermore, with the recent effort to continue turning OTCs into revenue generating facilities, the USOC has started charging its lower ranked US athletes (i.e. – those who often need the most financial help) for access to the OTCs.

  So for many American athletes, the OTCs are not a form of direct support. Instead they have become an additional form of out-of-pocket expense.

  6) How about administrative expenses?

  Administrative expenses cost about 12% of the total USOC expenses.

  In 2012, 14 USOC executives took home over a quarter million dollars in compensation.

  In other words, there were about a dozen USOC employees receiving over $1 million in compensation during the last quad alone, and that excludes any of the executive compensation within individual NGBs. (And remember that the USOC and the NGBs are considered charities.)

  7) Are the USOC’s financial statements sound?

  All indications are “Yes,” the USOC’s books are sound and clean. Deloitte audits the USOC’s financial statements, although there’s a clear moral hazard there since Deloitte is also a USOC sponsor. However, independent audits (by Grant Thornton) have also come to the conclusion that there are no irregularities in the USOC’s accounting practices.

  The issue it seems is not that the USOC is cooking their books (a claim that might have been more difficult to make in prior quads); rather their operating practices still manage to keep athletes in severely disenfranchised states, often struggling to stay above the poverty line.

  8) Don’t the medalists get huge bonuses if they win a medal?

  The USOC grants bonuses of $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $5,000 for bronze (The “Operation Gold” expenses in the direct athlete support calculations above). However, those bonuses are still taxed, and a gold medalist can expect to only net ~$16,000 from the years of effort that went into winning the medal.

  Russia, another country that traditionally tallies a large number of medals at the Olympics, offered its athletes $100,000 for a gold medal during the Beijing Games, and other nations with smaller total medal counts have offered much larger bonuses for medal winners.

  9) Well, the athlete would still have a gold medal, right?

  Actually, the gold medals are over 90% silver, and are required to have only 6 grams of gold in them.

  Even at over $1,100 an ounce for gold, the Vancouver Olympic Gold Medal (one of the largest and heaviest in history) would only be worth about $500 if smelted down. And an Olympic bronze medal might be worth a few Big Macs at McDonalds. (McDonalds, incidentally, is an Olympic “Top Sponsor” that spent an estimated $240,000,000 for sponsorship privilege in the past quad.)

  Olympic medals are valued for their symbolism, and not their bullion price.

  But since symbolism doesn’t pay the bills, some – like Mark Wells of 1980′s “Miracle On Ice” hockey team – have had to reluctantly part ways with their medals. Mark sold his gold medal to help pay for his medical bills.

  10) Aren’t Olympians considered amateur athletes?

  While once true, amateurism in the Olympics faded out in the 1970′s. The IOC eliminated amateurism in 1971, and the USOC phased it out in 1978.

  The IOC and USOC recognized the fact that athletes were becoming increasingly competitive and needed to dedicate more time, money, and energy into their athletic endeavors. Removing the amateurism stipulations provided the opportunity for athletes to invest more into their training, and raised the level of competition for all.

  In today’s highly competitive world, Olympic success is often a financial arms race to become the best you can be, and professionalism is a part of that. Just without the professional salary for most.

  11) Well, aren’t Olympic athletes all millionaires from their sponsors?

  A cute fantasy. Please read “The Intrinsic Value of Elite Athletes.”

  Or how Olympians’ families have gone broke by supporting their children.

  Or the jobs that Olympians have held while competing, from nurse to janitor.

  Or the actual costs of being an Olympic athlete; costs which are borne by the athletes and their families, and not the USOC.

  12) Has the USOC always been so “Ebenezer Scrooge-ish” with its athletes?

  10.3% direct athlete support, as small as it may seem, is actually a slight improvement from previous quads. Danika Holbrook (Princeton ’95, Olympian ’04) conducted research for USAT that showed that direct athlete support during the first quad after the turn of the century hovered between 6 and 9%.

  The USOC has also become leaner, more transparent, and more efficient since those days as well. While it used to suffer from grossly excessive bureaucracy, a bloated board of directors, and a general lack of transparency, some progress has been made in recent years.

  Many of those organizational problems still exist, which are likely a natural byproduct of being a monopolistic organization working in a competition-free environment. And there have also been a number of follies in recent years, including the embarrassing era in 2009-2010 when the USOC was paying 3 CEOs simultaneously (including Stephanie Streeter’s $1,006,336 compensation package for 10 months of work), and the revolt against USOC management led by a group of NGB executives.

  Needless to say, improvements can still be made.

  According to their Mission Statement, “The vision of the USOC is to enable America’s athletes to realize their Olympic and Paralympic dreams.”

  It just seems ethically questionable that this charity’s mission allows for the exploitation of athletes’ labors to create such considerable wealth for so many executives and administrators while leaving such a difficult financial path for the athletes themselves.

  ——————————————————————-

  Nathan Ikon Crumpton graduated cum laude from Princeton University, where he was a four-year Division I and All-Ivy track & field athlete. He is now an Olympic development athlete with the US Bobsled and Skeleton Federation. He also served in a volunteer capacity on the USOC-AAC’s Task Force on Governance and Resource Allocation. He can be contacted at crumpton@usathletictrust.org

  Discussion about this article can be had on our Facebook Page.

  The biggest conclusions I can draw from this is that the USOC needs to big time figure how to “streamline” themselves way more, so that more money and support is available for the athletes. The differential in what they raised in the above mentioned quadrennial versus what trickled it’s way down through everything the USOC is doing was a paltry 10%—where the hell did it all go! My thoughts here—if it isn’t directly going to support the athletes it’s got to go—-GONE!
  The first thing I would do is cut the board by 75%—you still be able to make all the right decisions.
  Also, it seems ironic that the majority of the athletes who are “poor mouthed” now have to pay to use the training centers to the point they are trying to run the centers off their already bowed backs. It sure looks like the USOC has OUT GROWN its self when you are using these all ready “bare pocketed athletes” to support USOC programs. WOW what’s next!!

  ↑

• 

  Tim Kelley

  April 18, 2014 at 6:45 pm

  Marty, I think I’m reading the article you quoted a little different than you. The way I read it – 10% of USOC revenues go directly to elite athletes. But most of the USOC money goes to “Member Support” – which are the NGBs. So, if the USOC gave 3.5 million to the USSA NGB, then they would also give close to 10% of that, $350K, directly to top skiers and snowboarders in the way of health insurance, stipends and medal premiums.

  You are right that streamlining is most likely needed. Every time there is an administrative layer that siphons of funds … less gets to the athletes.

  I think everyone understands that USOC funding declines after an Olympic year. But say the funding cut from the USOC was 50%. When USOC revenues are 20% of the budget, that’s only a 10% loss of income. So why not cut all programs by 10%? Seems like that would be what a true NGB would do.

  But as LB mentions, the business model of the USSA changed radically in 2008 from that of a NGB to that of a marketing agency. Money is now funneled towards sports then generate the most exposure and can be leveraged to generate the most lucrative corporate sponsorship contracts. That makes great business sense. But that was never intended to be the business model of a non-profit NGB.

  Quite frankly, the USSA has a good scam going. It goes like this: Tell the USOC you are the NGB for 10 sports. Get USOC money for 10 sports. Actually give some of the USOC money to 5 sports and keep the rest to do whatever you want with. Nice! I think in business school they call this the “mafia business model”.

  NoCo needs to learn a lesson that most small buisiness people learn. And that is – when people don’t pay you, then don’t do business with them. NoCo should look to establish their own NGB. Don’t hang around with folks that don’t pay you the money that was supposed to be paid to you by the USOC. Stand up for yourselves and don’t continue to be extorted.

• 

  teamepokeedsbyn

  April 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm

  USA Biathlon

• 

  davord

  April 18, 2014 at 9:52 pm

  The USOC should stick to what they do best: enable and protect dopers (Armstrong, Jones, Montgomery, White, Hamilton, Greene, Lewis, Clark, Gay, Gatlin, Crawford etc, etc). Trying to battle the USOC is pointless at this point. More money will got to ‘sports’ like slope style, half pipe. Sports where guys like Shaun White and Seth Westcott come to the fore….Traditional sports like NoCo and XC will continue to take a hit until there are some major results and results that will come in bunches for a number of years. I suspect more funding for XC, for example, will come if the women continue to produce great results. Perhaps USSA should look elsewhere for more funding. Somehow these two sports need to also get a little more media exposure. Maybe someone needs to do something outlandish and get Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith to talk about it.

• 

  Martin Hall

  April 18, 2014 at 10:02 pm

  Biathlon operates under a different international organization—the International Biathlon Union, not the USOC or FIS.
  Also, I think NOCO is talking of all the Nordic disciplines ( XC M-W, Jumping M-W, NOCO M-W) breaking off from the USSA/USST and going to the FIS, USOC and the IOC for independent recognition as the ruling body and sanctioning organization
  Then this parity and effort by the present USST can wipe out these Nordic Programs for good. I think the message is loud and clear.
  As was pointed out in one of the comments the present USSA/USST has had this plan in place and justified by the year 2008 and the jumping and NOCO guys should have seen it coming—–who knew about it other then those people doing the study and putting the numbers together. Cross country better wake up—you’ll be lucky to make it through this quadrennial. You hardly get any money yourselves now—if it wasn’t for the Red Group support and NFF with Nordic Dave’s foresight and huge effort—you’d essentially have no program. It’s a hell of a way to have to operate.
  A collaboration needs to take place with the power brokers of the US Nordic world to get this ship afloat and operating. It won’t be easy as the USST/USSA needs all of you to get the USOC’s full financial grant, so they can continue to steal it from you. The USOC is not willing to step in and stop this as they should. Shameful on their part.

• 

  davord

  April 18, 2014 at 11:14 pm

  So should there be a private-public partnership, or private teams with private sponsors or teams sponsored by gov’t institutions and corporations, or….? Again though, our sports are not mainstream, we can all agree on that, but that needs to somehow change. There are 300 million people living in this country and a lot of wealth and resources. Obviously not all of that wealth is used at the right time or for the right reasons, but that’s a story for another time. Surely, something has to give here. Either USSA gets some balls and gets more funding whichever way they can or they will continue, like always, to rely on clubs to develop athletes and results. You are not always going to have clubs like APU and skiers like Kikkan Randall bailing out the USSA with world-class results. You just won’t. The last US XC medal at the Olympics was in 1976.

• 

  teamepokeedsbyn

  April 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

  I think ussa should cut the remaining Nordic sports of jumping and xc – they don’t make much money and makes logical sense. As Pointed out above, fis governs skiing, which is worlds apart from ibu able to to support usba, so not a lot of long term viability,as funding really depends upon potential sponsorship and donor money, not intrinsic need. Oh, I wish they cut xc when mr. Bodenstiener was wearing shell choakers, long hair, looking cool making his Olympic dreams a reality. Luke, IMHO, you are a jerk off for not resigning your job before they cut Nordic combined, it was wrong and should not be permitted by the non-profit charged with growing these sports and recruiting future generation. This is just so stupid. Too bad we can’t go back to regional associations. Did I say this was really god damn stupid?

• 

  skijumper

  April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am

  So if nordic combined is now considered a non-medal possibility in 2018 and 2022, does this mean the mens xc team will also be cut??

• 

  JimGalanes

  April 19, 2014 at 2:19 pm

  Be there no doubt that the USOC has given their approval for these actions.

• 

  JimGalanes

  April 19, 2014 at 2:22 pm

  A new NGB for the Nordic Sports has been discussed for decades. It wont ever happen with out the support and approval of the USST, USOC and the FIS. The sad part is the strong community support for the Nordic programs makes it easy for the USST to cut these programs.