Why I've become a Hater
- Thread starter loganimlach
- Start date
youRsmellA
Member
you might need to be involved in skiing for a while to understand where logan is coming from, how submitting to a super structured life to win a medal might not be worth it. But if you were to go to WCS and see goepper (a great kid) only skiing with his team mates, not making 100 new friends like everyone else, and you find yourself feeling sorry for the current x games champion then you might understand.
jeR.
Active member
everything in OP i agree with in principle. However, money in the ski industry (aside from olympics) comes from businesses. businesses have to get return on investment. if investing in a 7th place x-games finisher is more profitable long-term than giving Stept payouts for Riley to hit some insane shit, then that is where the money will go. Many businesses, even core businesses, care more about long-term financial success than "the direction of the sport."Olympics will be like a giant PR campaign for slope comps, so money will get pumped into slope athletes, and likely get sucked away from film companies (unfortunately.) I think the reason so many start-ups are failing is that their business model is inherently flawed. it's insanely hard and expensive to turn out a ski movie - more so than many other products. and spending all that time and resources to market a product to a very specific audience seems like a poor risk analysis to me.
that being said, in MY dream world, stept would have the budget of a hollywood movie and shit would go off.
that being said, in MY dream world, stept would have the budget of a hollywood movie and shit would go off.
You gotta understand unless youre a shawn white, looks matter alot in determining how marketable a skier you are. Look at mike hornbeck. Theres hundreds of skiers who are as good as him but he is a very marketable skier for his looks and overall personality. So alot of people need to realize that the skiing industry just like any other sport industry is somewhat superficial
ISkiHarder
Member
This so much, Olympic competition practically ruined mogul skiing it went from badass hotdoggers with incredible style to F.I.S dicksucking comps which prevented progression and turned moguls into a completely square event. I just hope that something simular doesn't happen to us now.
Comp skiing. Freeskiing has no judges. How can you judge someone style? Its a relative thing like art. One trick can be easy for one person while its way harder for someone else. Comp skiing isn't truly freeskiing. Not saying one is better then the other but thats the way I see things.
theVan
Member
In my humble opinion, the problem is that the vast majority of Humans are asleep at the wheel eating whatever is spoon fed to them. The intelligent, creative, artistic people who see things from new perspectives are too busy trying to instil change in themselves and get that delicious mcmuffin. Meanwhile, the fatcats only take care of themselves and throw the scraps to the starving dogs who will kill each other to get a bite. I am talking about a massive mobilization of the people and while we're at it, we should fix everything else wrong in the world. In the mean time, get creative, stay positive, spread the word, and inspire others by leading by example. Maybe someday the pyramid will topple, but only if we take action in unison.
Logan, I agree with the sentiment behind what you're saying, but I want to point out something.
There are two circumstances in which I've seen Freeskiing on my television:
1) Winter Dew Tour - The Winter Dew Tour has aired on NBC, a national network, which means that there are gonna be WAY more viewers than a Stept/Level1/PBP film, and this means more advertisements/sponsorships, which means more commercials, which means more money for the event, and that means more money for the competitors in the event.
2) Winter X-Games - The same explanation above applies here. X-Games is on ESPN; one of the most successful national broadcasting networks in history. MILLIONS of people are tuned in to this channel at any given moment. Okay fine- ESPN2. Still.. huge audience potential. Again- this means more viewers, and viewers = commercials = money.
The problem here isn't that the companies are jerks and just love competitions... the reason that there is way more money for athletes in competitions than there are in movies is the big comps like Dew Tour in X Games simply bring in so much more money. If Stept brought in the viewers that Dew Tour and X Games probably do, they wouldn't have money issues. But then again, they would bring in that many viewers... if their films were on NBC.
There are two circumstances in which I've seen Freeskiing on my television:
1) Winter Dew Tour - The Winter Dew Tour has aired on NBC, a national network, which means that there are gonna be WAY more viewers than a Stept/Level1/PBP film, and this means more advertisements/sponsorships, which means more commercials, which means more money for the event, and that means more money for the competitors in the event.
2) Winter X-Games - The same explanation above applies here. X-Games is on ESPN; one of the most successful national broadcasting networks in history. MILLIONS of people are tuned in to this channel at any given moment. Okay fine- ESPN2. Still.. huge audience potential. Again- this means more viewers, and viewers = commercials = money.
The problem here isn't that the companies are jerks and just love competitions... the reason that there is way more money for athletes in competitions than there are in movies is the big comps like Dew Tour in X Games simply bring in so much more money. If Stept brought in the viewers that Dew Tour and X Games probably do, they wouldn't have money issues. But then again, they would bring in that many viewers... if their films were on NBC.
"You know when our industry was at its peak? In the 70’s and 80’s When Warren Miller films were selling out 20,000 seat theatres and coked up mogul skiers were ripping bumps and banging hookers in hot tubs. Ski films were broadcast to huge audiences, not just the niche group we are in now. You know how we got to that point? A large portion of the money was poured back into the ski film industry, allowing them not only to produce, but also to promote their film every year. "
Sorry man, but as far as money going to athletes is concerned, you are just flat out wrong. Scot Schmidt was the first free-skier who was able to get by on sponsor support alone, and that was after six years of filming and getting nothing other than travel expenses and free gear out of the game. He had to threaten to quit before TNF finally hooked him up. The glory days of the 70's and 80's yielded one or two guys in North America who could ski on camera for a living, and supported one or two film companies.
The odds of being able to make a living skiing on camera, even for a few years, are still vanishingly small but there's vastly more money, and far more options on the table now than there were back in the 70's and 80's. No matter how you slice it, you've got it way better than anyone in the supposed glory days had it. Reflect and be thankful for what you've got.
If that doesn't do it - talk about risk versus monetary reward, or just the opportunities to eke out a living to the guys who are pushing the top end of the sport in whitewater kayaking, alpine climbing, or ski mountaineering. Skiers have it good relative to most other action sports, and skiers have never had it better.
Sorry man, but as far as money going to athletes is concerned, you are just flat out wrong. Scot Schmidt was the first free-skier who was able to get by on sponsor support alone, and that was after six years of filming and getting nothing other than travel expenses and free gear out of the game. He had to threaten to quit before TNF finally hooked him up. The glory days of the 70's and 80's yielded one or two guys in North America who could ski on camera for a living, and supported one or two film companies.
