U.S. Ski Team Comes Up Short... again!
As they say, History repeats itself, and once again the U.S. Ski Team cannot afford to fund their athletes, including me. After one of the best seasons in the history of U.S. Skiing (2 overall World Cup Titles, 3 discipline titles, 15 World Cup wins, and 37 Podiums) the National Team, led by Alpine Coordinator Jesse Hunt, does not have the financial backing to fully fund their team. What's wrong with this picture? As of now the athletes who are not funded include Erik Schlopy, who happens to be one of our best skiers and a 3-time Olympian, 7-time National Champion, World Championship Bronze Medalist, and 3rd place overall World Cup G.S. skier...again, what's wrong with this picture? Dane Spencer, also one of our best skiers, is coming back from a near fatal injury and happens to be a 2-time Olympian and National Champion. Oddly Dane was not even named to the team, even though this was his first year back after breaking his neck and crushing his pelvis. Dane and I were both given access to train with the National Team on our own dime, which is proposed to cost between $20,000 and $30,000 for the Season. Furthermore, Jake Zamansky (currently ranked 5th in the U.S. and 54th in the World in G.S.) who earned a World Cup spot by winning the Nor Am G.S. standings has been ostracized from the U.S. Ski Team and is not even allowed to pay his way to train with the World Cup Team...once again, what's wrong with this picture? Just wait; there's more. Recently the entire Men's C-Team was told they have to pay for the competition portion of their season, which will cost each of them $10,000. The C-Team includes the best up and coming athletes in our country including Will Brandenburg, who is ranked 1st in the World for his age, and Travis Ganong, who is one of the best 4 event skiers I have seen since Bode Miller. Do I dare say it again...what's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you what's wrong. Our organization, or "company" as upper management likes to call it, has lost site of their core values. To put it bluntly, Jesse Hunt (our Alpine Coordinator) summarized it best by saying "the organization is not going the direction of the athlete/individual." This was a direct quote that I received from Hunt when I asked for help in my recovery from my injury. If the organization is not going the direction of the individual (keep in mind skiing is an individual sport, not a team sport) then where is it going? I'll tell you where. It's going to the pockets of the upper management, specifically CEO Bill Marolt, who egregiously recorded a $300,000 bonus this season on top of his already high $700,000/year salary (up from $559,880 in 2004). That's right, over $1million dollars for the CEO of a non-profit organization that can't even afford to sufficiently fund their own athletes...that's what's wrong with this picture! (Although I cannot find this year's accounting information as of yet, I have a reliable source within the organization that backs this claim). Either way you look at it, Marolt is overpaid, and although he is entitled to a good salary due to the stellar results the Team posted this year, his athletes are suffering. What makes the problem worse and harder to swallow; is that all of us were told by Hunt that the Ski Team is downsizing because he believed it was best for "everybody." By everybody I'm assuming he meant executives like himself and Marolt, so they could cut athletic funding yet maintain his astronomical salary for a non-profit organization *(I make this claim in light of study done in 2007 by Charity Navigator, which keeps an eye out on non-profit organizations, and found that the average salaries for non-profit executives fell around $145,270). Hunt's poor excuse for a cover-up did not resonate well with current Ski Team members, as none of them agree with his philosophy to downsize. Furthermore, every single named athlete protested Hunt's decision to cut Dane Spencer, Jake Zamansky and myself because it was unethical and downright illegal in Zamansky's case. I say illegal because Zamansky actually made the Ski Team's published criteria for his age, and is entitled to a spot on the team regardless of any individual criteria he was given. That's what's wrong with this picture! So, to answer any questions about my position with the team here it is. I am not a named athlete, but I am able to train with the World Cup Team on my own dime, and compete for World Cup spots next season. My plan is to solidify my comeback and attend to the unfinished business I left on the hill after my injury. If you are interested in joining my comeback I welcome any and all support. Thanks for listening... Bryon
- TAGS:
- Skiing
Roger_Dorn said May 16, 2008
billirwin replied May 27, 2008
Bill Irwin Merdith N.H. 03253
flobro2000 replied May 29, 2008
Bill Marolt should be strung up by his thumbs for taking such a high salary in a so called "non-profit" organization. The same thing happened with The United Way a few years ago, and execs nationally and locally were taking middle six and seven figure salaries. I as a result immediately cut off all of my corporate donations to the United Way. I only work with organizations that are run by volunteers, or ethical people with realistice salaries. Anyone can live on the median range of pay you say is the median pay for non profit execs. The team sponsors should be contacted to see if they agree with so much of their funding going towards a greedy CEO.
Sean Florian
Coach, Ex Racer, 20 year AO
flobro2000 replied May 31, 2008
I think the main thing that needs to be done is thousands of letters need to be written in protest to the USST for allowing this to happen. The whole system is broken and has been for quite some time and it all starts from the top. There needs to be a major house cleaning in USSA and the USST, or all the athletes should revolt, pool together and start their own Ski Team and leave the USST high and dry.
The way they have ridden on the athletes backs for so many years and treat them like throw away commodities is just wrong. Also the fact that an athlete is basically penalized for going to college, getting an education first and then giving the USST a go. It just doesn't happen. I think Ski Racing is one of the only sports where College is not a breeding ground for Professional Athletes. College athletes should be the teams first source for development.
I could go on and on about what is wrong with US skiing, but all I can say is I think you have started something good Byron, and hopefully USSA and the USST will stand up and take notice and change their ways, or they may not be around in a few years.
goskifast replied July 23, 2009
i just want you to take a look at this...i think its a little outrageous that people like this are praising him so highly when he has failed to provide his athletes with sufficient funding.
http://wcsnblogs.com/olympics/alanabrahamson/alanabrahamson/2009/06/03/bill-marolt-gets-it/
eschlopy said May 16, 2008
if we athletes are, in the minds of the management, considered "investments", then that would conclude that each individual athlete is "stock" therefore the entire A,B, and C teams collectively form a "mutual fund".
as in most mutual funds, there is a good balance between "value", "growth", and sometimes (risky funds) "penny stocks". it's up to the mutual fund manager to decide which stocks to buy, sell, or hold. it's also his job to appropriate a winning balance between these three types of stocks. if we were to assign skiers to each one of these categories it would look like this:
value stocks: older skiers that have had proven results in the past, but for one reason or another have had recent struggles. as value stocks do, they bring balance to the portfolio. you know that you will get some return on the investment. it could be modest, it could be great, but it's not risky. a good mutual fund always has an appropriate number of value stocks in it's portfolio.
growth stocks: younger world cup skiers who are presently skiing well. slightly riskier, but a great return on investment. similar to google or yahoo (also growth stocks) they will be media darlings and most likely more volatile than a value stock. the return is hit or miss, but over time is generally a good play and must be implemented in every portfolio.
penny stocks: unproven, very young skiers showing up on the proverbial "radar". an incredibly risky proposition that sometimes yields incredible returns. unfortunately the robust returns only come from a fraction of the skiers. most mutual fund managers aren't even interested in penny stocks, but because this is skiing, and development is necessary, we have to assume that this mutual fund will invest in penny stocks.
conclusion:
our mutual fund manager has decided that he would like to abandon all investment reasoning and proven strategies. he essentially would like to sell all value stocks (that have yielded nice returns) and use the capital to buy penny stocks. this will put our mutual fund into a compromised state by throwing off the balance of the investment. no manager in his right mind would sell all his value stock and "bet the house" on penny stock. it just doesn't follow good investment sense, and is unnecessarily risky.
so if we athletes are "investments" as the management has told us, then why doesn't our mutual fund manager apply sound investment techniques? not sure, but it would be nice for the real life investors (the athletes and sponsors) if he did.
Dewey said May 16, 2008
Diana said May 16, 2008
davegalu replied May 19, 2008
As we have all pondered the situation on the non or partiality funded athletes and the relationship of this to USSA/USST budgets, I am glad to see some discussion. Knowing you as an athlete and a quality person, I can appreciate that you coming out on this is based on your ethical obligations and not just sour grapes. Gutsy! There are many of us who can ill afford to make enemies with the powers that be and have personal and professional relationships to protect, including yourself. But, given this, we still owe it to ourselves to raise good questions when we have good reason. The USST had a very successful year athletically. But, if you really look at it, Bode was independent, so take his titles, wins and WC points out of the picture. Still a very good season, and some bright spots with up and coming WC athletes, but was the depth there to justify the decisions made regarding older or return from injury athletes with proven WC results? Probably not. The message to great athletes, who have done all the right things to get to the top, and have been left unfunded is as powerful as cutting them completely. Reallocation of funding, as your thoughts reflect, is one answer to the problem. Are there a variety of ways to do this? Ideas like fund the A Team and cost share deficits with all other athletes equally, for instance. Then help those athletes in seeking outside support and sponsorships. This would tell it like it is, you make the USST you share in your funding, you make the A Team, you are fully funded. The biggest problem I see in the current funding categories is that decisions are made on individual athletes who have qualified to the same team levels. Many factors, not always athletic, can enter into these decisions. My suggestion would take the decision making on the athlete funding issue out of the subjective evaluation of each athlete and would allow equal sharing of increased funding when those cycles emerge. Putting athlete funding where it belongs within the company is perhaps the more direct route to solving this problem. On a personal note, I'm very glad to hear that you are continuing to pursue the dream that you were so close to prior to your injury.
davegalusha
EasternSkier said May 16, 2008
billy02 said May 16, 2008
Smiley said May 16, 2008
I really hope you guys will be able to get some financial support - maybe you should try raising funds in Europe instead of the USA?
EHomey said May 16, 2008
Best of luck to you and all the other guys that are getting screwed and have to deal with stress being a full-time fundraiser and professional athlete.
pistolpete said May 16, 2008
southernskier replied May 19, 2008
skidude324 said May 16, 2008
mkeuler said May 17, 2008
Interesting reading your article. I was the head coach for the Nordic Jumping team last year with the Ski Team. I feel you and your teammates pain. In 2002 the US Ski Team cut all funding for development of ski jumping and only supported an A team saying "the sport is too competitive and not enough disciplines to justify supporting a mens ski jumping program ." Currently they have completely abolished the male sport from thier organization. Ski jumping is in a crisis and without those directly involved will potentially be gone for ever. Does this uphold a nonprofit organizations claim to support all ski sports especially ones that have been around the longest? I agree with you and believe the organization is totally lost and immoral in thier direction and agenda, particularly in upper management. Most of the coaches have the best intentions but thier voice is seldom heard outside of matters that are sport related.
Best of luck and let me know ifI can help in any way,
Mike Keuler
skiparent said May 18, 2008
skichick63 said May 18, 2008
Barb
RacingFan said May 18, 2008
999999 said May 19, 2008
Gstephenson said May 19, 2008
Very interesting, and as you say history repeats itself. I heard the same lines a while back and I couldn't agree with you more. I had now idea that Merolt makes as much as he does. Personally I don't get it, a CEO is running his compnay out of cash and is having to sell off its key investments to survive, yet he is getting a bonus for such behavior. I think USSA needs to grab a couple of basic business books and learn how to manage their investment portfollio.
Any way, best of luck and just look at guys like Patrick Jarbin who have been cut by their governing bodies only to come back with some of the best results of their careers.
mitchwf said May 19, 2008
Wonder why you skiers couldn't do it yourselves. The sport isn't completely different for the athlete than tennis. Athletes go to races they qualify for and work up to higher circuits. (Though you need to train together for hill space etc.) The wheel was invented by Bode Miller last year. I think you could use his model and get going as a confederation of athletes and tap into sponsors and donors that way. If you use the web, it probably wouldn't be any more time consuming than fundraising for yourselves separately. The only problem would be if the national organization "owns" the starting slots for the various international series.
