Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Xgames or Xploitation?

profile picture
griffmastar
Posts: 3 - Karma: 10
So I’m taking a sports management class and we’ve been discussing TV contracts and the topic of Xgames came up. One article we discussed brought to light that some analysts estimate that xgames brings in around 15 or 16 million for ESPN/ABC and their parent company Disney (ESPN reports their earnings at a modest 1 million). The total purse, for all events (snowmobile, skier x, snowboarding etc) is a meager $578,000. Furthermore, ESPN doesn’t even provide insurance for any athletes. So I ask, do you think this is an example of a large corporation exploiting skiers? Is it a necessary evil for exposure for the sport? If skiers collaborated in a “players union” type organization such as in MLB or any of the other major sports, could they achieve some bargaining agreement to raise the purse to something more fitting for the amount ESPN makes? Any input would be great.

Ps, if you make a real good comment I’ll put you in my power point presentation, so you have that going for you, which is nice.
May 13 2007 9:11PM
0 0
profile picture
mohawkskier
Posts: 743 - Karma: 98
being a pro skiier you are going to get exploited by corperations that is how the game goes
May 13 2007 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
titsLOL
Posts: 7485 - Karma: 396
for ESPN it doesn't make too much sense to raise the purse, cuz even the top pros will ski their asses of for 25 grand (I believe that is what first place was right? maybe I'm making that up), and for a not-so-mainstream sport makin 25 grand for one event isn't that bad. I wont argue that that isn't exploition, but there isn't really much you can do about it. At one point perhaps skiing will be in high enough demand for the skiers to gain some leverage on the corporations, but for now just the exposure the skiers and their sponsors get seems like a pretty good deal. That's sweet that your class is covering stuff like that, what did your professor have to say about it?
May 13 2007 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
*DrewT*
Posts: 7768 - Karma: 481
Well you also have to consider the other costs of running the event. Still when you consider Honda ski tour gave out about the same prize money in it's first year it's pretty obvious the skiers are being exploited, however that's not gonna change until somebody else starts giving much more prize money and exposure
May 13 2007 9:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Literature
Posts: 13673 - Karma: 3,085
Honestly, I don't really see the benefits of exposure for skiing. The ski industry is certainly alive and kicking, and that won't change for the worse with a larger market. Personally, I don't want skiing to be as well known as skateboarding or snowboarding, and comps like the XGames only put out a sport full of drama and competition, which really is not the case as exemplified by real events such as the Back 9.
May 13 2007 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
titsLOL
Posts: 7485 - Karma: 396
well the more exposed and mainstream newschool skiing is the more of us will get to ski for a living...
May 13 2007 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
The_Oakley_Kid
Posts: 3128 - Karma: 179
in short, yes. Skiers are being exploited in this situation. But, I also don't think that skiers compete in the xgames just for the size of the purse. Xgames is for exposure and a way for the rest of the world to see our sport. It won't make a difference if ESPN is making a killing or not and only giving 25k to the winners. Skiers will show up no matter what the size of the purse is.
May 13 2007 9:55PM
0 0
profile picture
sktrkdo7
Posts: 1920 - Karma: 182
i hope skiing doesnt get take over by "the corporations" like skateboardings has
May 13 2007 10:06PM
0 0
profile picture
General_Shredgnar
Posts: 3024 - Karma: 34
They can exploit us because we're an up and coming sport. Snowboarding I believe gets much more than us, because people watch it so much more, and the athletes have a lot more power because of the popularity they have, so they can decide not to go to events with small purses. For skiers, people take what they can get, our sport is so new that I think most skiers who make any money at all are just super stoked that they can survive on something they absolutely love doing. I think as our sport progresses in terms of popularity and media coverage the purses will get bigger.

Unfortunately for skiers the X-Games is the biggest coverage they get all year in terms of general audiences. When skiing alone rakes in more cash, they'll give more dollars to the skiers.
May 13 2007 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
ValPow
Posts: 1049 - Karma: 10
is it not 25k for us open and 60 for x games
May 13 2007 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
jack.whelan
Posts: 1504 - Karma: 122
we're sportsmen, not workin in a field in zambia for $1.50 a month. keep it in perspective...
May 13 2007 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
P3TER
Posts: 972 - Karma: 438
i dont really think skateboarding has been taken over, except by like world industries and they are gay. if u mean that the x games took over skateboarding, ur wrong too most skaters think the x games are gay. we are milking the corps. not the other way around
May 13 2007 11:04PM
0 0
profile picture
griffmastar
Posts: 3 - Karma: 10
I agree that skateboarding has a pretty core following that hates x games, even though it's probably one of the higher paying events in the sport. Do you think skiing lacks this core following that skateboarding has, or do you think the two sports just have different priorities.
May 15 2007 1:05PM
0 0
profile picture
EL_FINRE
Posts: 2486 - Karma: 52
i think its good for the sport to get all of that exposure but bad in a sense cuz the big corporations use them like puppets in a sense, plus the coverage is really shitty
May 15 2007 1:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Mahre
Posts: 2507 - Karma: 490
more of a tv show than a contest
May 15 2007 1:27PM
0 0
profile picture
coordy12
Posts: 1285 - Karma: 10
for insurance to be provided for all athletes and for their particular endevors, it would be insanely expensive- cost prohibitive if you will.

and nice caddyshack reference.
May 15 2007 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
wrenegade
Posts: 6631 - Karma: 41
Was the 15 million in earnings or profit, cause there is a big difference. And yes, the pros are getting exploited. They would still be getting exploited if the winner got 5 times the amount. It's all made up drama for tv viewers. Plus its a pretty shitty competition. The course basically hasn't changed for 5 years. And its too flat.
May 15 2007 2:10PM
0 0
profile picture
MarkieR
Posts: 5337 - Karma: 98
it's definitely exploitation. but, that's the nature of any professional event (contests, not so much mainstream sports). espn doens't provide insurance for the competing athletes... okay, that makes sense. correct me if i'm wrong, but are there any comps that over insurance for their competitors? as for the prize money, most skiers with real sponsors will not only go home with the 25k purse, they will also get tons of bonuses from their sponsors. most companies match the winnings as an incentive for their athletes to do well. think of dumont winning a pipe event. he gets 25k in prize money, then an additional 25k from his major sponsors salomon, oakley, redbull, and target. that's a pretty damn good payday if you ask me. the rewards in this situation definitely warrant the risks.

and yeah, the course always sucks and it's definitely tv drama, but who cares. without the xgames, no one would know who tanner hall was or give a fuck how high dumont boosted out of the pipe. any publicity is good publicity and i think the sport of skiing is benefiting from such televised exploitation.
May 15 2007 2:24PM
0 0
profile picture
JFerg
Posts: 2440 - Karma: 62
Yea no kidding, I mean, the course is pretty killer, but for the fuckin' x-games, they should have a way more rediculous course. Whistler's high level park is arguably as tech (actually, not in the rails dept.) as the x-games course was, and that's a 6-7 month a year park. The X-games run should be rediculous and full of sick, un-heard of features. The only really unique thing I've seen in the x-games was that X-box they had last year. More shit like that!
May 15 2007 2:32PM
0 0
profile picture
STACKS
Posts: 1938 - Karma: 42
skiing is so lucky there is the x-games to promote the sport
May 15 2007 2:50PM
0 0
profile picture
pommes_vertes.
Posts: 1260 - Karma: 10
i dont think thats the point. the skiers are out there working just as hard at their sport as the football players, baseball players, etc, that are making millions of dollars a year. true, they will ski just as hard for 25 grand as for a much larger purse, but i think that just shows that they are even more deserving. remember the baseball strike a few years ago, because a $60 million/7 year contract wasnt good enough? thats ridiculous, whereas skiers are out there working their asses off and are stoked be winning 25 grand. if espn is making that much money, the skiers deserve a much larger purse than they have been getting. end of story.
May 15 2007 2:58PM
0 0
profile picture
MarkieR
Posts: 5337 - Karma: 98
you've gatta think though, a baseball team or football team brings in sooooooooo much money. they're a franchise. every little thing that's sold bearing a yankees emblem brings them money. there are a lot of fucking yankees hats running around. then you have to think about ticket sales. that's an insane amount of money right there. bottom line, mainstream sports can afford to pay their athletes that much, alternative sports can't afford to boost purses much more than they already are.
May 15 2007 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Jester1
Posts: 111 - Karma: 10
This is the road to making a living skiing. Athletes like Mike D. J.F.Houle J.P. Auclair the Phils and all the other athletes and promoters that worked hard to get the sport into a larger market. Making it possible for you young up and comers a opportunity to go get some and actually make a decent income while PLAYING!!
May 15 2007 3:10PM
0 0
profile picture
shawk
Posts: 473 - Karma: 41
Its sad to say, but our world is run my money. If ESPN lost money on the x-games, there would no longer be an x games. If salamon thought the 1080 would not make money, they would not have invented it. Im sure everyone would like to get sponcered / be in the x games, but if you don't skiing will still be fun. If you are blessed to earn a spot in the x games Im sure you are not concerned with your payday (it would be a nice bonus), but Im sure people are just honered to be there. If anything I think the more exposure, the better no matter who is making money. If it makes some 14 year old stoked to go out and ski and develop a lifelong passion because they saw someone boost 20 ft. then let ESPN and whoever else make their money. I do give ESPN credit for running the whole thing. Stations like FOX, CBS, MTV, ect broadcast shows that encourage crime, drinking, drugs, and sex giving kids the impression that thats ok where the x games promotes goal accomplishments. Thats my 2 cents, good luck with your paper.
May 15 2007 4:25PM
0 0
profile picture
hawaiiansteeze
Posts: 3255 - Karma: 3,226
well if you think of it all pro sports athleates are exploited in some ways, the sponcers make them wear there shit yes i would love a sponcer dont get me wrong it would be sick but the mojority of athleates are under control of major corperations
May 15 2007 4:45PM
0 0
profile picture
slopestyle4331
Posts: 1301 - Karma: 42
thats not what skiing is all about either these guys are havin a good time and not as worried about the money as other athletes
even if they didnt make a dime they would still ski just not as much
May 15 2007 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
soup
Posts: 6345 - Karma: 4,443
skiing isnt about the money.  If it was skiers would have big Nestle logos patched onto their jackets and shit. 
May 15 2007 6:03PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)