The odds of being able to make a living skiing on camera, even for a few years, are still vanishingly small but there's vastly more money, and far more options on the table now than there were back in the 70's and 80's. No matter how you slice it, you've got it way better than anyone in the supposed glory days had it. Reflect and be thankful for what you've got.
If that doesn't do it - talk about risk versus monetary reward, or just the opportunities to eke out a living to the guys who are pushing the top end of the sport in whitewater kayaking, alpine climbing, or ski mountaineering. Skiers have it good relative to most other action sports, and skiers have never had it better.
logan_bingaman
Member
I just feel like if you were a successful comp skier then you would not have an issue with this. Obviously money coming from the films would be a bonus, but everyone and their mothers watch the Olympics. And saying it's bad for the sport is unbelievable. And it will give the skiers complete glory to be seen by the whole world. If that's what they want to do, then they should get that. Just like if you want to film, do it, it's skiing, we're free to do whatever we please. But skiing will never be the NFL, and next years stept film will never be more important than the Olympics. Whether you believe in either side of the argument it just will never be that way. Money is given to the competing competitors because they are the ones the whole world will see. It's just the smart thing to do if your looking for profit. If people want to compete that's just as important as if someone wants to film. Just take Tanner Hall for example. He was so into the idea of the Olympics, worked so hard to see if he could make it, and don't take this the wrong way, I love what Tanner has done, he is an inspiration, an idol and will surely always be a legend, but when he knew he wasn't going to be able to make it to the Olympics after what halfpipe skiing has progressed to, he trashed the Olympics, and he shouldn't have, because it's freeskiing and people should be free to do whatever they want with their planks under their feet. Just like you are trashing it, and you shouldn't be, but honestly if you were on the other side, about to represent America in front of the world, how would you think about the Olympics? Money shouldn't have anything to do with skiing, we all ski because we love to do it, and whether you get that rush we all love from tail pressing a down rail, or hucking a triple, it will still always be for the love of the sport, not the money. Yes it would be nice if every skier in next years films made 6 figures, but due to the audience they are presented to it won't happen, and corporations won't back it up as much as the Olympics, X games, dew tours, etc. If any kid on here walks into their high schools tomorrow and asks the kids there if they have seen Mutiny they will be about the only one in the whole place to even know what Mutiny is, now if that same kid walks into class and asks his class who has seen the Olympics, every kid will raise their hand. Hate all you want, I'm not choosing a side, it's just how it will work. Get stept on a major network and they will get paid as much as they deserve. But it just won't happen, we all wish it did, I guarantee all the comp skiers and everyone on here sees your point, but it's just not what will make major companies money, it won't make us the NFL. I love newschoolers, and there should be no hate because everyone should ski exactly how they want to, film, compete, or any other way you wanna ski, just do it and love it and that's what's gonna keep you coming back to this site.
I'd like to touch on another issue not really mentioned in this thread... Media & Advertising. You want to know why Company X can't pay their athletes? It's because they blew their load on print advertising.
I'm using Freeskier here, but Powder and SBC Skier are two other North American examples. Note that Newschoolers stays alive through advertising as well, albeit digital and not print.
A page in a regular issue of Freeskier = $7,800
A page in their Buyer's Guide = $9,360
A page in their Backcountry issue = $5,460
Text link in their Newsletter = $500
Featured inclusion in their Newsletter = $2,500
Digital ads = Misc
Freeskier does seven issues per year.
I'm not sure what their ad/edit ratio is but let's go with a lowball and say it's 40/60... Which isn't including the "Special Advertising" section, where they do paid editorial, aka advertorial, for: The Brand Directory, The Heli/Cat Directory, The Resort Directory, The Shop Directory, The Holiday Gift Guide, and The Summer/Camp Guide.
That's a lot of money.
I'm using Freeskier here, but Powder and SBC Skier are two other North American examples. Note that Newschoolers stays alive through advertising as well, albeit digital and not print.
A page in a regular issue of Freeskier = $7,800
A page in their Buyer's Guide = $9,360
A page in their Backcountry issue = $5,460
Text link in their Newsletter = $500
Featured inclusion in their Newsletter = $2,500
Digital ads = Misc
Freeskier does seven issues per year.
I'm not sure what their ad/edit ratio is but let's go with a lowball and say it's 40/60... Which isn't including the "Special Advertising" section, where they do paid editorial, aka advertorial, for: The Brand Directory, The Heli/Cat Directory, The Resort Directory, The Shop Directory, The Holiday Gift Guide, and The Summer/Camp Guide.
That's a lot of money.
lanks
Active member
With freeskiing on the verge of Olympic inclusion and another collision with FIS, SBC SKIER sits down with Anthony Boronowski to chat about the ramifications, and why no one else is talking about it.[/i]
We want to talk about the Olympics. I know you have a few things to say, so why don't you start?
I feel like the people who are motivated to get [halfpipe] skiing into the Olympics have ulterior motives. I feel like those motives generally boil down to money, and there's been little discussion about why [halfpipe] skiing shouldn't be in the Olympics.
I know firsthand there are skiers who don't back it. It's a non-vocal minority, and it's people who have been around since the beginning. That's an important thing to consider. You have a lot of people who aren't saying shit, who share the same feelings I do. Which is a sense of caution, because right now the only story you get is a one-sided, "Let's hope skiing gets in the Olympics".
The reason you have these experienced people who aren't allowed to say what they think is because they're employed by companies who have the potential to make a lot of money off of this situation and I'm saying potential on purpose because it's not a guarantee. These guys can't say shit, and yet they're the ones with the knowledge and experience within skiing to know it's a dangerous call. You have a great group of experienced people who are in a position of compromise because they can't say what they think.
Precisely what do they think?
They think that it's dangerous. They think there's a reason we broke away from FIS. There's a reason freeskiing started and that's because FIS sucks. There's a reason you had the brightest stars of freestyle skiing quit and start their own thing without [FIS] rules. But moguls was in such a sad state of affairs, and it was miserable because of FIS. You couldn't even do a Backflip, because you weren't allowed. Because it sucked. Do you think they wanted to quit? Do you think they wanted to not go to the Olympics? Not get funding from a government? Not have all these great opportunities?
People are concerned because they've been there. They should not be ignored because they're wise. There needs to be a dialogue of temperament with the gung-ho-over-the-top push that we're in right now.
The fact that there are certain important voices within freeskiing absent from the debate is a warning sign.
Undoubtedly. I think it's sad that debate isn't encouraged. When snowboarding was going to go in the Olympics, Terje wouldn't go for Norway, and there was a dialogue about why snowboarding shouldn't go.
Because he was the most important figure in the sport at the time, and he flat out rejected it.
But he had the power to begin a dialogue. I think that skiing needs to have a dialogue with both sides of the story. [Remember,] we were in a position where skiing was totally stifled, it sucked, it was boring, it was miserable. Why do we need to go back to that?
Money is the only reason?
It has to be money. What's your argument? It's progression? No, because halfpipe skiing is going through the roof, slopestyle skiing is going through the roof, everything is going crazy. You've seen guys do back-to-back Double Corks in the pipe, amazing stuff, three Double Corks in one run from Kevin Rolland. Progression is not the issue. I don't think people look at what FIS' involvement in our skiing is going to mean.
Will their involvement negatively affect the evolution of freeskiing because our best and brightest will be coming up skiing to please judges?
I think that's an important part of the debate. Will FIS change? The way they approach mogul skiing is not the way you can approach freeskiing. Case in point, you have mogul skiers who don't even try to grab, because if you miss, your deduction is so high you're better to do a fucking Iron Cross, super ugly, and never try to grab. You see what I'm getting at? There has to be change in FIS that's reflective of our sport in order for things to be right.
But the FIS judging and the stifling of progression is only a small part of the discussion. I believe that if FIS works hard and they consult with the right people they could potentially do it right. They've done it with snowboarding. You had the right winner at the Olympics this year. There were judging errors in certain areas, but in general, those men and women just snowboard as well as they can and trust that the judging is going to work out-and I think that's great.
If they can get it right for skiing, that's perfect. But if they can't, then it's fucked and we're back to the mogul days. Which is a pretty big risk I'm not even sure skiing has acknowledged it's taking.
Don't you think some of the push from young people to have freeskiing represented in the Olympics is because they want skiing as a whole represented more accurately? When I was watching the reallocation of money in certain areas, with the most favoured Olympics I could barely stand the mogul events.
That's fair enough. When I watch moguls I lose my shit.
None of the world's best skiers ski moguls, they all freeski.
Just theoretically, imagine freeskiing never happened. Imagine what the mogul final would have been like in Vancouver. Could you imagine all the male freeskiing talents we have right now competing in moguls? The finals would have been berserk.
Do you think freeskiing needs its own governing body?
I think it has to be. That's why snowboarding worked, because they have the USSR. They totally did it their own way, and I think without that there's a larger chance of failure. Skiing needs to seriously consider getting involved with FIS, and the alternatives.
I feel the reason we never created a governing body is because it's only been 10 years that this has been going on, and guys had such a bad taste in their mouth from FIS. Why would you want to create a governing body? The whole reason this is happening is because we don't want rules. It's about being free.
The real merit and beauty of freeskiing is that it's always been people successfully following their hearts. They pioneered all these tricks, and did them because they were cool and had never been done before. They were no longer skiing for judges, and look at what they were able to do.
My concern is that the focus is going to be so direct and so strong on halfpipe skiing-and only halfpipe skiing. It's going to inherently limit the ability for creative people to do creative things and live a lifestyle that allows them to go skiing and get exposure.
The richest skiers will be the ones in the Olympics getting richer.
And the poorer skiers will be even poorer. I'm not saying those guys are going to stop skiing, or that there's no future for them if skiing gets into the Olympics, but our industry isn't that big.
I'm not going to deny the scale of exposure that comes with the Olympics. I will never deny that, but skiing needs to be careful, and contemplate what this choice will mean. Yes, you will have progression and creative expression within pipe skiing, granted FIS figures it out, but you're going to have a gnarly focus on pipe.
We have all this other stuff that's really special within skiing, and by granting halfpipe a position in the Olympics, you're really narrowing the support structure for any skier who is not competing in that arena.
If halfpipe skiing gets into the Olympics, I assume most companies will do whatever they can to have a rider in the competition because that is the ultimate exposure. Olympic athletes are going to command way more money, their salary might eclipse that of several other non-halfpipe riders.
And not even just riders, think about it on a broader scale. You have a brand that is speculating on a rider who could make it into the Olympics, and they're going to give all that money to that kid. That's great for that kid, fair enough. I'm not hating, take advantage of your opportunity. But what about the film companies? What about the ski magazines? What about the kids who deserve to make a living skiing?
You think if you have a brand paying a ton of money to a very select few, they're going to have any money left over to do anything else? It's happened in snowboarding and I've seen it firsthand. You have brands paying riders a lot of fucking money to come 11th in the Olympics. Who came 11th in the Olympics?
I have no idea and I watched the finals.
Exactly.
Do you think having halfpipe skiing in the Olympics ultimately sells more skis? Does it bring more people to skiing?
Do you think Burton sells more boards because Shaun White won a gold medal?
Burton likely sells more snowboards, but are there more total snowboards sold by all the brands, including Burton? I don't think so. I think Burton just takes a bigger piece of the pie, because I haven't seen any indication of that pie growing in skiing or snowboarding.
Exactly. I think you're going to see a reallocation of money in certain areas, with the most favoured riders getting short-term non-endemic deals, just like in snowboarding. With the discussion about growing skiing, the question I would have for you is: Do people want to skicross because skicross was in the Olympics?
No. And the more cynical would call skicross a failed sport for failed racers.
Right, then why is there this massive push within skiing to get halfpipe into the Olympics? Because really all that's going to change is the focus within our own community.
We're doing a pretty damn good job right now. It's awesome. There's support for guys who want to do cool little things like Traveling Circus and CASG, for guys who want to go on the big mountain tour, guys who want to film a movie part, and for guys who want to compete. There's small companies, there's big companies...
It will negatively affect the diversity of our support.
Ultimately that's my fear. Whether it's in the type of riding, or trick selection because of judging, or in skier support because of money and speculation. That is what I think we have the potential to lose. That's my biggest thing. Why do we need this push so bad? What is the ultimate goal?
Which is what you were getting at initially when we were talking about who is motivated by the goal of getting into the Olympics.
Everyone directly correlates Olympics with growth, but mofos, you're on NBC three times a year with the Dew Tour, you're on ABC, ESPN and EXPN, there's tons of exposure. I worry you're going to limit the diversity of skiing further by creating this artificial hype around the idea of growth when it may not happen at all.
Do you think that once FIS starts regulating halfpipe their reach will extend into other kinds of ski competitions like slope style? Right now, for all the controversy about judging, I feel we have a very competent group of judges, and we are judging ourselves.
I kind of believe in FIS in this regard. They know they fucked it up, and if we're going to do this, we have the power to regulate how it's done. There are enough smart people out there, like Mike Douglas and Josh Loubek, and with the right consultation and management it doesn't have to be negative.
Snowboarding had the most amazing year of progression for their sport in men's halfpipe riding ever. You could never deny that, and that's because of the push for the Olympics. And they managed to figure out a system that encouraged growth and progression without stagnation
You think that if the right people are involved, there's the possibility that FIS will not mismanage it? They might actually be able to do it really well?
My concern is within the industry. What is going to happen to us? FIS is also a major issue, but I'm someone who believes in people and I believe they can do it if the right people are involved.
I don't believe freeskiing is going to grow that fundamentally to augment the weird prospective change we're going to have. People who say, "I want to see my sport grow," I would say to them: How? Where? Why? It's going to grow because it was on TV for one hour of one day and you've got three guys who got multi-million dollar endorsement deals?
Let's say skiing had made it into the Olympics in Vancouver. Would someone like Tom Wallisch, who is undoubtedly a phenomenal talent, have devoted his time to being what Tom Wallisch is today, or would he have spent more time trying to be a well judged halfpipe skier?
Put it like this. What do you think Sean Pettit would do? Do you think we would have Sean Pettit as a bigmountain skier? Because undeniably Sean has a God-given talent, although I don't really believe in talent, but he has the ability and the opportunity to become one of the best skiers ever. Ask yourself, would Sean be skiing the [game-changing] way he is now?
Quite possibly not. Remember how good he was at halfpipe?
And that's fucking sad to me. Look at how good he was at halfpipe. Don't you think he would have kept doing that? And what if we didn't have Sean?
We want to talk about the Olympics. I know you have a few things to say, so why don't you start?
I feel like the people who are motivated to get [halfpipe] skiing into the Olympics have ulterior motives. I feel like those motives generally boil down to money, and there's been little discussion about why [halfpipe] skiing shouldn't be in the Olympics.
I know firsthand there are skiers who don't back it. It's a non-vocal minority, and it's people who have been around since the beginning. That's an important thing to consider. You have a lot of people who aren't saying shit, who share the same feelings I do. Which is a sense of caution, because right now the only story you get is a one-sided, "Let's hope skiing gets in the Olympics".
The reason you have these experienced people who aren't allowed to say what they think is because they're employed by companies who have the potential to make a lot of money off of this situation and I'm saying potential on purpose because it's not a guarantee. These guys can't say shit, and yet they're the ones with the knowledge and experience within skiing to know it's a dangerous call. You have a great group of experienced people who are in a position of compromise because they can't say what they think.
Precisely what do they think?
They think that it's dangerous. They think there's a reason we broke away from FIS. There's a reason freeskiing started and that's because FIS sucks. There's a reason you had the brightest stars of freestyle skiing quit and start their own thing without [FIS] rules. But moguls was in such a sad state of affairs, and it was miserable because of FIS. You couldn't even do a Backflip, because you weren't allowed. Because it sucked. Do you think they wanted to quit? Do you think they wanted to not go to the Olympics? Not get funding from a government? Not have all these great opportunities?
People are concerned because they've been there. They should not be ignored because they're wise. There needs to be a dialogue of temperament with the gung-ho-over-the-top push that we're in right now.
The fact that there are certain important voices within freeskiing absent from the debate is a warning sign.
Undoubtedly. I think it's sad that debate isn't encouraged. When snowboarding was going to go in the Olympics, Terje wouldn't go for Norway, and there was a dialogue about why snowboarding shouldn't go.
Because he was the most important figure in the sport at the time, and he flat out rejected it.
But he had the power to begin a dialogue. I think that skiing needs to have a dialogue with both sides of the story. [Remember,] we were in a position where skiing was totally stifled, it sucked, it was boring, it was miserable. Why do we need to go back to that?
Money is the only reason?
It has to be money. What's your argument? It's progression? No, because halfpipe skiing is going through the roof, slopestyle skiing is going through the roof, everything is going crazy. You've seen guys do back-to-back Double Corks in the pipe, amazing stuff, three Double Corks in one run from Kevin Rolland. Progression is not the issue. I don't think people look at what FIS' involvement in our skiing is going to mean.
Will their involvement negatively affect the evolution of freeskiing because our best and brightest will be coming up skiing to please judges?
I think that's an important part of the debate. Will FIS change? The way they approach mogul skiing is not the way you can approach freeskiing. Case in point, you have mogul skiers who don't even try to grab, because if you miss, your deduction is so high you're better to do a fucking Iron Cross, super ugly, and never try to grab. You see what I'm getting at? There has to be change in FIS that's reflective of our sport in order for things to be right.
But the FIS judging and the stifling of progression is only a small part of the discussion. I believe that if FIS works hard and they consult with the right people they could potentially do it right. They've done it with snowboarding. You had the right winner at the Olympics this year. There were judging errors in certain areas, but in general, those men and women just snowboard as well as they can and trust that the judging is going to work out-and I think that's great.
If they can get it right for skiing, that's perfect. But if they can't, then it's fucked and we're back to the mogul days. Which is a pretty big risk I'm not even sure skiing has acknowledged it's taking.
Don't you think some of the push from young people to have freeskiing represented in the Olympics is because they want skiing as a whole represented more accurately? When I was watching the reallocation of money in certain areas, with the most favoured Olympics I could barely stand the mogul events.
That's fair enough. When I watch moguls I lose my shit.
None of the world's best skiers ski moguls, they all freeski.
Just theoretically, imagine freeskiing never happened. Imagine what the mogul final would have been like in Vancouver. Could you imagine all the male freeskiing talents we have right now competing in moguls? The finals would have been berserk.
Do you think freeskiing needs its own governing body?
I think it has to be. That's why snowboarding worked, because they have the USSR. They totally did it their own way, and I think without that there's a larger chance of failure. Skiing needs to seriously consider getting involved with FIS, and the alternatives.
I feel the reason we never created a governing body is because it's only been 10 years that this has been going on, and guys had such a bad taste in their mouth from FIS. Why would you want to create a governing body? The whole reason this is happening is because we don't want rules. It's about being free.
The real merit and beauty of freeskiing is that it's always been people successfully following their hearts. They pioneered all these tricks, and did them because they were cool and had never been done before. They were no longer skiing for judges, and look at what they were able to do.
My concern is that the focus is going to be so direct and so strong on halfpipe skiing-and only halfpipe skiing. It's going to inherently limit the ability for creative people to do creative things and live a lifestyle that allows them to go skiing and get exposure.
The richest skiers will be the ones in the Olympics getting richer.
And the poorer skiers will be even poorer. I'm not saying those guys are going to stop skiing, or that there's no future for them if skiing gets into the Olympics, but our industry isn't that big.
I'm not going to deny the scale of exposure that comes with the Olympics. I will never deny that, but skiing needs to be careful, and contemplate what this choice will mean. Yes, you will have progression and creative expression within pipe skiing, granted FIS figures it out, but you're going to have a gnarly focus on pipe.
We have all this other stuff that's really special within skiing, and by granting halfpipe a position in the Olympics, you're really narrowing the support structure for any skier who is not competing in that arena.
If halfpipe skiing gets into the Olympics, I assume most companies will do whatever they can to have a rider in the competition because that is the ultimate exposure. Olympic athletes are going to command way more money, their salary might eclipse that of several other non-halfpipe riders.
And not even just riders, think about it on a broader scale. You have a brand that is speculating on a rider who could make it into the Olympics, and they're going to give all that money to that kid. That's great for that kid, fair enough. I'm not hating, take advantage of your opportunity. But what about the film companies? What about the ski magazines? What about the kids who deserve to make a living skiing?
You think if you have a brand paying a ton of money to a very select few, they're going to have any money left over to do anything else? It's happened in snowboarding and I've seen it firsthand. You have brands paying riders a lot of fucking money to come 11th in the Olympics. Who came 11th in the Olympics?
I have no idea and I watched the finals.
Exactly.
Do you think having halfpipe skiing in the Olympics ultimately sells more skis? Does it bring more people to skiing?
Do you think Burton sells more boards because Shaun White won a gold medal?
Burton likely sells more snowboards, but are there more total snowboards sold by all the brands, including Burton? I don't think so. I think Burton just takes a bigger piece of the pie, because I haven't seen any indication of that pie growing in skiing or snowboarding.
Exactly. I think you're going to see a reallocation of money in certain areas, with the most favoured riders getting short-term non-endemic deals, just like in snowboarding. With the discussion about growing skiing, the question I would have for you is: Do people want to skicross because skicross was in the Olympics?
No. And the more cynical would call skicross a failed sport for failed racers.
Right, then why is there this massive push within skiing to get halfpipe into the Olympics? Because really all that's going to change is the focus within our own community.
We're doing a pretty damn good job right now. It's awesome. There's support for guys who want to do cool little things like Traveling Circus and CASG, for guys who want to go on the big mountain tour, guys who want to film a movie part, and for guys who want to compete. There's small companies, there's big companies...
It will negatively affect the diversity of our support.
Ultimately that's my fear. Whether it's in the type of riding, or trick selection because of judging, or in skier support because of money and speculation. That is what I think we have the potential to lose. That's my biggest thing. Why do we need this push so bad? What is the ultimate goal?
Which is what you were getting at initially when we were talking about who is motivated by the goal of getting into the Olympics.
Everyone directly correlates Olympics with growth, but mofos, you're on NBC three times a year with the Dew Tour, you're on ABC, ESPN and EXPN, there's tons of exposure. I worry you're going to limit the diversity of skiing further by creating this artificial hype around the idea of growth when it may not happen at all.
Do you think that once FIS starts regulating halfpipe their reach will extend into other kinds of ski competitions like slope style? Right now, for all the controversy about judging, I feel we have a very competent group of judges, and we are judging ourselves.
I kind of believe in FIS in this regard. They know they fucked it up, and if we're going to do this, we have the power to regulate how it's done. There are enough smart people out there, like Mike Douglas and Josh Loubek, and with the right consultation and management it doesn't have to be negative.
Snowboarding had the most amazing year of progression for their sport in men's halfpipe riding ever. You could never deny that, and that's because of the push for the Olympics. And they managed to figure out a system that encouraged growth and progression without stagnation
You think that if the right people are involved, there's the possibility that FIS will not mismanage it? They might actually be able to do it really well?
My concern is within the industry. What is going to happen to us? FIS is also a major issue, but I'm someone who believes in people and I believe they can do it if the right people are involved.
I don't believe freeskiing is going to grow that fundamentally to augment the weird prospective change we're going to have. People who say, "I want to see my sport grow," I would say to them: How? Where? Why? It's going to grow because it was on TV for one hour of one day and you've got three guys who got multi-million dollar endorsement deals?
Let's say skiing had made it into the Olympics in Vancouver. Would someone like Tom Wallisch, who is undoubtedly a phenomenal talent, have devoted his time to being what Tom Wallisch is today, or would he have spent more time trying to be a well judged halfpipe skier?
Put it like this. What do you think Sean Pettit would do? Do you think we would have Sean Pettit as a bigmountain skier? Because undeniably Sean has a God-given talent, although I don't really believe in talent, but he has the ability and the opportunity to become one of the best skiers ever. Ask yourself, would Sean be skiing the [game-changing] way he is now?
Quite possibly not. Remember how good he was at halfpipe?
And that's fucking sad to me. Look at how good he was at halfpipe. Don't you think he would have kept doing that? And what if we didn't have Sean?
offtrail
Active member
It has literally been YEARS since I posted or even opened this site. It is funny how nothing has changed in the 10 years since joining this site. Logan is spot on with his post, but i'm going to say this....
I folded Off Trail Productions for two reasons, one being money and the other being my love of skiing.
I stopped enjoying skiing because of all the hate about a lack of money in the industry. I for one was one of the most bitter SOB's out there, but once I walked away from making films, I found the love for skiing again. Being entrenched in the ski community was a blast and being able to call plenty of pro skiers friends is an honor that I will always cherish.
However there is a reason we all ski, because we love it. I'm sure if you asked 99% of the pro skiers who make all of their money through sponsorship, they would tell you they wouldn't be doing this if they didn't love skiing.
Point being everybody should focus on finding the love for skiing, and when you find it, don't forget that feeling because it can be taken away at any moment.
The Olympics will bring a new understanding of freeskiing, however as has been mentioned, will not bring much in terms of money to the sport. Making money off of skiing is a tourist centric idea. Everybody getting hooked up with bro deals or pro forms are not the people who pump money in to these companies, tourist Bob from Texas is the one buying $1000 set ups and 1 pieces. They are the people that bring money to our sport. And Tourist Bob doesn't care about most ski movies because he doesn't have a connection. Warren Miller made that connection to Tourist Bob for 50 years, that is why they sold out their 20,000 seat shows country wide. Why do you think pro's are dropping singular edits online..... Because they aren't going to be making much off of those films.
All I can say is I LOVE skiing, and I hope you do too. Enjoy it for what it is, and hopefully someday you will be able to enjoy skiing as much as I do without worrying about how much money is being made from it.
J.Lo
I folded Off Trail Productions for two reasons, one being money and the other being my love of skiing.
I stopped enjoying skiing because of all the hate about a lack of money in the industry. I for one was one of the most bitter SOB's out there, but once I walked away from making films, I found the love for skiing again. Being entrenched in the ski community was a blast and being able to call plenty of pro skiers friends is an honor that I will always cherish.
However there is a reason we all ski, because we love it. I'm sure if you asked 99% of the pro skiers who make all of their money through sponsorship, they would tell you they wouldn't be doing this if they didn't love skiing.
Point being everybody should focus on finding the love for skiing, and when you find it, don't forget that feeling because it can be taken away at any moment.
The Olympics will bring a new understanding of freeskiing, however as has been mentioned, will not bring much in terms of money to the sport. Making money off of skiing is a tourist centric idea. Everybody getting hooked up with bro deals or pro forms are not the people who pump money in to these companies, tourist Bob from Texas is the one buying $1000 set ups and 1 pieces. They are the people that bring money to our sport. And Tourist Bob doesn't care about most ski movies because he doesn't have a connection. Warren Miller made that connection to Tourist Bob for 50 years, that is why they sold out their 20,000 seat shows country wide. Why do you think pro's are dropping singular edits online..... Because they aren't going to be making much off of those films.
All I can say is I LOVE skiing, and I hope you do too. Enjoy it for what it is, and hopefully someday you will be able to enjoy skiing as much as I do without worrying about how much money is being made from it.
J.Lo
Forgot to add that newsletters go out twice a week, and Exclusive newsletters are priced at $4,500.
Some more food for thought pulled from the Freeskier media kit.
- "FREESKIER is a mutli-platform, multi-channel connection between the ski industry and skiers."
- "Our [Freeskier's] magazine has defined the cutting edge of skiing for more than 15 years."
- "Our [Freeskier's] circulation model has more integrity, more authenticity and more quality than any other mag in the game."
- Total Reach: 325,000/issue
- 54% Spend more than 2 hours with each issue
- 71% Never throw away a copy of FREESKIER
Some more food for thought pulled from the Freeskier media kit.
- "FREESKIER is a mutli-platform, multi-channel connection between the ski industry and skiers."
- "Our [Freeskier's] magazine has defined the cutting edge of skiing for more than 15 years."
- "Our [Freeskier's] circulation model has more integrity, more authenticity and more quality than any other mag in the game."
- Total Reach: 325,000/issue
- 54% Spend more than 2 hours with each issue
- 71% Never throw away a copy of FREESKIER
/readnews/43681/Meet-The-Secretive-Group-Earning--8-Billion-From-The-Olympic-Games?c=latest&o=2
Meet The Secretive Group Earning $8 Billion From The Olympic Games
"The secretive group that runs the Olympics is expected to earn a record $8 billion in the 2009-2012 quadrennial cycle, according to Sportcal."
Read more: https://www.newschoolers.com/readnews/43681.0/Meet-The-Secretive-Group-Earning--8-Billion-From-The-Olympic-Games
Meet The Secretive Group Earning $8 Billion From The Olympic Games
"The secretive group that runs the Olympics is expected to earn a record $8 billion in the 2009-2012 quadrennial cycle, according to Sportcal."
Read more: https://www.newschoolers.com/readnews/43681.0/Meet-The-Secretive-Group-Earning--8-Billion-From-The-Olympic-Games
t_rob
Active member
Wow, I really don't understand your attack on print all of the sudden. You just said NS pocketed $90k from advertisers on the NS mag. How many skiers salaries did that steal? (At least I think that's where you were going with that?)
What's the circulation of the NS Yearbook? What's the circulation of Powder, freeskier, or SBCskier? Print is not going to die. All of the other mags consist of almost all exclusive content while the NS Yearbook almost all sourced from the website? That's how they survive, exclusivity. You've said it yourself that there is a different feeling seeing pictures and articles in print from instead of on a website, well they're doing that. Sponsors know this and that's why they pay for print.
Then we get to how much the communities are informed. Sponsor dollars are much more valuable to print because the viewerbase is less informed. Take SKI, Linsdey Vonn has a groomer ski ad as I posted a few pages ago. It's much harder to convince NS junkies to buy products.
Webisodes are still a new thing that sponsors don't fully understand. You should just go out to sponsors and explain to them why that is a better way to sell product than print.
What's the circulation of the NS Yearbook? What's the circulation of Powder, freeskier, or SBCskier? Print is not going to die. All of the other mags consist of almost all exclusive content while the NS Yearbook almost all sourced from the website? That's how they survive, exclusivity. You've said it yourself that there is a different feeling seeing pictures and articles in print from instead of on a website, well they're doing that. Sponsors know this and that's why they pay for print.
Then we get to how much the communities are informed. Sponsor dollars are much more valuable to print because the viewerbase is less informed. Take SKI, Linsdey Vonn has a groomer ski ad as I posted a few pages ago. It's much harder to convince NS junkies to buy products.
Webisodes are still a new thing that sponsors don't fully understand. You should just go out to sponsors and explain to them why that is a better way to sell product than print.
Who says it's an attack? I love print and will continue to buy quality magazines for as long as they are produced. I worked for a print magazine before coming to NS, and now that I'm here, we're doing a print magazine. I have nothing against print.
I'm simply stating that it's an area that needs to be discussed while we're on the topic of dollars in the ski industry. Do you disagree? Are the dollars not big enough to warrant a discussion?
I'm simply stating that it's an area that needs to be discussed while we're on the topic of dollars in the ski industry. Do you disagree? Are the dollars not big enough to warrant a discussion?
t_rob
Active member
I wasn't getting objectivity from some of the word choice in your post, especially the "blew their load" line. But that's not important anymore...
Honestly, I don't think this website is in a position to discuss where the dollars should be allocated. There will be too much circle jerking to anti-heroes to understand where the sales are coming from that lead to the marketing budgets.
I'm not saying I don't believe all marketing budgets are properly allocated, it's not my place to tell everyone where they are fucking up. They aren't consulting me to fix their problems.
Honestly, I don't think this website is in a position to discuss where the dollars should be allocated. There will be too much circle jerking to anti-heroes to understand where the sales are coming from that lead to the marketing budgets.
I'm not saying I don't believe all marketing budgets are properly allocated, it's not my place to tell everyone where they are fucking up. They aren't consulting me to fix their problems.
If the discussion can't happen here, where is it going to happen?
We're in a pretty cool spot here, considering the site is made up of not only consumers, but athletes (a wide variety of them), photographers, producers, journalists, interns, marketing & team managers, owners, etc... and they can all interact without any barriers.
We're in a pretty cool spot here, considering the site is made up of not only consumers, but athletes (a wide variety of them), photographers, producers, journalists, interns, marketing & team managers, owners, etc... and they can all interact without any barriers.
gcp
Member
The REAL reason why Skiing will never have the "funding" or "money" you think it deserves:
Lets face it, skiing is a privilege sport. What i mean by that is, only really 10% if that of the worlds population has access to it, and only for 5-6 months out of the year. And an even smaller percent of that 10% gets access to it year round. Ontop of that it costs a single person a fuck ton of money to even go skiing. lets do a little comparative analysis shall we?
in order to go skiing:
You need expensive boots, nice wool socks, expensive bindings, expensive skis, expensive outerwear, goggles, gloves, lift tickets, gas to get to the lift, and most of the time an AWD car or chains (point being you need a car). on top of all that you need to live in an area thats close to skiing....
in order to play football:
you need, a football, an open field the city paid for, and a few friends.
in order to skateboard:
a 100$ skateboard and some shoes, a slab of concrete somewhere the city paid for.
in order to play soccer:
a soccer ball, and open field the city paid for, and a goal.
In order to play basketball:
a basket ball, a slab of concrete somewhere the city paid for with hoops, and friends (optional).
The average kid wants a skateboard, basketball, soccer or football not a pair of skis. because the average kid doesn't give a fuck about skiing, and the average family doesn't go skiing.
Im not sure if you guys have heard the word Capitalism, but in a nutshell, it is an economic system based on selling consumer products for a profit. It relies on the consumption of goods.
lets look at another example: (i'm using some rough estimates here so bear with me)
Lets say company A sells 200,000 basketballs a year globally at 25$ a pop. lets also consider the fact the mark up on these basketballs are probably close to 70% (meaning the company spent 7.5$ on every basketball produced). leaving a profit of 17.5$ for each basketball produced.
Lets say company B sells 2,000 skis a year globally at 400-500$ a pop. lets also consider the fact the mark up on these skis are probably closer to 50-60%. (meaning the company spent around lets say 180$ to make the ski). leaving a profit of 220$ per ski roughly.
which company makes more money? HINT: its A. Basketballs will produce more profit than skis hands down, any day of the week. I wonder why all the investors are leaning towards investing money into basketball over skiing.... jk, i'm not wondering that, because they won't make nearly as much profit.
That also explains why you might see Shaun Whites face on a pack of stride gum at the gas station. The number of people buying gum compared to the number of people buying snowboard gear is A MILLION to ONE. in my opinion, you know you have made it in your sport when you actually have the opportunity to become a SELL OUT like that. which I would say is a good thing. but that is a whole different conversation.
This is also the same reason why a company like DAKINE is so successful. They are able to sell product to people outside of the ski/snowboard world. (example: kids that want a sweep backpack to look cool in highscool). And all these companies that focus souly on skiing struggle to stay afloat.
TL;DR: face the music, NOBODY GIVES A ***K ABOUT SKIING.
Lets face it, skiing is a privilege sport. What i mean by that is, only really 10% if that of the worlds population has access to it, and only for 5-6 months out of the year. And an even smaller percent of that 10% gets access to it year round. Ontop of that it costs a single person a fuck ton of money to even go skiing. lets do a little comparative analysis shall we?
in order to go skiing:
You need expensive boots, nice wool socks, expensive bindings, expensive skis, expensive outerwear, goggles, gloves, lift tickets, gas to get to the lift, and most of the time an AWD car or chains (point being you need a car). on top of all that you need to live in an area thats close to skiing....
in order to play football:
you need, a football, an open field the city paid for, and a few friends.
in order to skateboard:
a 100$ skateboard and some shoes, a slab of concrete somewhere the city paid for.
in order to play soccer:
a soccer ball, and open field the city paid for, and a goal.
In order to play basketball:
a basket ball, a slab of concrete somewhere the city paid for with hoops, and friends (optional).
The average kid wants a skateboard, basketball, soccer or football not a pair of skis. because the average kid doesn't give a fuck about skiing, and the average family doesn't go skiing.
Im not sure if you guys have heard the word Capitalism, but in a nutshell, it is an economic system based on selling consumer products for a profit. It relies on the consumption of goods.
lets look at another example: (i'm using some rough estimates here so bear with me)
Lets say company A sells 200,000 basketballs a year globally at 25$ a pop. lets also consider the fact the mark up on these basketballs are probably close to 70% (meaning the company spent 7.5$ on every basketball produced). leaving a profit of 17.5$ for each basketball produced.
Lets say company B sells 2,000 skis a year globally at 400-500$ a pop. lets also consider the fact the mark up on these skis are probably closer to 50-60%. (meaning the company spent around lets say 180$ to make the ski). leaving a profit of 220$ per ski roughly.
which company makes more money? HINT: its A. Basketballs will produce more profit than skis hands down, any day of the week. I wonder why all the investors are leaning towards investing money into basketball over skiing.... jk, i'm not wondering that, because they won't make nearly as much profit.
That also explains why you might see Shaun Whites face on a pack of stride gum at the gas station. The number of people buying gum compared to the number of people buying snowboard gear is A MILLION to ONE. in my opinion, you know you have made it in your sport when you actually have the opportunity to become a SELL OUT like that. which I would say is a good thing. but that is a whole different conversation.
This is also the same reason why a company like DAKINE is so successful. They are able to sell product to people outside of the ski/snowboard world. (example: kids that want a sweep backpack to look cool in highscool). And all these companies that focus souly on skiing struggle to stay afloat.
TL;DR: face the music, NOBODY GIVES A ***K ABOUT SKIING.
Honestly, I think you're completely wrong and I fail to understand any logical reason for your thinking that. I don't buy that "anyone can post anything" is at all bad. If you can't sort people's opinions and navigate whose ideas are good and whose are not, then that's your own issue and you're probably going to have a real tough time with life.
This shit is too damn funny.
Hahahahahahaha, seriously, thank you for throwing out a bunch of numbers you have absolutely NO clue about to show us that basketball, soccer and football are more accessible and profitable than skiing. I had no idea that was the case, and feel much more informed.
I never bitched about the amount of money in skiing. I'm talking about moving the money that's ALREADY THERE from one side of the sport to the other.
I never bitched about the amount of money in skiing. I'm talking about moving the money that's ALREADY THERE from one side of the sport to the other.
t_rob
Active member
In jason's post he brought up that "consumers, athletes (a wide variety of them), photographers, producers, journalists, interns, marketing & team managers, owners, etc." can post here.
They can post here but that doesn't mean that they do or will. Where are their posts if this is the best place to have the discussion? I think if this is supposed to be THE discussion, it needs to include them. To do that, an environment needs to be made to bring them out of the woodwork. That's why I like the panel idea over the forum.
They can post here but that doesn't mean that they do or will. Where are their posts if this is the best place to have the discussion? I think if this is supposed to be THE discussion, it needs to include them. To do that, an environment needs to be made to bring them out of the woodwork. That's why I like the panel idea over the forum.
there really wasn't anything to "counter" given that the diarrhea that you just spewed from your finger tips wasn't really relevant.
What's wrong with this environment? If someone isn't comfortable posting here, they either don't feel strongly enough about their opinion... or need to grow a pair.
If we were to do a panel discussion, it would be compromised of companies and people who are great members of the community, because it's those people who actually get it.
If we were to do a panel discussion, it would be compromised of companies and people who are great members of the community, because it's those people who actually get it.
GreatWhiteNorth
Member
I've been reading this thread for over a half hour now it's been quite entertaining. Lots of different opinions good to see somebody already talked about this but Some food for thought. Michael Phelps wins the most medals in Olympic history generates millions of dollars in ad campaigns and product indorsement. Gets caught smoking pot and is slandered into obscurity and dropped by sponsors me made millions for. As a professional athlete you are a walking talking advertisement and the more publicity you gain amongst the general public, the richer you get. When you are no longer marketable, you are no longer needed. Money talks and people listen that will never change. How many people watch your average ski flick these days ? Hundreds of thousands maybe. The Olympics reaches tens of millions, maybe more. Fact is 'freestyle' skiing is now in the Olympics and the money will go where it always has. You are arguing against the inevitable so get over it and prepare to watch some crazy fuckin halfpipe run I'm sure.
What's the worst that could happen? I mean rollerblading is still cool right?
What's the worst that could happen? I mean rollerblading is still cool right?
youRsmellA
Member
from the little i know about business, this is probably the ballsiest post in the history of this site, a tip of the hat to you sir
youRsmellA
Member
The one benefit I still have a sliver of hope for is that slope and pipe will steal a shit load of the emphasis away from racing and snowboarding.
GayWolf420
Active member
I'm not for the olympics mainly because how poorly funded our athletes are, But I just mostly keep it to myself now or whenever someone asks me my stance on it. At the end of the day, Its still skiing. You're sliding down pieces of wood on snow down mountains. We should all just stop taking ourselves seriously and go out and have some fun.
hemlockjibber8
Active member
we could all do a decent job fixing the problem if we actually paid retail for our gear. Who actually does that? On the grand scheme of things, the people that buy gear on blowout or with a hook up is limited but in the freeskiing side of things it is a relevant number.
Pay full price and you will see a significantly larger amount of money going into the industry.
Pay full price and you will see a significantly larger amount of money going into the industry.
GKO
Active member
The Dog and the Shadow
It happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was
carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in peace. Now on his way
home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook. As he
crossed, he looked down and saw his own shadow reflected in the
water beneath. Thinking it was another dog with another piece of
meat, he made up his mind to have that also. So he made a snap at
the shadow in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of
meat fell out, dropped into the water and was never seen more.
Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.
It happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was
carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in peace. Now on his way
home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook. As he
crossed, he looked down and saw his own shadow reflected in the
water beneath. Thinking it was another dog with another piece of
meat, he made up his mind to have that also. So he made a snap at
the shadow in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of
meat fell out, dropped into the water and was never seen more.
Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.
kwattsthefirst
Member
A lot of people are missing the point here and I hope I'm following along with what you were trying to get across logan. The ski industry is funded by hundreds of these extremely large corporations - from energy drinks, to outerwear companies, to target. I understand that you are frustrated with the way that the funds from these large companies are being poured into such a small sector of the free skiing market - this sector being slopestyple competitions, etc. I agree with you on the idea that I'd love to see some more background guys get the money they deserve (cam riley and guys like will wesson who are just really fun to watch) but I'm here to tell you that, that won't happen - and if it does happen it will take a very long time. These large corporations have been using extreme sports in general as an outlet for advertising and it really is a great way to advertise. Think about it, a fifteen year old kid from vermont sees tom wallisch win slope style and as he stands on the podium the kids eyes are littered with these large corporations (energy drinks, the north face, scott). Now, you could come back at me and argue saying whats the difference between that and the 15 year old kid from vermont seeing all those advertisements in the first two minutes of the new stept film. For the most part there is no difference but you must look at the much larger picture. Freestyle skiing is an extremely niche market - a very very small portion of the population are actually interested in it. This means that only a small population will actually go out and buy the stept film - and only that small portion will see the advertisements. The x games and slope style events attract a much larger market. Many people will flip through their TV to come across someone doing a double backflip in skiing and THEY WILL stay there and watch because its something they don't see everyday - this in turn means they will see the ads. Its more beneficial for these companies to put money into athletes in these x games type events because a larger audience will see their label. Think about it this way, Skiiers are working on commission and tom wallisch has the ability to sell more monster energy drinks by standing on that podium than cam riley for dropping a 30 feet into tranny. Whoever sells more gets paid more.
kwattsthefirst
Member
I hope all wanting to comment will read this before they do.
dude, you literally just regurgitated things people have been saying for the past 7 pages, and still missing the point. go back, read, and try again.