Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Did Australian swimmers nearly unionize?

Look at that quote from John Coates from the Australian Olympic Committee below. WOW! I wonder what his salary is?

From the Australian: 
SWIMMING Australia has hosed down a pay row with members of its Olympic team, insisting it will not be entering pay negotiations with swimmers before the London games. 
And AOC boss John Coates has suggested the swimmers should think themselves lucky, saying "other athletes would love to be getting the money" the swimmers are paid. [The swimmers get up to $25,000 for competing in the Olympics and a $35,000 bonus if they get a gold medal. Most won't get a gold medal] 
Swimming Australia president David Urquhart told The Australian last night: "The last thing we want is anyone upsetting the athletes at this time going into the Olympics.
"There won't be any discussions until after the Olympics and the Swimmers Association will be advised of that." 

That shows them... for now!

"You should be lucky..." Caotes says. My God, doesn't Coates realize that he should consider himself lucky that the Australian swimmers didn't become lawyers, stock brokers or coal miners and make more than double that figure? Imagine what he would get paid if the Australian athletes sucked at what they do?

This I learned while watching WImbledon tennis this past week: If you are a tennis player and you show up at Wimbledon to play in round-one and you lose they still pay you $22,000. They do so because your presence allowed them to have a first round in the first place and your play generated well more than the $22,000 they are paying you.

If you win Wimbledon the athlete makes $1,800,000. In the Australian Olympic payout if you beat the world you make $60,000 or 3% of what Roger Federer made.

No comments: