|Old news - but still amazes me...||853|
Oct 1, 2002 12:31 PM
|Aitor Gonzales duing 41.2km in 47.54 min.
That's an average of 51.98kph or 32.3mph.
I wouldn't be able to hang on his wheel for a kilometer!
These guys cannot be human!
And it sucks to know that most of us make more money than he does, at least till now.
from velonews: "The recent winner of the 2002 Vuelta a España is certainly the man of the hour. According to reports in the Spanish press, Aitor Gonzalez is now considering offers from six teams including Telekom, Saeco, Acqua & Sapone, Quick Step, Kelme and iBanesto.com.
Gonzalez earned $54,000 this season with Kelme and is said to be seeking an annual contract worth an estimated $600,000. Gonzalez said he's interested in being the sole captain of a team."
Makes you wonder what the other no name domestiques make.
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||DougSloan|
Oct 1, 2002 12:58 PM
|It is amazing what those guys can do. He'd ride us off his wheel in seconds if he wanted to -- 31 mph was the *average* speed for about 25 miles.
Compared to other pro athletes, especially stars, that seems like a ridiculously low salary. Compare that to David Carr, the Fresno State quarterback who signed with the Texans this year for a $45 million base salary over 7 years, with incentives up to $62 million, and guaranteed $16 million over the first 3 years. Plus, he's only one among many.
It must just boil down to what kind of income you can generate, and football must be generating lots more money than cycling. It doesn't seem to have much to do with pure athletic ability.
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||Spunout|
Oct 1, 2002 2:03 PM
|In the United States, a professional sports contract is a license to print money. The value has just gone way out of hand. But, there are alot of people willing to pay $100 to go watch, so there ya go.|
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||tao|
Oct 1, 2002 2:22 PM
|Doesn't Lance make something over 12 million USD all in, per year? Besides a handfull or two of the other top athletes in the country he's at the top, he makes more than well over 99% of all pro baseball, football, and basketball players.|
|ya, but that's just one||DougSloan|
Oct 1, 2002 2:33 PM
|So there is one cyclist doing extremely well. I'd bet there are dozens of pro athletes doing better, by the time you count football (both kinds), baseball, hockey, basketball, auto racing, golf. To be complete, I think you need to include related endorsements, too.
|re: ya, but that's just one||tao|
Oct 1, 2002 2:51 PM
|Of course you're right, except dozenS is strong. Less than two dozen don't you think, and Lance beats all but a few worldwide in endorsements. The average in the above sports are all much higher than cycling, but those at the top in each are all relatively equal, compared with the disparity in average salaries. But I have to think Ullrich (this year's fines notwithstanding), JaJa, and Cipo at the least all do well themselves. My point isn't that cycling is competitive across the board salary wise, but that those at the top of each team (Kelme excepted who are notoriously cheap) do much better than people tend to think.|
Oct 1, 2002 4:29 PM
|These guys don't get paid $hit!!
I was reading the interview on Floyd Landis(bicycling mag)
Saying that he was getting paid $600 a month as a pro on team Mercury.(you can make more working at McDonald's part time)
This is for a profesional athlete!!
What other sport starts there pro's at that rate?
I'm pretty sure that now that he is on Postal he is proabably not making to much more.
Remember that US Postal cycling team got started because they could not afford to sponsor an expensive sport,and get international exposure.
|re: wake up!!||tao|
Oct 1, 2002 4:53 PM
|You're missing my point. But to answer your question, first year pro baseball players often make LESS than 600 USD a month and only get paid for six months. And yes, Floyd is making an order of magnitude more now, which is MORE than not much more.|
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||TrekFurthur|
Oct 2, 2002 6:32 AM
|Most of this figure is endorsements; granted he still probably makes at least 1 million with Postal, but they couldn't pay him 12 mil; the budget isn't that big.|
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||The Human G-Nome|
Oct 1, 2002 3:43 PM
|i'm even amazed when i see an average of 27-28 over that distance (assuming they're not covering only flats). i have along way to go still....|
|highest paid athelete in the world.........||stik__boy|
Oct 1, 2002 3:35 PM
|is michael schumacher....... f1 driver and multi time world champ............. any ideas what he makes a year????? formula one is primarily considered a european interest, so open wheel racing doesnt attract as many fans as in the U.S. where we have the "grand" "sport" of nascar (enter serious sarcasm here.....)..... well michael makes 50 mil a year. cha-ching....|
|highest paid athelete in the world.........||comedy-tragedy|
Oct 1, 2002 4:24 PM
|According to a 60 Minutes II feature earlier this year, Schumacher is actually being forced to get by on about 80 mil per year. I think it was 35 mil in pure salary and the balance in endorsements.
Sucks to be the best there ever was at something doesn't it!
|how does he get by????? NM||stik__boy|
Oct 1, 2002 4:49 PM
|Don't know, but I'd like to give it a shot! =) nm||look271|
Oct 2, 2002 5:57 AM
Oct 2, 2002 6:45 AM
|you wouldn't last one lap out on a nascar track. any half-witted person knows that it takes quite a bit of talent to drive a car at speed with 41 other cars jostling for position in limited space.|
|Old news - but still amazes me...||dmilkerson|
Oct 2, 2002 9:10 AM
|Since NASCAR is only followed by a bunch of half-witted people, they are the only ones to know that little tid bit you provided us with.
Only a half-wit would be entertained by watching cars go round and round for a few hours.
|nice bit of slander||thejerseydevil|
Oct 2, 2002 10:18 AM
|It amazes me that you can make such a generalization about everyone that watches NASCAR and dare to call other people half-witted. I suspect your reply is in jest, since the other possibilities are intellectual dishonesty or sheer ignorance.
There is plenty more to see during a NASCAR race then just the act of the cars making left hand turns at the 3 or more corners on a given track. Do you attend crits or watch cycling on TV? I found both to be just as boring as I thought NASCAR was at one time - before I understood what the nuances were and how the respective races were played out.
|'Dirt Track Date' by S.C.O.T.S., sure, lots going on at a race!||Spunout|
Oct 2, 2002 4:53 PM
|I'm just reminded of a band called 'Southern culture on the skids' and their song 'Dirt Track DAte'. funniest thing I've ever seen. YOu know you're in for a good show when they start throwing fried chicken into the audience!
Saw them here in Ottawa at our Blues Festival. And yes, Nascar is for rednecks.
|Old news - but still amazes me...||PbOkole|
Oct 2, 2002 10:27 AM
|By the same token, some would say that only a half wit would be entertained by watching a skinny little guy ride a bicycle up a big hill at ~20 mph or on a flat course at ~32mph for a couple of hours. Since I seem to have all my wits about me and follow both NASCAR and cycling, it would seem you are painting your generalizations with a brush a bit too broad.|
|re: Old news - but still amazes me...||aliensporebomb|
Oct 2, 2002 7:34 AM
|32 mph AVERAGE?
Good God, can you image how fast he is when he goes all out?
|list of highest paid athletes in 2000||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2002 11:38 AM
Below is the list of 21 highest paid atheletes in
Highest-paid athletes in 2000 Figure in millions of US dollars)
1. Michael Schumacher 59.0
2. Tiger Woods 53.0
3. Mike Tyson 48.0
4. Michael Jordan 37.0
5. Grant Hill 26.0
6. Dale Earnhardt 24.5
7. Shaquille O'Neal 24.0
8. Lennox Lewis 23.0
9. Oscar De Le Hoya 23.0
10. Kevin Garnett 21.0
11. George Foreman 20.1
12. Kobe Bryant 20.0
13. Arnold Palmer 18.0
14. Scottie Pippen 18.0
15. Andre Agassi 17.5
16. Alonzo Mourning 17.0
17. Karl Malone 16.0
18. Juwan Howard 16.0
19. Mike Piazza 15.0
20. Peyton Manning 15.0
21. Greg Norman 15.0
1. Martina Hingis 11.0
2. Anna Kournikova 10.0
3. Venus Williams 10.0
4. Serena Williams 7.5
5. Lindsay Davenport 6.0
Source: Forbes Magazine
|more on athletes salaries/72 yr old who beat Lance||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2002 11:48 AM
"Arnold Palmer, whose status in professional golf is as colossal as Schumacher's in motor racing, still made $17 million last year as a 72-year-old."
And get this:
"Woods, who is predicted to make $1 billion from golf by the time he is 35." Holy cow!
|No name salaries||ms|
Oct 2, 2002 1:07 PM
|Every profession has its stars, who usually are compensated at a level far above even the next rung down on the prestige/competence level of the profession. It is great to be a star, and I do not blame the stars for taking whatever the market will bear. I think that the disproportionate salaries among various star athletes reflects the market for the particular sports in which they are engaged, not the relative merit of the athletes against each other. For the rest of the bunch, the no names in the world, whether they be cyclists or lawyers, they probably feel that they are not paid enough. But, part of the compensation of being a professional in any field of endeavor is the reward one gets from doing the job itself. If you hate what you are doing, it takes a lot of money to compensate you for your efforts; if you like what you are doing, you will be happy even if you are not paid as much as you think you should be. How many people on this board if they were in their 20s would be willing to ride a bike full time for $54,000, even if stars are making several orders of magnitude more?|
|you must be kidding||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2002 1:31 PM
|>How many people on this board if they were in their 20s would be willing to ride a bike full time for $54,000...
You kidding? I'd do it right now, and I'm 42. ;-)
|you must be kidding||ms|
Oct 2, 2002 2:25 PM
|What I meant was that I am sure that most of us here would ride full time for $54,000 per year. The reason for the age qualifier is that by the time one hits 40 (I'm 43), one has acquired obligations that require more money than one needed earlier in life (wait until your son is a little older and you will know what I mean), so it would be a harder decision.|
Oct 2, 2002 3:36 PM
|Oh, yes, that would not support the present lifestyle. My point is that I'd sell everything for that opportunity. Heck, the difference would just about be accounted for in free bikes, right?
|I'd do it for $25K and here's why...||lonefrontranger|
Oct 2, 2002 1:52 PM
|I would have most if not all of my equipment and sports nutrition expenses taken care of, this is a huge chunk of change we're talking about re: annual expenditures, plus I would not have the associated costs of maintaining a reliable car and commuting to work in it, and most importantly I'd be doing something I dearly loved which is worth easily 40-50% salary cut. The only worry might be medical coverage, which I don't have with my current job as it is. If you're young and not supporting a family I don't see why it couldn't be a decent deal.
I've seen how some of the lower level pro bike racers live and they can live pretty daggone cheap without sacrificing much. Let's face it, these guys usually don't spend a lot on beer and cigarettes or maintaining expensive girlfriends (often it's the GF that does some of the support by driving them around to races and letting them live-in for free). These guys live like monks and don't seem to require much in the way of entertainment capital either.
Oct 30, 2002 5:28 AM
|What does a Game Boy cost? $50?
BTW, how much do you spend on "sports nutrition" if is really is substantial, perhaps you should think about alternatives. Not just to save money, but to cut down on the intake of highy processed sports food. I find that is best both economically and nutritionally to limit sports drinks and foods to on-bike consumption only, and even then to eat some real food on the bike as well to avoid overdosing on sports food.