I would give $ to support the break-away. I get fund solicitation all the time from USSA. I won't give them a penny because of grandiose expenses like the "center" and incomprehensible "athlete management" decisions.
Good luck to all of you,
Mitch
Tired1 said May 19, 2008
Tadams said May 19, 2008
T
icccllc said May 19, 2008
I can only hope that those athletes no longer being funded succeed, by the way will you be able to use the CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IF YOU SUCCEED.
troywatts said May 19, 2008
Team the
Loyalty
Integrity
Respect
Perseverance
Accountability
caitciccone said May 19, 2008
caitlin
troywatts said May 19, 2008
goodtimes said May 19, 2008
There are some great people working for the USSA and USST who face many of the same challenges and frustrations as the athletes. I would just like to help people understand the huge difference between the apparent greed of the upper tier at USSA and the thankless devotion of many of its coaches and staff. Also, in my opinion Jesse Hunt is a good man in a tough spot. You may not agree with his policies, he may make big mistakes, but don't question his motives. He has made huge sacrifices for the USST, and he has certainly not done so in pursuit of the almighty peso. Let's make sure we don't put the coaches, or Mr. Hunt, in the same boat with Mr. Marolt and some of his Vice Presidents (he's not the only one pulling down big dollars while the athletes are left high and dry).
troywatts said May 19, 2008
schilds said May 19, 2008
RacingFan said May 19, 2008
"TIME FOR MAROLT TO BOLT!!!!!!!!"
RacingFan said May 19, 2008
"TIME TO BOLT MAROLT"
shirette said May 19, 2008
I'm sure the building going up in Park City is being funded by a Capital Fund which is a separate fund raising. However the the givers to this fund might prefer their monetary gifts going to athletes if they knew that money was so very tight. Aggressive fund raising should have been in place for the athletes when our dollar was falling against the euro over a year ago. Also perhaps Marolt should not have accepted his bonus as some honorable, personally wealthy, CEO's have done when their company is in trouble.
You Athletes, all of you, in Cross Country, Snowboarding and Skiing need to form a Guild. Divided and individually you have no power. BTW what has occurred with the athletes in Snowboarding?
gumby52 said May 19, 2008
Marolt is overpaid compared to industry standards, but lets face it the ski companies now charge thousands for equipment, because they can't generate new skiers. Resorts are country clubs for the rich,and no one outside of skiing cares. Fight the good fight, those who work for the team in the office are puppets an keep their jobs by going along with Marolt.
iskisnow said May 19, 2008
mdistefano said May 19, 2008
Thx for a well written article. Paerson has suggested a skiers' guild for different reasons, but I think some type of athletes' union would be a start.
It's not at all a level playing field for North Americans re. your funding and marketability when compared to your european peers. One could say "tough, that's how it is" re. our cultural love affair with baseball, football, hockey, and basketball, but you can make an effective counter argument by looking at golf and tennis.
The difference? Marketing.
If Marolt is going to be paid that kind of money, he better be BRINGING IN that kind of money. Other than the 4 year Olympic cycle, it appears as though many of you guys work your nuts off in relative obscurity - at least on this side of the pond.
It's distressing to see an emphasis on development level athletes because there is scant evidence that any significant proportion of them will make it to the top-30 in WC. In short, it's a bad bet based both on historical trends and an understanding of the typical athlete development curve. It's not a coincidence that many of the winners on the WC are in their 30s.....
Best of luck!
Regards,
Matt
StCerque said May 19, 2008
A while back there was an article in "Ski Racing" about how the support of athletes was having to be cut back because of the rapid decline in the dollar (that, at least, can be blamed on the Bush administration) and because 70% of racing/training expense was incurred outside the US and therefore paid in foreign and more expensive currencies. That makes sense mathematically, but that doesn't mean that's the area to cut.
The whole point is to field the very best national team possible, both highly competitive and deep, the reason being that alpine racing has at least as high an injury factor as any professional or "world class" sport. A strong team one week may be decimated the next.
Not having any first hand knowledge of the organization and the persons involved beyond being a dues paying member, a sometimes race official, a sometimes race volunteer, and a sometimes Masters racer, I can't make comments about specifics. But there are some pointed observations to be made from the way the world seems to work generally. First, the foundation upon which this is built is the dependence on donations both in money and time. The reported salary level is not likely to sit well with those who give so much for nothing beyond love of the sport. I have never thought of, or observed, skiers, particularly those who follow, support, or participate in racing to be "hero worshippers" as is the case with professional major sports. Its going to be a real turn-off for a lot of people and support is likely to go down, rather than increase, as it becomes known that the administrative/executive budget is being maintained at the expense of "mission" accomplishment.
Second, it is not at all clear, or even likely, that high compensation is likely to bring better results than modest compensation. There is NO management job that requires any single individual. Look at the business world generally: so many highly compensated CEO's have done serious damage to their companies: AT&T (the former), Citicorp, HP, Enron, WorldCom, Home Depot, and on and on. So often, when the problem becomes apparent and the causes the question often asked Is: "Whatever were the thinking?" Often the problems turn out to reult from ego-driven decision making that ended to discount realities. In the case of the USSA I'd bet there are at least a 100 different people who not only are competent and would do the same or better job, but would love to do it, and would do it for about 20-25% of the current salary. And that will support another 20 racers or so.
Third, the approach taken is very short-sighted. The Millers, Ligetys, Vonns and Mancusos can pretty well take care of themselves. But what will happen by creating a huge chasm the size of Grand Canyon to leap over to get to the point where ski-racing will at least pay for itself will discourage many of the several hundreds who are on the cusp; who have the potential ability to stay in there and compete for world ranking. Junior racers become young racers who eventually become adults and begin to realize that they can't do this forever, particularly at their parents expense.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Executive compensation alone is not the solution. But it needs to be seriously addressed with a lot of input from both those who are most affected and by some folks that haven't been so involved in the USSA such that their vision may be colored.
J2Parent said May 19, 2008
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=870480724&yr=200604&rt=990&t9=A
I'm the parent of a J2 in the east. This doesn't please me at all. Every year when we renew our racer's USSA license, we add a donation to the USSA. Not anymore. We'll donate that amount of money to both NHARA and to a elite racer that needs funding.
Let me say this. Marolt makes more in base compensation than the COO of my company, which just did over $2.5B in revenues for the past year...
troywatts replied May 19, 2008
mmthski replied May 19, 2008
Mhallski said May 19, 2008
Meredith Masters Racer
racerex said May 19, 2008
callie said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
''Life ain't a dress rehearsal!''
shirette said May 19, 2008
SEND AN EMPTY ENVELOPE TO THE USST WITH A NOTE BUT NO MONEY TELLING THEM WHY. FLOOD THEM WITH EMPTY ENVELOPES.
skichick63 replied May 21, 2008
I am impressed with Bryon's professionalism and ability to retain his integrity while being skewered by the Team. Keep up the fight Bryon.
jksail said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
srdusa said May 19, 2008
DirtyPeteVT said May 19, 2008
I have been very frustrated to see some of my good friends work their asses off to make it to the top of the game, only to be told they weren't on the team or would not be funded. USST athletes, friends and I have spent a lot of time debating this issue and have come to one conclusion. Its time for a for-profit ski team. This year proved we have the talent, I am convinced it is a matter of lining up a couple interested sponsors and skilled coaches... (and a management team that knows their place).
Keep spreading the word, ski racing is a rather small and well connected community... we just need to let people know that our nation's best skiers are struggling....
Pete
mmthski said May 19, 2008
MB
europeanfan said May 20, 2008
Bryon, you should take over Sport Tv ,...let them know and let the country knows about the situation.
Time to make a petition and take over Bill Marolt. The US Ski team need right know some changes . Let's kick Bill marolt out.
cc, a big european fan
billski said May 20, 2008
It reached a pinnacle with me this year, when some USST fundraiser (probably a third party taking a 70% cut) called me 2 months after I had given an unsolicited donation, begging for more. Two months later, they called again. I wrote a note indicating this was unappreciative, greedy behavior and did not want to hear from them again until next year.
I have to agree, it's time for a full management shake-out (with no golden boot!) We can ill-afford leeches. I am sure they can find an even better manager for half the price of BM.
I'll be thinking long and hard about contributing to USST. It may probably be more prudent to give to feeder organizations. I'll vote with my money, but make sure the athletes and coaches don't get hurt in the process.
shirette said May 20, 2008
SFI Foundation
P.O. Box 682632
Park City, UT 84068
Our website is currently under construction and will be up soon!
billski said May 20, 2008
In '07 Only 47 cents of every dollar raised reached the athletes. Fundraising expenses increased $2.7 million last year, while the program only got $650K more funding than the prior year. So, you spend 4 dollars to get one incremental dollar to the athletes? Egads. It's pretty clear that management is out of control and not just on salaries.
thank you shirette for the recommendation. I'm new here and don't know who Paul McDonald is, but happy to reach out and make contact. I will be happy to spread the word if he works as you say.
oldskicoach replied May 22, 2008
simmz123 said May 20, 2008
Any chance of joining Bode on Team America? Is he still doing that?
shirette said May 20, 2008
I quit giving to the Cancer Fund years ago because the money was going to top heavy salaries and limos. BTW, I recall reading or hearing Tom Kelly PR for the USSA saying he flew back from Austria on a private jet. I surely hope the USST wasn't paying anything for that. Maybe an audit is called for.
Kilian said May 20, 2008
This was enough for me i tried all ways i could to move on with my carreer and as you know i ended up skiing for Bulgaria. It took me 3 years now to kind of get back where i was. it was a hard rocky way but now i can do what i love most . Skiing somwhat independent. The sad thing is that i was one of the last guys that could change nation even though it was an obstacle race that cost me a fortune and needed more energy than anything else. After my move to Bulgaria Fis has changed his rule book again to almost make it impossible. So skiers are basically stuck in prison and have to do and accept what the federation tells them. If they won t let you race even though you deserve it ....... what can you do.. go to court until your 40 or accept it. We are in the 21 st century but these companys are treating us like slaves.... not all but most of them.
I like the fact that you are accepting the way it is but that you still speak up and you show what the truth it.
It is a shame that your federation is treating especially Caroline , Dan and you like shit knowing that you guys have been fighting so hard to make a comeback and i am looking forward to the day you guys are kicking ass. This would even be rare in Austria.
I hope that there are people out there that will support you guys and that you all continue and follow your dreams and hey lets meet on the podium in Vancouver sounds like a good idea :-)
lets make it happen. i ll be 36 by than but hey a recent study proved that 37 is the age where we reach the peak as an athlete if you also consider experience tactics etc....its just funny that they always want to get ride of the old athletes i think we d better should get ride of the people telling us this. keep on fighting and see you around
kilian
skidadinnh said May 20, 2008
AiliOjalaBlank said May 20, 2008
jareds941 said May 20, 2008
DOWNHILL SLOPE: U.S. skier Bryon Friedman, on his blog, wrote the U.S. Ski Team "cannot afford to fund their athletes, including me." The team "does not have the financial backing to fully fund their team." Friedman: "If the organization is not going the direction of the individual (keep in mind skiing is an individual sport, not a team sport) then where is it going? I'll tell you where. It's going to the pockets of the upper management, specifically CEO Bill Marolt, who egregiously recorded a $300,000 bonus this season on top of his already high $700,000/year salary" (YARDBARKER.com, 5/17).
I wish you the best in your pursuit of funding. I've seen this age discrimination first hand with a local top-level skier that could never catch a break. I hope this helps in some way. I will say, there are a lot of decision makers that read the SBD, so maybe a sponsor will come through...
ggarber said May 20, 2008
Best of luck,
Graham Garber
srdusa said May 20, 2008
Each team will also be responsible for its training, schedule, public relations, travel and transport, etc... Athletes are signed to contract by term and can move from team to team as desired. Each Team would be required to have a certain number of members to keep the race fields full and a point system would be used for qualifying criteria. There can be more team events as well as team/manufacture rankings. Why not have special "winner take all" events? Head to head races again?
Again, find a steep street in a major city - throw snow down- put up the lights and have a SL race downtown with 100,000 people watching and partying. Events can be put on by professional event promoters (X Games/Red Bull events) where TV rights can be sold per event and again bring in sponsor dollars and increased prize money.
I met recently at my office with the recent ex-head coach of the USA Mens team and we both agreed this direction is the future. How do we get it moving- Bode's Team America is a start, whats next?
Catskills said May 20, 2008
I agree that the ski team is not forward thinking in terms of the global picture of the sport. While other sports have their challenges with funding, the idea of factory teams is progressive. I too was apart of a similar discussion in the afore mentioned warehouse on a different occasion. The idea of creating this much excitement is boundless. This concept would truly make alpine ski racing a global sport.
But back to the real point. Athlete funding, there has been too much funny math going on for too long. USSA is in place to represent our athletes. Talk about ethics. Where is USSA's ethics? There are more Byron's, Jake's, Dane's and Libby's out there that you can imagine. If you know of a former USST athlete, ask them what it was like for their family to fund the machine. At $35,000 to start and the price goes up from there, it it really worth the sticker we get in the mail with our card?
I want our best athletes representing our national team with no questions asked. If an athlete is the best, they are on the team.
To Bryon Friedman, I commend you for using some the the very skills that the USST and USSA has helped develop for you. After all didn't Marolt mention skill development beyond skiing in his recent keynote speech?
To everyone out there that has become aware of this, send a message.
doda009 said May 20, 2008
followthemoney said May 21, 2008
Now, you have to spend some time looking though these and do some math, but anyone can check my work. Marolt oversees five separate corporations (you have to do some reading to figure out what each of these do). There are two for profit companies, one I would guess to sell the coaches CDs/DVSs that we get to pay for on top of our member fees and I am not sure what the other is for. There are three non-profits, the Foundation, where everyone gets their mail and calls from, USSA which is the membership base, and another foundation that has an endowment from the 1980 Los Angles Olympics.
Following I give a total of Marolts pay plus any bonus and the percentage of change from year to year after totaling the pay for the five corporations (oh, and you can also see that USSAs fiscal year ends on April 30th each year)
season 03/04 $531,666
season 04/05 $559,758 a 5.28% increase
season 05/06 $576,737 a 3.03% increase
season 06/07 $578,330 a 0.28% increase
now, season 06/07 ending April 30, 2007 is the most recent data available, and my guess is that they won't have 07/08 available any time soon. But, if your 'source' is correct and Marolt made $700,000 this year, that would be a 21% raise and a $300,000 bonus would be another 40%. Now, I may be wrong, and when those returns come out, if it shows that level of pay I will come back and say I was wrong, but I find it very hard to believe that after such relatively small raises in the three years before he would jump up from 578 thousand to 1 million in one year. I don't believe the compensation committee which has just a few members and those are folks who donate big $s (500,000 plus) are going to allow their donations to give Marolt a big pay raise at the expense of athletes.
Now, 578 thousand still isn't chump change, and I would love to be paid that much, heck half that, okay, even a quarter that would be great, but I think your source is wrong to tell you Marolt was paid a million dollars last season.
Again, not acting as an apologist here, I just want people to be a little bit tmore fact based than purely speculation and rumor.
Good luck in your quest to make it back.
lkjh44 said May 21, 2008
racersdad said May 21, 2008
Lets get the word out to the parents of all ski racers and Trustees of USSA and see what they think of how the ski team operates. Not only non funding Injuries,how many times did Marolt or others in the organization contact you or others that have been injured and see how you are doing???????or if we can help in any way? Does Marolt even Know the majority of HIS atheletes by name and face or just on paper?
This is finally getting out so maybe there will be change for the better good job to all on the team for what they have done on and off the slopes.
Bryon thanks for finally writing about what is happening.
skipops said May 21, 2008
bobhill said May 21, 2008
SRD - Why not go ahead and start the first team, within the current structure? Evolutionary change is usually easier and better than a total revolution. If Bode can do it alone, surely someone can organize a team with a cadre of top racers AND developing racers, each of which would operate much like Bode did this season, representing their country, but not as a member of their national team. All you need is a CEO with the marketing and management skills to pull it all together. Bill Marolt might be available soon!
Seriously though, entrepreneurs wanted, to change the face of ski racing. Potential problems - What would be the incentive for a team to develop up and coming racers if they can just jump to a financially stronger team once they succeed? Hmm - that's the same problem the ski companies have now.
A few other thoughts I had:
- athletes who may or may not be passing their prime are dropped all time by successful pro sports teams. Sometimes another team has a different opinion and picks them up, sometimes they retire, sometimes they go to a minor league or foreign league. Sometimes the team is proven right, sometimes not. Examples: Johnny Damon, Carlton Fisk, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez. In ski racing, however, there are no other teams that can pick up racers like Bryon, or Eric Schlopy, or Caroline LaLive. Under the SRD plan, there would be other teams to pick them up.
- At some point, USST needs to release older or under-performing athletes in order to make room for new and developing talent. We can argue about when that point is reached, but they can't fund everyone. I think the team is doing a much better job in recent years, of keeping racers on the team long enough to allow their talent to develop. Like most of the "fans" writing in this forum, I'm way too far removed from the action to have any meaningful opinion on whether the team made good or bad decisions this year on whom to release and whom to promote. Of course Bryon feels he and his friends were released too early, and I wish them the best in their pursuit of independent sponsors to pursue their goals and prove the team wrong.
I too was dropped from the USST by Bill Marolt, too early in my opinion, in 1978. I've never been a fan of his, but let's try to keep some objectivity.
Bob Hill
hockeyguy said May 21, 2008
joe shmo on his ski vacation at Sun Valley doesn't care who's on or off the us ski team. jane idiot watching the olympics on nbc doesn't care about the world cup seasons that go into building an olympic competitor... the sad reality is that only the rabid racing fans/parents care. niche sports have rabid fans. but, honestly, how many people in america know that bode doesn't ski on the us ski team, anymore? even more, how many know that he LOST more money than Bill made this year (thank you, followthemoney!)? honestly, not too many. guys like schlopy and yourself are what a sport full of spoiled brats needs! guys working together to help out the ski jumpers, snowboarders, freestyle skiers and nordic athletes that don't get the publicity an alpiner gets.
I would encourage you to keep up the good work, and i'll be sure to drop a full envelope in your po box sometime. keep pursuing the music career, and I'll be sure to drop in on a show if i ever find myself out your way. sending good vibes your way.
powderpatti said May 21, 2008
Congratulations once again.
You have put together comprehensive and well stated points. I can't agree with you more. As a non tech person I was unaware of this site until my son emailed me and said I might be "interestd in this"...
Being an ex ski racer in the 60's and put to pasture due to injuries at 20 I can honestly say that nothing has changed. However, naively, I pursued ski coaching for the past 35 years with the Park City Ski Team and the Snowbird Ski Team. Yes, I coached you as well as many other US
Ski Team athletes including Roxanne Toly, Tori Pillinger,Jeremy and Shannon Nobis, TJ Lanning, Justin Johnson, Steph Palmer,Ted Ligety,and Megan McJames. My passion and love for the sport has kept me involved but I have always felt guilty subjecting these athletes to the eventuality of the US Ski Team policies. Funding has always been the root problem for the US athletes. Some years the cutbacks have been at the Development level which makes no sense but more recently, it is at the upper levels as well. Injured athletes, in the past and present, have not been given the support or time to come back to previous form. The age and result criteria cannot apply to these senarios. Experienced World cup level athletes who are still capable of producing are an invaluble resource for the future of the team. They are leaders from which the younger members can learn valuable insights to competing on the world cup level as well as a mark for which to strive.
Funding needs to be specifically earmarked for athletes whatever dollar amount that may be. Injured athletes need a comprehensive program to return to their previous level and be given adequate time for that return. I realize that management is expensive but it is absurd that the ceo of a smaller sport make such an inordinate amount of money. The athletes need to be taken care of first and oh yes, coaches funding needs to be number two..coaching is an act of love at all levels but we need to spread the funding so athletes can ski and coaches can continue to coach . It is time for the board and management to put toghether some new athlete policies and redistribute adequate funding for it's athletes.
Good luck Bry..you are one of my best....
struthers said May 21, 2008
You're are obviously making a difference. I just heard that one of the athletes that had funding pulled just got a call from the USST and is now fully funded for next year. Great Job! Keep the ball rolling. One of my other concerns is that the cost of YSL licenses for our grass roots racers keeps going up and they receive little or no benefit. What portion of this money goes back to the athletes??? How much money is spent "identifying" 11-12 year olds? Aren't the Clubs and Divisions doing an adequate job of developing young athletes? The "pipeline" has a leak...and you are helping patch it!!!
anotheropinion said May 21, 2008
Y'all have a much too myopic view of the situation. It's not as easy as Bill Marolt getting paid too much.
First, Marolt is a CEO, and as a CEO, he gets paid well and it's warranted given his set of specialized skills (USSA does operate in a market economy, after all). If he was so moved, he could go be CEO of another nonprofit (or private) organization and would likely make even more money than his current (supposed) $1 million compensation package.
Just because a CEO works for a nonprofit doesn't mean that he shouldn't be paid like a CEO. I serve on the board of a nonprofit organization, and collectively as a board, we choose to pay our CEO quite a bit of money, more than most would expect. But this is because this individual is highly talented and capable of moving the organization forward, not something just anyone can do.
Second, USSA is an amazingly complex organization. From the elite athletes down to junior racers, the org. is managing hundreds of events, hundreds of coaches and thousands of participants. And that's only on the performance side. Look at the revenue portion of the business -- USSA has to negotiate huge and complex deals with corporate sponsors (Visa, Chevy, etc...not small companies), maintain relationships with large donors and foundations, manage a branded merchandise business and then maintain a highly complex budget and execute operationally. Marlot is not just ultimately responsible for planning these operations, but tracking performance and making tough business decisions.
It's important to remember that USSA does not receive funding from the federal government, or if it does, not much. Other countries' teams are funded by public funds, not USSA. Perhaps the passionate cries in these comments would better be directed to the gov?
And don't even get me started on the demand side. Think for a moment about the olympics and cyclical business cycles. And about the overall demand for sports such Nordic and disabled skiing. Not too many eyeballs there. Similarly, have you considered costs? Surely you've noticed an increase in gas prices and the impact it's having on airline transportation. Flying teams of athletes around the world isn't a cheap proposition.
So here's the crux...
Are you really telling me that you want some $50K per year person managing this organization as CEO? Simply not going to happen. Or if it did, USSA would fold within months and we'd have no Olympic program whatsoever.
Now, perhaps there's a limit somewhere where executive compensation packages cross the line, but this isn't one of those cases. Not by a long shot.
(I should mention that I have no affiliation with USSA...just had to call out some poorly thought out bitching.)
skisupport replied May 22, 2008
Thanks to Bryon for outlining the issues in a pretty balanced manner. Sadly, many bloggers are completely missing the problem – the problem is not that the athletes are not getting appropriately supported or Marolt's salary – the problem is there is not enough money out there to properly support these sports.
To expand, a) it is very expensive to fund a complete ski/snowboard organization, b) there is not enough financial support for skiing to meet the needs of a complete ski organization and c) you get what you pay for – Marolt may be well paid, but he is also very good at raising money through sponsorship and donors, he is very good at producing winning athletic programs in multiple disciplines (including football) and he is effective at running a highly complex organization – if there are individuals out there that can do these jobs better, they should be hired – even if they cost more, if individuals can do the job as well and are willing to be paid less they should be hired. My guess is Marolt is a pretty solid value for what he does – sadly the compensation is a lightning rod for wage earners and the unsupported, but in the big picture, he is probably providing very good value as measured by revenue/performance/cost.
The best way to help skiing and the athletes is by finding more ways to improve exposure and increase funding - not by withholding your $$ support or bashing the organization.
skichick63 replied May 22, 2008
sweetbabyjesus said May 21, 2008
Y'all have a much too myopic view of the situation. It's not as easy as Bill Marolt getting paid too much.
First, Marolt is a CEO, and as a CEO, he gets paid well and it's warranted given his set of specialized skills (USSA does operate in a market economy, after all). If he was so moved, he could go be CEO of another nonprofit (or private) organization and would likely make even more money than his current (supposed) $1 million compensation package.
Just because a CEO works for a nonprofit doesn't mean that he shouldn't be paid like a CEO. I serve on the board of a nonprofit organization, and collectively as a board, we choose to pay our CEO quite a bit of money, more than most would expect. But this is because this individual is highly talented and capable of moving the organization forward, not something just anyone can do.
Second, USSA is an amazingly complex organization. From the elite athletes down to junior racers, the org. is managing hundreds of events, hundreds of coaches and thousands of participants. And that's only on the performance side. Look at the revenue portion of the business -- USSA has to negotiate huge and complex deals with corporate sponsors (Visa, Chevy, etc...not small companies), maintain relationships with large donors and foundations, manage a branded merchandise business and then maintain a highly complex budget and execute operationally. Marlot is not just ultimately responsible for planning these operations, but tracking performance and making tough business decisions.
It's important to remember that USSA does not receive funding from the federal government, or if it does, not much. Other countries' teams are funded by public funds, not USSA. Perhaps the passionate cries in these comments would better be directed to the gov?
And don't even get me started on the demand side. Think for a moment about the olympics and cyclical business cycles. And about the overall demand for sports such Nordic and disabled skiing. Not too many eyeballs there. Similarly, have you considered costs? Surely you've noticed an increase in gas prices and the impact it's having on airline transportation. Flying teams of athletes around the world isn't a cheap proposition.
So here's the crux...
Are you really telling me that you want some $50K per year person managing this organization as CEO? Simply not going to happen. Or if it did, USSA would fold within months and we'd have no Olympic program whatsoever.
Now, perhaps there's a limit somewhere where executive compensation packages cross the line, but this isn't one of those cases. Not by a long shot.
(I should mention that I have no affiliation with USSA...just had to call out some poorly thought out bitching.)
jareds941 said May 21, 2008
USSA: USSA VP/Communications Tom Kelly responded to skier Bryon Friedman's claims that the organization "cannot afford to fund their athletes" by indicating that the USSA's funding is up slightly from last year. He also noted that every athlete has the opportunity to qualify for funding, but they "must meet the team's selection criteria," which was published in May '07. Friedman did not meet the criteria and was not nominated to the team. Kelly said athletes meeting the team's criteria will be funded, and athletes on the alpine A, B and C teams are fully funded (THE DAILY).
As one would expect, this completely ignores the fact that the funding for those selected is NOT adequate. He has completely ignored the primary purpose of this discussion. I don't think Bryon is trying to cry foul about his situation in particular, but rather the system. Kelly didn't really do anything more than try and point the finger back at Bryon for not meeting the criteria (which one would think would have some sort of provision for former Team athletes returning from injury).
To the above post, you are completely correct. CEOs deserve CEO pay IF they are doing a good job. I think that is where the disparity arises. Is Marolt (and/or the Board) using funds, based on the mission statement of the organization, in the most appropriate manner? I think it would be hard to truly justify a salary so large when the athletes are having to pay their own way.
Oh, and your jump to $50K/year from Marolt's current salary of at least $500K is laughable. No one has suggested something absurd like $50K. It has however been pointed out that those extra couple thousand ol' Billy is taking home SHOULD be used to fund the athletes. After all, if it weren't for the athletes, Marolt's job would NOT exist. And your assertion that Marolt's compensation doesn't cross the line is quite arbitrary. Why do you get to decide that?
An open discussion needs to happen. And not on this site. Between Marolt and Kelly and Schlopy and Bryon and Jesse Hunt. All of the relevant parties.
COACHNICK said May 21, 2008
shirette said May 21, 2008
Bryon's statement referred to himself but was not about himself. It was about so very much more. So very basic to the USSA - It was about all of the Athletes. That Tom Kelly should make a much more public statement making it seem so very much about Bryon just makes me think that the USSA is reading all this and may be concerned that there is much more bubbling under the surface than just what is online here - and there is. Everyone is passing this site and Bryon and Eric's statements onto everyone they know. Just not everyone writes in.
srdusa and former coaches and athletes keep pursuing the private team thing. It's possible some other countries won't be interested as they are nationalistic but perhaps an All America (North - Canada, USA and South - Argentina, Chile) group of teams could come about. One could also include the Brits - England, New Zealand and Australia. Except for Canada and the US these other countries don't have the depth of athletes that those Alpine/European countries have and may be interested in such a system.
ctrans88 said May 21, 2008
jctski88 said May 21, 2008
Saunter88 said May 21, 2008
ctrans88 said May 21, 2008
oldskicoach said May 22, 2008
How long till ski racing goes the way of more successful sports such as golf, tennis and bike racing? These sports seem to have a handle on how to make money and be successful without having National Federations running the respective sports. Athletes are independently sponsored and are on their own regarding training and competing. Coaches and athletes pocket all the money, rather than the administrative sorts. Bode's move to Team America may have sounded the death knell for FIS ski racing as we know it.
2skiornot2ski said May 22, 2008
It's kind of amazing how many are piping up who are so close to the intimate inside world of snowsports competition, tracking and contributing to this thread with a more elevated dialog than one usually sees. I personally hope that it's indicative of the grassroots support there might be when it comes time to turn ideas into action. Maybe, just maybe, the athletes' guild's time has come. Bryon has erected a nice tall lighting rod, and we're all striking it each from a lot of unique perspectives. What's good and bad about this type of forum is that it is at best brainstorming, and at worst, devolves into a flame-a-thon, not only with each other but to those who are the subject of the thread. Either way, talk is cheap, and if you're like me you feel pretty bold throwing down from behind the keyboard.
What should come next probably comes as no surprise to anyone here. Action, strategy, leadership, and of course, reaching out to like minded folks who believe enough in someone's vision to bolster it with their wallet.
Charismatic leadership is of course so very key. I frankly had no idea until recently that the latest interation of still-successful USST Expatriates have actually managed to educate themselves well beyond the confines of the b-net and appear to be well positioned to give the athlete's perspective enough clarity, visibility, and organization to continue further, perhaps positively affecting the next generation of racers long after their gone. If I didn't know any better I might guess that's one of the reasons the ski team doesn't want to many "experienced" athletes around for too long. They might figure out that those collars around their necks only electrocuted them when they were puppies, that now it's just a line on the snow.
But I digress... What particularly impressed me is that Schlopy and Bryon already formed a 501(c)3 (SFI Foundation) that seems to be the natural fit to be the vehicle through which some sort of real action could take place, possibly even beyond the scope for which it had been originally envisioned . This is huge. So c'mon... ladies and gentlemen, get that SFI Board of Directors together and put some skilled and connected key players in their fields on it, such as a marketer, a journalist, a PR person, a fund raiser, a sports attorney, a celebrity or two (visibility=$$) an athlete or three (for steering the ship in the right direction), and... a skilled politician (for FIS and USSA). The mission: Empower the athletes financially AND politically in the larger arena. Right now the message and the voice are great, but without some bargaining power, you simply can't step out onto that playing field with the FIS. If you told me that SFI's near-term strategic plan included the goal of including on every USSA, nay, every FIS application a box that could be checked that said: "Check here if you wish to include $10 for MEMBERSHIP in the *insert athlete organization name here," that was organized through SFI, my $100 check would be in the mail tomorrow. Better yet, get that website set up (note to self, include tech guy on Board...), and crank it up with Paypal. You'd have my money in the next ten minutes. USSA indoctrinates us from age 6 on, why not jump in there with them with a membership founded on empowering the individual athlete? Failing that, we all know that USSA will sell us their entire mailing list anyway. Thanks to USSA, I get stuff from people and places I've never heard of all the time.
In response to the post above pointing out the other side of the issues, your points are certainly well-taken, but I would also point out that, right or wrong, the CEO and his staff seem to have devoted more energy to long range planning involving resource-consuming infrastructure (tenured organizational posts, bricks, and mortar, etc.), than to structuring a consistent platform upon which their "investments" might have the best possible chance at reaching their potential. The end-justifies-the-means rhetoric simply falls flat here, if the organization espousing them is failing on their own scoring rubric, e.g. Loyalty (2 out of 10 on my card), Integrity (3?), Respect (depends if you ask VISA or if you ask Bryon), Perseverance (10 for how long current management has stuck around, 2 on the stick-to-the-athlete-sticktuitiveness count). Accountability (that's what we're doing here isn't it?)
Certainly time will tell whether the Center for exSELLence is in fact what its name suggests or a white albatross erected as a lasting monument to the egos in Park City. I certainly hope the former for sure... and fortunately I haven't seen in any of the proposed site plans any of the telltale phallic architectural adornments festooning the outer grounds. Still, that looks like an awful lot of office space to fill... Certainly time will tell. And of course, this sport is all about time, whether it's from start to finish or in terms of the fleeting number of productive days that an international-caliber athlete has from the beginning to the end of his or her career.
And let's talk more about the investment analogy. It's important to clarify whether the term refers to investing in the person or investing in the results? It's a critical philosophical distinction for any organization that invariably plays out more in actions than in words. By that yardstick, certainly it seems like the former if one reads through the national organizations aspirational talking points and takes the message in the keynote speech at face value. But gosh it sure seems like the latter when injury or age is at issue. Taking the organization at its word that athletes are "investments," what does it say about an organization that spends literally millions of dollars on a single investment (an A or B teamer over the course of their career), then pulls the plug on it in such a short time frame, especially at a time where funding is at an all-time high? I'm sure Goldman Sachs wouldn't approve. Those wells are still producing... so very much of that investment to give back within the organization and the sport in general.
In sum, rock on and we're here for you 'cause we're all still athletes at heart.
2skiornot2ski replied May 22, 2008
Troy
Bryon
watchdog said May 22, 2008
"A perspective on the US Ski Team and a call for change Part 1
By John Caldwell
Published: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:00 AM MDT
Editor's Note: The following does not necessarily represent the views of FasterSkier.com, its editors, or sponsors. We fully support open dialogue on the issues raised in the following article. Please feel free to use the comments section to express your views."
http://www.fasterskier.com/opinion.php?id=4458
"The United States Ski Team's cross country program is broken, has
been for about 25 years, and it's time it tried a different approach."
-------------------------
"For several years the USST has successfully focused a lot of attention (read "money") on new events, beginning many years ago with freestyle, then snowboarding, then recently sprint racing in cross country and ladies' ski-jumping. Our "Best in the World" has meant to refer to the most medals won in Olympic winter snow competitions and we have usually been ahead of the curve, as the saying goes, and have gained a lot of recognition, especially in the newer events. But as the other countries have taken up these new sports our medal production has tailed off simply because the competition has gotten a lot tougher."
------------------------------------
"But, you can be sure the PR department in Park City will find something good to publicize. After all, it's their job. It's good for fund-raising, as a starter, and they are right in doing the advertising. However, it may get to the stage when they have to brag about "the highest US World Cup finish in Rybinsk using red klister during heavy winds."
A perspective on the US Ski Team and a call for change Part 2
By John Caldwell
Published: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:00 AM MDT
Updated: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:28 AM MDT
http://www.fasterskier.com/opinion.php?id=4472
"For years and years the USST has suffered from what I call the Al Haig syndrome: "I'm in charge here." The USST puts big pressure on the top team athletes to move to Park City for training, so they can be under the tutelage of the coaches. But the minute a good skier leaves his/her community, it creates a gap or vacuum there. Inspiration for the weaker skiers disappears and the whole local program suffers. The USST hires a new coach, gives him or her a jacket, and suddenly they are in charge. In some cases they are giving directions to other coaches under whom they served before moving to Park City. In some cases, the athletes are not allowed much freedom. It's more like a Marine Boot Camp than a Summerhill, that's to be sure."
--------------------
"One of the new dictates was that coaches could not have a drink with any of the athletes. I thought this was a remarkable ruling, straight out of the Victorian era. I've been known to savor a beer or two, and if they had imposed that rule during my coaching career they might have gotten rid of me earlier, because I always thought having a beer with the athletes was great. It was a different situation than that on the snow, different setting, different atmosphere, and often it was easier to communicate. I felt we got a lot of "work" done while drinking beer.
A lot of people know that Bode Miller has not had it easy with the staff and administration of the USST. I won't go into the history of this saga, but suffice it to say he will be skiing on his own next year. He has been mishandled by the staff in the past, and the problem is that they were trying to handle him in the first place. Some coaches would have given him more free reign. Who knows what the results would have been? But the "I'm in charge" approach surely doesn't work for everyone, especially a guy like Bode."
-------------------------------
"The spin control situation in Park City is another problem connected to our poor results. It's as if the press releases are meant solely for the board of trustees and the team's sponsors, and they probably are. However, the knowledgeable folks in the greater ski community get turned off and give up on the program after hearing all the optimism and then studying the results. Worse, the USST administration keeps a stiff upper lip (a la Bush and Iraq) and does not invite critiques, much less criticism. So, living in its ivory tower, the administration plods on and on, ever downward."
--------------------------------------------
A perspective on the US Ski Team and a call for change Part 3
http://www.fasterskier.com/opinion.php?id=4493
"When Bill Marolt came on board as CEO of the USST (a long time ago), I began writing him urging him to start a development program in cross country. I predicted poor results for the coming year. I wrote him essentially the same letter for ten consecutive years and guess what? My predictions of poor results were correct all ten years. And the USST still didn't start what one could call a reasonable development program, although some USST hiree would almost always talk about doing so at the spring meetings. After those ten years I gave up, and the next year they gave me an award for contributions to the sport, probably for not bothering them, actually. That was a number of years ago.
I'm still not afraid to make predictions and will do so once more:
Results in 2007-8 will be very disappointing.
Big turnovers on the cross country team will continue. The Olympic Team for 2010 will bear scant resemblance to this year's team.
Responses from Park City to my article, if any, will attempt to show how wrong I am, how their development program is working, how things are better than ever.
In 2010 the Canadians will clobber us at the Games. They have a good development program and have started serious work in preparation for those events. (They even started stealing our coaches!)
There will not be a meaningful US development program in the near future. But we will hear a lot about the "pipeline" and how it's working, or supposed to work."
Houston we have a problem!
thayer123abc said May 22, 2008
peace & love
good luck
skifast said May 22, 2008
jsogard said May 22, 2008
freshprofessor said May 23, 2008
watchdog said May 23, 2008
http://skiracing.com/srforums/YaBB.pl?num=1198461438/90#90
ACTION:
"Write to the USSA Board of Directors, and let them know how you feel. I will, and here they are-
USSA Board of Directors
Chairman: Dexter Paine, Woodside, CA (Foundation)
Vice Chairman: Jeanne Jackson, Newport Coast, CA (Foundation)
Treasurer: John Bucksbaum, Chicago, IL (Foundation)
Greg Boester, Rye, NY (At-Large)
Andy Daly, Vail, CO (Foundation)
Bob Dart, Winter Park, CO (Alpine)
Glenn Eddy, Carrabassett Valley, ME (Freestyle)
Jon Engen, Ketchum, ID (Cross Country)
Mariano Ferrario, San Francisco, CA (Freestyle Athlete)
Clay Fox, Beaverton, OR (Disabled Athlete)
Chuck Heckert, Park City, UT (Jumping/Combined)
Ryan Heckman, Denver, CO (Jumping/Combined Athlete)
Andre Horton, Anchorage, AK (Alpine Athlete)
Lisa Kosglow, Hood River, OR (Snowboard Athlete)
Mike Mallon, Weston, VT (Snowboard)
Bill Marolt, Park City, UT (CEO/FIS/USOC)
Kipp Nelson, Ketchum, ID (Foundation)
David Pottruck, San Francisco, CA (Foundation)
Steve Raymond, Englewood, CO (Disabled)
Carl Swenson, Park City, UT (Cross Country Athlete)
Hank Tauber, Park City, UT (Foundation)
Ex-Officio
Michael Berry, Lakewood, CO (NSAA)
David Ingemie, McLean, VA (SIA)
Nina Kemppel, Boston, MA (USOC Athletes Advisory Council)
Honorary
Michael Berry, Lakewood, CO (NSAA)
David Ingemie, McLean, VA (SIA)
Nina Kemppel, Boston, MA (USOC Athletes Advisory Council)
Another thought is to write to USSA's sponsors and let them know how their money is being spent. 80% of USSA's budget comes from sponsors and donations."
PLUS: http://www.ussa.org/magnoliaPublic/ussa/en/about/governance/trustees.html
CONTACTS:
Michael Berry
PresidentNational Ski Areas Association
133 S. Van Gordon Street
Suite 300
Lakewood, CO 80228
phone: (303) 987-1111
fax: (303) 986-2345
email: nsaa@nsaa.org
David Ingemie
PresidentSnowSports Industries America
8377-B Greensboro Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102-3587
p: 703.556.9020
f: 703.821.8276
e: siamail@snowsports.org
exVERA said May 23, 2008
JustGoEleven said May 24, 2008
Hilmcc said May 24, 2008
Also I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the above comments and also might show my out-of-the-loopness in terms of the USSA endeavors but isn't there a massive complex being built in Kimball Junction or near Park City? If so, how much money are they sinking into it and what will be the reward? I remember hearing about it a few years ago and immediately came up with many other ideas that could probably be a better investment. What is the current situation on that?
Good luck and I hope that there will be changes.
watchdog said May 25, 2008
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=70156
Muleski
EpicSki Supporter Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 12
________________________________________
Bear with me. This is going to be long. A lot of pent-up frustration.
This is starting to get a lot of air-time in ski racing venues. Lots of chatter on ski-racing.com, for example. Not matter whether you are an athlete, a parent, a coach, or a fan, you're frustrated. The closer you are to the USST, the more frustrated you are. We have friends who are coaches, former coaches, athletes, dumped athletes, and oh-so close athletes, and they are all dismayed. A lot of talking going on.
The sad fact is that Bill Marolt has free reign to do whatever he pleases. The governance above him is a joke. He's really accountable to no-one. Do any of you know any trustees, or board members? The ones that I know are big money guys, investment guys, who fly to their homes at Deer Valley{or other similar low rent spots} in their private jets, and host cocktail parties with $1000 cabernet. They wouldn't know the difference between a SL and a DH ski if they were sitting on their floor. Positively clueless. These are also men who are incredibly busy, and the USST/USSA board committment has to be a fun, or recreational one. Some of these guys are venture guys who sit on a dozen corporate boards!! Being on this one is fun, and obviously there is no heavy lifting. They are messing with a lot of their own money on these other boards, and in some cases in touch with them on a weekly basis. There's a lot of pressure. This one's more like a badge of honor, or a club. That's all I can think of.
So Marolt spins "results" any way he wants. There are no stock analysts grilling him with tough questions, demanding real facts. Hey, we won TWO overall WC globes, and TED won the GS globe. Best in the world. High fives. Some of these trustees earn $20MM a year, so what's a lousy $300K bonus? Hell he's a CEO, all the CEO's we know make good money. A million bucks in nothing on "the street." We don't know about that non-profit stuff, as all we do is create profits. Hey, let's go take some runs in our cool USST stuff. I have an overwhelming sense that the majority of the board and trustees are way out of touch. This is a great deal for Bill, and franky for Jesse. No real oversight, do what they want, earn a bunch. And by the way, Bill, lose that stupid term, "the company, "
Meanwhile, this athlete funding requirement is absurd. When you reach the USST, after having spent a small fortune of your family's hard earned money, is the answer to pay? This is the USA, and this is a National team!! Without question there's enough gross revenue in "the company" to pay for the athletes. As many of you have mentioned, it's how "the company" is mismanaged. My opinion is that they should be able to raise more money, and have more gross revenue to work with. Then, their efficiency at putting that money to work only has to move from horrific to marginally average to make a change. By any measure, it's terrible. Has anybody looked at all of the blah-blah middle management jobs? How many really impact the ski team, or the athletes?
I swear that any competent manager could figure this out.
I was at US Nationals to witness the annual USST love-fest again this year, including the latest generation of young "chosen ones." It makes me want to puke. This system is not about the athletes, at all, other than the decade old mission to identify young talent and be all over them. Or to showcase the big names, and use them to drive in some revenue. Real clear. To see how well Bryon Friedman skied, having apparently been told that "If you win the DH, you stay. If not, you're off..." was both inspiring and sad. He's a class act, and a hell of a speed skier. And, oh by the way, he was coming back from a tough, tough injury. In no other business would "the company" treat the assets and key employees this way. Is this paying attention to the athletes?
It was equally sad to see some of the D team kids, skiing well, with a lot of potential ahead of them, knowing that they were gone as a result of not making C team criteria. So much for being a "chosen one" two years ago. Good luck clawing your way back. Nationals should be a fun event. They were for the 1990's, 1991's, and 1992's. The pressure on the older skiers, on the bubble, was more evident than I've ever seen. Even those at the top of their game were feeling the pressure on their friends. Sad.
And as many know, being a USST coach, for the most part "can't suck enough." They make no money, have no home life, and don't get a lot of thanks. It sure isn't the pinnacle of the profession. If "the company" had their act together, they might figure out a way to hire the best, pay them well, and keep them. They might actually think about a career path. How much longer does it function with these guys looking at this as paying their dues as a means to land a nice program director's job afterwards? I can't imagine that the staff is real energized for these Mammoth camps, they were all burned out a month ago. Maybe they recharge fast. I won't get into the changes, appointments, etc. From a coaching {and athlete} perspective, Jesse should probably move on. It seems like big change is needed. Again, solving the coaching riddle shouldn't be that hard, should it? I don't get the sense that "the company" feels that the coaches are among the most important employees. Shouldn't they be?v
I think we have some other interesting developments on the horizon that the USST is wrestling with, and perhaps not liking. At one end of the spectrum, evidently Hunter Schlepler may be declining the D team invite. Why not stick with the coach that helped him with his recent explosive development? He had an incredible year result-wise, and his basic skiing is equally impressive. If you had a kid of his age with his talent, and you knew that after the D team, you absolutely HAD to make C team criteria{and still pay for that}, wouldn't you stick with the proven deal and some continuity? Particularly SINCE YOU PAY YOUR WAY ON THE D TEAM. Maybe there's a better result for the same money{or less}. Why do we even have a D team, with the strength of all of the alpine racing programs in this country? It's not like the race starts are different, unless getting demoralized in the occasional Europa Cup is a bonus. He's the only D team nominee with a sibling on the team, so perhaps he, his dad and sister have looked at this with a different set of lenses. I find it interesting.
At the top end, Bode's Team America concept works. They'll be back in great shape. Rumor has it that Julia Mancuso has hired her own coach to manage her situation. I would suspect that the USST is doing everything possible to somehow make it work within "the company." We'll see. He knows his stuff. Ted Ligety spend a lot of the second half of the season training with Bode, from what I hear. I've heard some grumblings that he may want his own deal, and isn't delighted with the USST. There are some guys who have been let go who are by no means done with ski racing, and we'll see them surface in some interesting places, I'm sure. All of these athletes know each other, and the friendships have nothing to do with who's got the current team jacket. I swear that "the company" misses that. Seeing a former teammate treated like dirt, and knowing you could be next just has do be demoralizing.
I have helped fund athletes, all of whom have been screwed by the team at multiple times, and to varying degrees in their careers. I would encouage each skier in this country to give whatever they can in a way that matters the most. To me, it's not the USST. I'd like these skiers to have "100% dollars" to use.
This is not going to change quickly. It is only going to change when Marolt is removed from his job, or by some small miracle if the money available to the USST increased to a level where despite the horrific leadership and dreadful mismanagement, more resources could flow to the coaches and athletes. If Marolt were clued into this, and thinking soundly, he'd get some of the hitters to match his donating his $300K bonus back to the team. If he got 4 trustees, that would be $1.5MM. At $30K, that would fund 50 athletes. And at their current 50% efficiency, it would still fund
twenty five. It shouldn't be that hard!
And like many, I find the fact that the USST management, and for the most part coaching staff, looks down their noses at the NCAA to be both foolish and sad. The top half-dozen guys in the NCAA, if provided with the same training, logistics, technicians and skis{don't overlook those two} as the team guys might be kicking a lot of USST ass. But then again that might get people to question the business model of "the company." I thought that NCAA thing worked OK for this small "company" called the NFL!
Having all of these age requirements and hurdles is very interesting, when we see WC success at all ages. Some women at 16, some men at 38. I don't know if the other ski federations have similar criteria. I don't understand how a 26 year old with three world rankings in the 70-80 range is a poorer "investment" than the 23 year old with two 135's? Particularly if the older guy is more consistent, and is getting faster by an incrementally wider margin. Very strange. It sure weeds out the NCAA kids.
The NCAA is now so competitive that most boys {and more girls} take a year to ski full time {or two...} before college. The average age of the men at this year's NCAA championships was 23. These are among the most competitive fields in the country. There's potential there, and potential that the USST/USSA only minimally has to fund. But if you're 25 when you graduate....B team criteria or out. That 25 year old, with all of the advantages of the USST and the maturity and focus, could move from a 135 WR to a 35 in three years. but he may not go to a 52 WR in one year. I don't get it.
It seems to me that the only reason that we even have a D team, and a D team staff, and budget, is to name and coach the upcoming US Jr. Worlds team. Obviously Hunt and Marolt put a lot of resources into Jr. Worlds. Maybe I'd shift those resources elsewhere, and let the dozens of top notch programs, independent programs, PG programs, and NCAA programs do some of the development. All of those people are going to fill the fields at all of the same NorAMs and FIS races. Is the D team turning out better skiers? Did Tommy Ford have his recent year because of the D team....dunno. But D team and Jr. Worlds are part of "the company" culture and mission. I don't sense that anybody on the inside is questioning whether we need it. If you dumped it, could you have a bigger and fully funded C team?
And when Zamansky makes that B team criteria, but is cut loose anyways? I don't know anything about the situation. But if the USST is all about their great criteria, how do they blow it off for him? Perhaps it's because he's been a "chosen one" for a long time, and he's plateaued with a world GS ranking in the 50's? The guy has earned a WC start through NorAms! I just don't get it. Seems like neither "way" works!
Notice that I didn't even mention "the center." Don't get me going on that!
Like the ski industry, and the sport don't have enough challenges!!
Crazy. Think about how to influence some change. We sure need it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic11919
The Pit: 07/08 FIS World Cup Season - Good, Bad & Ugly By Songfta
"Since the old 2006/07 thread is long and, at this point, out of date, here's a new thread for discussing the FIS World Cup season, which starts on October 27th in Sölden.
Any thoughts? There's been quite a bit of chatter on the Modern Ski Racing forums and the EpicSki forums, so I figured it's high time to see what the SJ/NELSAP crowd has to say.
So..... chime in!"
__________
Track my adventures at randomduck.com
NHParent said May 27, 2008
zorpiedoman said May 27, 2008
shirette said May 27, 2008
lovenastar said May 27, 2008
Parker said May 28, 2008
.))
((.
str8line said May 29, 2008
Ferland
skiparent said May 30, 2008
skiparent said May 30, 2008
moxidesign said May 31, 2008
I was told I would have to pay my way to stay on the Team in 1995 and was ranked as the #1 slalom skier in the country for girls. Oh yeah, and I was going to have to buy all of my equipment too. It was going to cost $40,000-$50,000 for 1 season. I had no choice but to retire at the age of 25. Way too early in looking back on it.
Let's just say that now as a mom of two aspiring skiers, there is no way in hell that I am going to push them down the racing road. What the hell for?? They can go hit the park and have a good time...
I just find it so sad that the Ski Team continues to treat their top athletes in such a way.
Good Luck Bryon, I hope you can finally make a difference.
Monique Anderson (Pelletier)
srdusa said May 31, 2008
Black Diamonds: Racer's blog warps the facts, USSA
By Gary Black Jr.
Friday, 30 May 2008
THERE WAS A considerable discussion last week that revolved around a blog written by American ski racer Bryon Friedman, in which he railed about the U.S. Ski Team and how it was not properly funding or handling athletes and how its chief executive was overcompensated. Almost instantly the naysayers hopped on the Friedman bandwagon, castigating USSA and its CEO, Bill Marolt.
The disheartening thing about Friedman's comments is that he wrote them at all. While whining might be excused, being deliberately malicious cannot be.
The unconscionable thing about Friedman's blog was that virtually all the facts as presented were patently untrue. Over the years, alpine athletes in particular have voiced disgruntled statements regarding their dismissal from the squad. Often, these same athletes have voiced dissatisfaction based on a very liberal interpretation of reality. But to deliberately make poisonous fabrications about individuals and the association is both deceitful and unprincipled. Friedman's blog is full of both.
First, let's set the facts straight regarding chief executive Bill Marolt's salary. Marolt does not earn anywhere close to $700,000 as posted in Friedman's blog, nor did he receive a $300,000 bonus. While any successful chief executive has his share of detractors, one should recall that 13 years ago USSA was virtually bankrupt. Today, on a gross basis the association is close to a $50 million annual enterprise, up from $8 million in 1995. Furthermore, the USSA has been profitable each year for the past 13. Based on salary studies Marolt's compensation is in line with similar executive pay scales. Enough said.
Anytime an athlete is told his or her time is up, it is not easy. But a little digging into the facts reveals that USSA does not nor ever did arbitrarily release athletes on a whim. Each athlete cited in Friedman's blog failed to meet criteria set out prior to the season, according to USSA Alpine Director Jesse Hunt.
Let's look at one case, that of Jake Zamansky. Zamansky and his coaches arrived at a goal of one top-30 World Cup finish to remain on the team. One can debate the goal, but the record shows that in 29 World Cup starts from 2002 through 2007 Zamansky did not qualify for a second run. Yes, Zamansky is a quality ski racer. He secured a World Cup starting spot through his NorAm GS record, and according to Hunt the team will make every effort to help him get his starts as deserved. But USSA will not pay for his continuing on in racing. Securing a World Cup start right through the NorAms was not part of Zamansky's criteria to remain a funded alpine athlete.
Friedman also stated that the "C" team was going partially unfunded, allegedly because Marolt got the money. Neither is close to the truth. Perhaps based on its prior history of having annual deficits, budgeting methodology at USSA requires a prioritization of funding requests. As forecast revenue projections begin to come to fruition, at each level priorities are funded on the basis of their ranking. Since the "C" team funding request was put in a priority order there was a period when "C" team athletes may well have been told that if revenues did not meet projections they would have to pay for a certain portion of their training. As expected, revenue generation did meet projections and the "C" team athletes are to be funded 100 percent. In fact there is a possibility that there will be sufficient revenues to fund Development Team activity as well.
Out of Friedman's noxious comments there are lessons for USSA. The association needs to revisit what it tells athletes and how it follows up with them. The association should be more open about many of its internal workings, budgeting, and handling of athletes. Currently, USSA management is overly protective, apparently fearful that it will come under criticism. They need not be.
Under Marolt, the organization has a rallying cry of "raising the bar." With that comes the need for more directness and disciplined professionalism on the part of USSA staff and coaches in dealing with all of their athletes. It is a courtesy the athletes deserve.
As to Friedman's comments, they are so far off base as to be reminiscent of the totalitarian lies of the past.
troywatts replied May 31, 2008
Props to Gary for acknowledging that the athletes deserve the courtesy of reasonable notice. Maybe we are getting somewhere after all.
Not sure what "totalitarian lies" Mr. Black is referring to. That one was a bit out of context, and by his own yardstick, without factual basis.
srdusa said May 31, 2008
skiparent said May 31, 2008
watchdog said June 01, 2008
http://www.usskiteam.com/public/news.php?&dId=6&aId=3687
skichick63 said June 01, 2008
John F. Russell: Lalive weighs her options
By John F. Russell (Contact)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Steamboat Springs — Caroline Lalive doesn't want to sound bitter. She doesn't want to be angry, and she doesn't want to feel cheated.
But nobody would blame the Alpine skier for having a chip on her shoulder. She has spent 12 years with the U.S. Ski Team and more than six months rehabilitating her left knee. But just days before she was scheduled to attend a U.S. Ski Team training camp this spring, she learned that she had been dropped from the team. When the bids came out in May, her name was not on the list.
She's the first to admit that her career has been filled with ups and downs, thrilling success and crushing defeat and injuries that would drive a rodeo cowboy to retirement. But when she left skiing two years ago, she was ranked in the top 10, and she still is in the top 30 in the world.
But she has battled a series of bad breaks that started in the days leading up to the 2006 Winter Olympic Games in Turin, Italy. She suffered a knee injury in a training crash that ended her season. She spent more than a year working to get back, but suffered another serious injury during a training run in Austria in October 2007. This time, it was her left knee.
But these days, it isn't an injury standing in her way — it's a ringing phone.
"They said that I had been injured too much," Lalive said.
They said they didn't want Lalive to get hurt anymore, and that maybe she should think about retiring. The news was devastating shock to Lalive, who just started free skiing in March. The news came as she was preparing to leave for a skiing camp.
"I didn't really expect it," Lalive said. "The way they handled it was pretty unprofessionally."
But Lalive says she isn't ready to retire.
She wasn't mad or bitter. But as an American, I feel cheated.
I'm not saying that the U.S. Ski Team should keep veteran skiers based on their past success. It's a competitive sport of skiing, and cuts are just a part of the game.
But it just doesn't seem fair that Lalive, 28, will not be given the chance to prove herself. It seems, well, un-American.
This isn't the first time the Ski Team has made unpopular decisions or dropped veteran skiers to make room on the team or in their budget. This time, five skiers got the boot as the team prepares for the 2008-09 season, including veterans Libby Ludlow (who retired), Dane Spencer (returning from an injury), Bryon Friedman, Erik Schlopy and Jake Zamansky. The athletes have taken notice. Lalive said the men's team started a successful golf and skiing fundraiser last year to support non-funded athletes, and despite losing equipment sponsors, coaching and the help of technicians, Lalive still is hoping to find support for a return to skiing. After watching Lalive ride the ups and downs of ski racing, I wouldn't expect anything less from her.
She's a true champion.
wintertime said June 01, 2008
Gary Black's column led me to this blog. His column was far more out of line than he suggest your's was. His better position would have been to keep his mouth shut.
He repeatedly referred to the inaccuracy of your quoting of Marolt's wages. As two other posters have noted, the last reported salary of Marolt in 2006 was $578,000 and it is unlikely the board would give a $400,000 raise. But it is not out of line to think that he was reimbursed or spent $400,000 on travel, cars, phones, dining, wine, etc. that we are all paying for. If, in fact, his salary and bonus does not add up to $1 million, then Black has used this inaccuracy to paint your entire Blog as inaccurate, too and gave Black ammunition, most of it out of line, that he used against you. That's unfortunate as you have pointed out that this system is very, very flawed.
The Ski Team does not seem to know how to dismiss athletes in a positive fashion. They use the athletes until they are tired or broken and then can't find a civil way to separate them. Such a cold hearted dismissal does not provide good pr to the younger athletes or to the clubs who send athletes to the Ski Team. Stirring the pot on this issue has caused a lot of discussion, as even Black acknowledges, and it is time the Ski Team has some pressure on them to be more responsible with the lives they have taken under their wings.
hockeyguy replied June 02, 2008
troywatts replied June 04, 2008
Better to be dissappointed in some than cynical about all...
hockeyguy replied June 04, 2008
the average career of an nfl, nhl or nba player is super short. 5 years or less short... and the vast majority of these guys are raising similar issues with the respective governing bodies. what success is a niche sport like ski racing REALLY going to have if these marquee sports can't even compensate adequately?
and just another $.02... i looked through USA Hockey's top compensations, and other NGB's - your CEO isn't overpaid, and there's no way in hell that he doubled up over those numbers from last year. just saying, your "Deep Throat" insider COULD be wrong there, and probably is.
http://www.skiracing.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6564&Itemid=2
KevinSheehan said June 02, 2008
KevinSheehan said June 02, 2008
zippers said June 02, 2008
The response from the USST and their minions was as I thought it would be: a personal and direct attack against you mixed with a few facts to discredit your position / claims. Unfortunately for the establishment, Gary Black's commentary on your blog raises more questions than it intends to put to bed.
-First and foremost: What is the goal of the USST? How can one "raise the bar" in the absence of clearly defined program and goal? What is the USST doing to achieve its goal if it isn't funding athletes?
-How can a budget that has increased 700% in one decade have the same failings as it did in 1997?
-Why would criteria fluctuate/ vary by athlete?
The biggest question raised in my mind relates to the USST's responsibility to promote the sport and their athletes. The mere fact that one cannot find a television feed for any world cup event in United States, in light of the dramatic increases in fundraising success (for which Marolt deserves a great deal of credit), underscores the failure of the organization to recognize their responsibility to promote the sport. How is that the skiers in the X games (predominantly retired USST or WC athletes) get national coverage on ESPN while USST members can only get exposure on the internet via a paid feed on WCSN? The USST has some of the best athletes of any sport in the world and they should be spending a great deal more money showing the world such is the case.
Finally, I would imagine that the current situation is as hard for the coaches as it is for anyone. In most cases, the coaches care a great deal about each athlete and the decision to let one go is met with a very heavy heart. The bottom line is they are doing what they are told to do and what their budget allows for. There is a reason most consider a USST coaching job the worst position in the industry.
Just be glad you didn't listen when they told you not to go to college….
srdusa said June 02, 2008
skichick63 said June 04, 2008
Slayer666 said June 07, 2008
I have been trying to work out a sponsorship deal with the US Ski Team for Marco Sullivan and Resi Stiegler for the last few years, and I have not had any success working with the US Ski Team on this deal. I even had Mr. Friedman on the radar and included him in my proposal last year with my company Electric Visual. I think a lot of the problems that persist with the US Ski Team are because the names of the people who represent the Ski Team change over the years, but the mentality seems to stay the same. Not only is Mr. Marolt's salary disgusting in face of the facts that the team in general is under financed, but the Ski Team "Pool" is also standing in the way of securing new and exciting potential sponsors for the athletes. If we are going to put the chips on the table then I'm all in. I might be a little long winded here but it's for the sake of making a point.
Let's take for example the last Winter Olympics. I was trying to join the "Pool" so my company, Electric Visual, would be able to make a deal with Marco and Resi. I called Dale Schoon at the Ski Team headquarters to get the breakdown on what it would take to get on board. Mr. Schoon for all intents and purposes was not very hospitable to me from the start of our conversation and reaked of arrogance in the tone he took with me. Not a very smart way to conduct yourself to a potential sponsor. I introduced myself and told him a little about the company I represent, Electric Visual, and that I wanted to sponsor Marco and Resi. I asked him, "What is it going to take?" "Well", he replied, "The eyewear category is a two part deal regarding the "Pool". I said, "How so.?" He said, "Well, goggles and glasses are separate categories." I think I recall him saying, "Googles will cost you $6,400.00 and glasses will cost you $4,000.00."
Electric Visual is a sponsor of Nate Holland who is a member of the US Snowboard Team which falls under the umbrella of USSA, and we don't have to pay any "Pool" fees for him to wear our goggles and glasses. Heck, we sponsor Kyle Busch in NASCAR, and we didn't have to pay NASCAR a dime to work out a deal with Kyle Busch. What's even more frustrating is Mr. Schoon has also set up an extra introduction fee for each year we get closer to the Olympics. Four years out, there is no fee. Three years away from the next Olympics will cost you $2,500.00 plus "Pool" fees. Two years out and it's $5,000.00 plus "Pool" fees. The year before the Olympics, it will cost you $10,000.00 plus "Pool" fees. This fee structure is suppose to protect the Team from potential sponsors cherry picking athletes and only doing one year sponsorship deals. Do the math and you tell me why most sponsors like myself and the brands I represent don't want to touch this deal with a ten foot pole.
But wait it gets better. So I go back to the powers that be at Electric and try and explain the current "Pool" fees and what the US Ski Team is demanding. We are a small company, but we are grabbing up market share every day and show great growth and potential. The deal that Mr. Schoon and the US Ski Team, or should I say the "Company" put together made no sense to us and we ended up having to walk away from something I personally felt very strongly about in regards to sponsoring ski racers. Not only that, but I called Mr. Schoon in a last ditch effort and tried in vein to ask if they could just cut us a little break so we might be able to just pull this off. He replied "absolutely not" and "the rules are the rules" and that he would not budge for anyone. Funny that they won't budge for anyone only to find out after the 2006 Olympics that they let one of the largest eyewear companies, Oakley, forego "Pool" costs and Mr. Schoon's brilliant protection fee as well. This is really starting to smell like the "Good Ol' Boys Club"
The US Ski Team won't give a young company like Electric who wants to sponsor US Ski Team athletes a break. But it will let a company like Oakley who could have paid the fees at the drop of a hat off the hook. Well Mr. Schoon has departed the US Ski Team this last week because he was over looked for advancement in the "Company". Didn't see that coming through all his smoke and mirrors. The way he explained it to me was that he was going to be around for a long, long time and so is his brilliant structure he is so very proud of.
It really is time to scrap the whole "Company" and process for which the US Ski Team has been operating under. I can't tell you how many companies would love to sponsor ski racers who are essentially the Formula One of skiing. The racers themselves are the ones who have been suffering under this outlandish corporate structure for far too long. There is a Revolution brewing and before it gets to a revolt, Mr. Marolt should tender his resignation immediately. I'm sure he took the job with the best of intentions, but when you have everyone from the B Team on down to the Development program paying there own way for coaching, travel, food, room and board, something needs to change.
And last but not least, to respond to Mr. Black's comments about Bryon Friedman not having his facts straight. Mr. Black, I don't ever remember hearing your name as a former member of the US Ski Team. How do you have any credibility to make comment on this topic. You have no idea of the struggle and strife it takes to be a ski racer at the World Cup level. The Ski Team has had a well documented history of dumping athletes before they have reached their full potential. Look at the European countries and the average age of those who are dominating the Circuit. That's right Mr. Black, closer to thirty years old if the current bios read correctly. If we keep dumping these kids before they have time to fully mature and get a grip on the World Cup than the US Ski Team program is doomed. Injuries come with the territory when you risk your life, putting it on the line skiing so close to the edge. Marco Sullivan had an incredible crash three years ago, and it took him a couple of years to get back on the horse so to speak. If the US Ski Team had clipped Marco any time before this last season the Team would have had one less victory to promote this year when he finally broke through in Chamonix. So what do you think Mr. Black, should we cut Resi from the program because she crashed and injured herself breaking multiple bones? I guess we should put her out to pasture or send her to the glue factory according to your mentality. As far as I'm concerned, she was also right on the verge of winning her first World Cup as well this year. Bryon Friedman is no different from either of these two athletes. He was also on the verge of breaking through before his accident. Let's try and give them the benefit of your doubt and encourage instead of discourage these elite athletes.
Best of luck to you Bryon. You are an incredible person and it takes true guts to stand up for what you feel is right and wrong. Cheers.
Jimbo Morgan
92 Alberteville Olympic Ski Team Member.
How do you like me now Mr. Black?
PS- If there is any question about my allegiance and commitment to skiing, please note that a sport that I helped create and promote is now an Olympic event. SKIERCROSS. Not once has the US Ski Team called me for any advice or help. Why is that? Maybe because they don't understand that to have a future, you've had to have had a history. No wonder former members of the US Ski Team don't want anything to do with the "COMPANY", and when they do, the Team just gives them the Heisman like they did to me. Think about it.
farcryski said June 07, 2008
However I wish you luck with your cause.
A friend from afar.
Slayer666 said June 08, 2008
watchdog said June 08, 2008
Quote:
falllinefamily
Re: Gary Black Rebuts Friedman
Reply #16 - Today at 8:08pm
It seems as though this situation has elevated to a point where the management and the employees so to speak can't get along any longer. Add to it the voice of the management (Ski Racing Mag) has now gone on the offensive or defensive depending on your point of view against the disgruntled employees or former employees makes this a serious and elevating situation. A situation that is obviously in need of some serious arbitration at this point.
It seems as though most if not all of the comments here favor the athletes perspective. This is totally understandable based on the readers of this magazine. It is great that all of the athletes and the people that support them have a place to voice their opinions and share their ideas.
I have spoken with a member of the men's A team recently(one that is still funded) and we got to talking about the current problems. I asked him what the consensus of the members was on the recent events pertaining to the downsizing of the squad and the members that were let go. He told me that within the team there was a great deal of support for certain members that were cut and that there was some understanding about why some of the others were let go. It seemed from his point of view anyway that there needed to be more communication from the management in the way the members were named and also released from the team. I also mentioned that the public view from the majority of the responses I have read in this forum blame Bill Marolt and his salary for most if not all of he financial problems associated with the team. He replied to me that this was something that was an issue but was not the "problem" just a symptom of the "problem". His idea was that the problem came from a number of issues pertaining to how the money was allocated but not just Marolt's salary.
On the subject of Gary Black's article on Bryon Friedman it is obviously clear that Mr. Black leans the way of management. It is his prerogative as he writes an editorial column. Although I feel it is within his right to express his opinion, I think it is irresponsible of him not report all of the facts. I think that this will tarnish him as a journalist and will alienate him from his readers even further. I for one think it is time for a new voice and a fresh look into the world of ski racing. Look for it coming to web site near you in the not so distant future." Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: "Black, Kelly and Marolt are using grade "A" communist propaganda tactics. The athletes/parents/ski clubs/sponsors are being used to fund athletic development and the executives travel the world with salaries and expenses paid and produce poor results at best:
1 AUT 13560
2 SUI 6458
3 ITA 6324
4 USA 5965
5 FRA 3815
Gary Black is a pawn in the game, he likes the awards, rewards, travel, FIS Family, cash flow, etc. He is still in a learning curve and taking tuition lesson in the sport of Ski Racing from Kelly and Marolt. He plays the game and is the "printing press" for the U.S. Ski Team. Black is also a Trustee of the US Ski Educational Foundation, aka, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Add in the "guiding light" for new Trustees to understand the process and we have one screwed up sport from top to bottom.
Out of all of this, the athletes not only come up short, they are paying for it. This is wrong. It's time for the fan, coach, supporter, ex teamer, Trustee's, Directors, Ski Industry (SIA), Ski Areas (NSAA), etc. to stand up and say NO MORE. We owe this to the athletes, including Bode Miller. It is flat wrong. If the Trustee's won't fix it, the Judicial System or Congress will. The first brief will center on age discrimination, mark my words. If they lose the non profit 501 (c) (3) status and tax write offs go, look out!
The time is now to fix the U.S. Ski Team, "USSA should be allowed to grow organically. Imposing something on it that it's not is like putting a dress on the pig and calling it pretty."
Keep after it, the athlete and sport need our support now more than ever.
MMQB
P.S. HELP NEEDED (REQUIRED ASAP) Established ski publication seeks Editor in Chief
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Ski Racing International, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, seeks an experienced journalist to become editor-in-chief of Ski Racing, the Journal of Snowsport Competition, published 12 times each year, and daily on the Web. The ideal candidate will combine a comprehensive knowledge of ski competition with a solid track record in magazine or newspaper editorial management, including top-notch communication and organizational skills and exceptional writing and editing abilities. Responsibilities include planning and producing content for both the print and online editions of Ski Racing; budget management; supervising staff and freelance editors, writers and photographers; and working with printers and publication and web designers. Please e-mail cover letter, resume, three published writing samples (PDF, Word format, or URL), three references and salary requirements to editorsearch@skiracing.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it , or mail to, Editor Search, Ski Racing International, 75 East 400 South, Suite 204, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. No phone calls, please." Quote
watchdog said June 10, 2008
Quote:
"nick1234
Re: Gary Black Rebuts Friedman
Reply #35 - Today at 2:34pm
I disagree with "shockenaugh" regarding asking Black to respond. That Black guy is a poster child for why journalism is called the "second oldest profession" after you all know what. All he does is licks Marlot's behind to a perfect shine, and he does that with great degree of professionalism. When was the last time any of us wanted to ask a hooker a question and treat the answer seriously? The only question, I would ask him is if he would publish all of this thread's posts in his magazine. I guess, I know the answer, though. But we all should thank him for writing that "editorial", and generating this discussion. My whole family loves the sport, and I have tremendously enjoyed reading the posts here. I think, you guys, identify exactly where the problems are, and some of the proposed solutions sound very interesting. Below are my "two cents" worth of thinking.
There are two separate issues ( problems) here. First, and foremost, it is the overall health of our beloved sport that generates fun for thousands of kids and adults in the US. Second, is the national team, and the development pipeline that serves the needs of the best of the best. Despite the fact that my kids are on top of the game, I am much more concerned about the former rather than the later. It is obvious to me that USSA does not care about the sport on a scale other than the national team. Ski Racing is not promoted to the general public, there are no scholarships available ( from USSA ) to underprivileged kids, clubs receive no support from USSA, there is no cooperation between USSA and ski resort operators … etc. To put it simple, ( and agreeing with many of you here) ski racing is not any kind of a product in the US. That is USSA fault. My guess is that if USSA vanishes from the face of earth tomorrow, most of our kids ski racing experience will not change a bit. Divisions will run races, kids will race, and a couple of computer guys will maintain the lists and so on. The USSA strategy as far as 99.9% of us are concerned is simple: let thousands of rich ( or very dedicated ) families take care of their kids racing, and we will select a few every year for a chance to be "enslaved" by the ski team. We still make kids ( or parents ) pay for pretty much the entire journey ( check how much is the Whistler Cup or Topolino) , and then we will rip the benefits once one of these kids wins the world cup. The reason why USSA was able to get away with this abysmal behavior is because they are the only game in town, and monopolies rarely serve interests of customers. So .. what can be done to change the situation? I see two avenues to be pursued.
First, the reform of the USSA itself. After all, they are a public organization with a board of directors, which, I assume, is elected every year or so. I would like to see their bylaws, and see if it is realistic for "outside" people to run for a position. I wonder who votes for the board members. If that can be done, and several of us become board members, then the management can be replaced, and new ideas can be implemented.
Second, if the USSA is so closed, that no outsider is allowed, or if it is not practical to spend our efforts that way, then the only avenue is to create an alternative. There are several good suggesting on this forum about "going professional". But how do you implement this? Here is my idea. There are a lot of top notch athletes who are going (semi)independent. Bode, Lindsey, Julia, Dane … to name a few. They all create some sort of independent teams for themselves. What if they formed a, say, "league of independent ski racers", and invited others to join? That would be a great start. What if they then went to sponsors, and said: look, we are the best of the best and you should sponsor us rather than USSA? What if that league created their own development pipeline for promising kids, but doing free training camps for them? Once that league grows, they can work with ski area operators to give heavily discounted lift tickets to young racers, promote the sport at a national level etc … . Finally, there are legal questions, of how you take some "formal privileges" ( like US FIS management, Olympics etc ) away from USSA. I am sure that can be done. But the bottom line is simple: USSA discredited itself to a point where some major overhaul is possible because so many racers and their parents are so unhappy.
A. to Nick 1234 - Some excellent suggestions Nick 1234. I think Coach John Caldwell had the best advice to us as a nation in his recent series:
http://www.fasterskier.com/opinion4493.html
Quote:
SUGGESTIONS
Let's go after the money first, so we can have some funds for more useful purposes than those served over the past 25 years.
Good Advice From XC Coach with application to Alpine, Nordic, Snowboard, Freestyle, etc....
Quote:
Tone down the operation of the US Ski Team. Name a team but leave the top athletes in their regions to live and train. Have the usual try-outs for trips to the big international events, but expect the regions to support their athletes to the try-out races. In short, give the regions more ownership of the overall program.
The FIS will not get involved in domestic politics. You need to build a case against USSA/USST within the legal system (i.e.,age discrimination, etc.) or go to Congress. This will take some time. Best option is to get the Trustees/Foundation to fix the problem with USSA, USST, Marolt, etc.
What we should do, is fund developing athletes and athletes that have been kicked off the team and reward each athlete for scoring FIS Nation Cup Points or World Cup points. (one in the same for calculation) Say $5,000 a point, then charge the USA for contribution for points scored and counted towards the FIS Nations Cup Standings. Give training grants to developing athletes, they hire coaches, set training, etc. Just like tennis & golf, a more individual or regional approach. East, Central, Rocky, West. Save money, work out of U.S. Olympic Training Centers.(free office space) Get the focus off the administration/sports marketing and back onto development and competition. Contract with IMG (International Marketing Group) to find the money for the international operations, branding, etc... Close the Park City office, fire the staff, sell the Center of Excellence and buy a group package to LA Fitness Centers @ a fraction of the cost. COMMON SENSE ISSUES.
Lets keep after it, the athletes and the Nation need your help, now more than ever. Keep the info. flowing..........
MMQB"
skeet00 said June 15, 2008
-john
srdusa said June 28, 2008
On November 22nd this year, world's best slalom skiers are to visit the capital of Russian Federation.
This decision has been accepted by the FIS delegates, that are currently taking part on the FIS Congress in Cape Town (the Republic of South Africa).
Such promo-slalom of the men's FIS Ski World Cup should be held on a 46 metres high artificial rail. It should also be a parallel one, with 10 world's best slalom skiers, 4 slalom skiers with organizer's invitation and two best Russian slalom racers taking part.
No points for the men's slalom and overall World Cup standings should be awarded. But the prize-money for the race, in the amount of CHF100000, is surely going to be secured.
Betsy84 said July 13, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
watchdog said May 19, 2008
cocernedskier said November 15, 2008
StCerque said November 17, 2008
Malyon said January 07, 2009
My name is Macaulay Lyon I'm from Washington state, i remember meeting you a few years back at the buddy Werner championships at Mt. Bachelor, I'm trying to make it onto the ski team, and i have a few questions for you(slightly off track). What are the requirements to make the ski team, If they are still making cuts and gaining more money for personal use whats the up incoming racers like me supposed to do? Continue racing and doing our best or is there order finally starting to come through now that you and other ski team members have exposed this, so we don't have to worry about the likely hood of making the team. What is your advice. Sorry if i'm rambling.
Best of luck,
Macaulay Lyon
jndacademy said January 28, 2009
followthemoney said March 27, 2009
RudeDude said March 30, 2009
RudeDude said March 30, 2009
I coach young skiers here in the Roaring Fork Valley. I can't tell you how many times I tell parents that their kids have real talent, only to here them reply, "Are you kidding, we can't afford to ski race." Cliffs are free to jump, rails can be slid in a kids driveway. No wonder the sport is dying. Thanks, Bill. I hope that extra half mill. buys you a conscience on of these days.
Sabine said April 17, 2009
Gary Black (Sun Valley, ID), who has dedicated 25 years of his life to the sport of ski racing, was awarded the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA) Julius Blegen award. The Blegen award is presented annually to a USSA member who contributed outstanding service to the sports of skiing or snowboarding in the United States. It is the organization's highest volunteer award.
As the publisher of Ski Racing Magazine, an active U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation Trustee, a FIS committee member, a local club supporter, athlete and athlete parent, "Black has always set aside his own interest to ensure the success of athletes and the sport."
I don`t know why but for me the sentence : "set aside his own interest to ensure the success of athletes and the sport" sounds a little bit cynical when I read about G.B.s behaviour and taking sides in that Marolt trouble.
He doesn`t sound to be very much on the side of athletes (as long as they have their own opinion about some things).
@B.Friedman:
By the way what was the reaction of Mr. Marolt (if there had been any reaction besides some strange G.B.reaction ) when you stated your critics one year ago - has there been a kind of talk between Marolt and you where Marolt answered to your critics , or did he just ignore it ?
I have to admit that I more or less like the website skiracing.com because there are not many good (English) skiing websites and reading things from a different point of view and not just the Austrian "hurrah patriotism" is a nice alternative anyway.