Imaging you are at the top of a ski hill looking down. All you see is a steep hill with a giant jump 2/3rds down. Then all of a sudden you take off down the ski hill at 60 kilometers an hour, and you launch yourself 50 feet into the air off the jump. While in the air, you contemplate whether you should perform a double full, full, full * or a triple back somersault with five twists. Finally, on your way back to land, you position yourself so that your two feet are able to continue skiing down the hill once they touch the ground.

Now imagine that is your job.

For aerialist skier, Steve Omischl of Kelowna, B.C., it is. And you would think that with all the skill and talent required these athletes would make millions of dollars to compete. Or at least receive danger pay.

Well, if you think that, you would be wrong. Dead wrong!

Athletes like Omischl don’t get the opportunity to be paid large sums of cash because of he is an amateur athlete, which essentially means that he trains and competes to represent his country worldwide and possibly at the Olympics.

However, amateur athletes do receive compensation in other ways, like through endorsement deals, government funding, and the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) prize money awarded at World Cup events.

The following is a breakdown of the FIS prize money standings awarded per competition.

The breakdown is based on the minimum amount of $15, 000:

1st place $6,500.– 43.30%

2nd place $3,300.– 22.00%

3rd place $2,000.– 13.30%

4th place $1,000.– 6.67%

5th place $700.– 4.67%

6th place $500.– 3.33%

7th place $400.– 2.67%

8th place $300.– 2.00%

9th place $200.– 1.33%

10th place $100.– 0.68%

_______

Total $15,000.— 100.00%

It doesn’t quite compare to some of those sissy sports, where the athletes are paid millions upon millions of dollars for rounding the bases.

There, I said it!

Anyway, it is also important to note that Omischl won gold this past weekend at the World Cup freestyle ski competition held at Cypress Mountain, the venue that will host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

Despite the foggy weather, Omischl was able to pull-off his fourth win this ski season.

*Double full, full, full: Three flips with four twists. Two twists on the first flip off the jump.

-With files from fis-ski.com

It is no secret that I am a fan of the Ottawa Senators, and after Saturday night’s game against the Montreal Canadiens, I can say that out loud.

Actually I can go one step further and say that I am proud of Ray Emery, the Ottawa goalie, for making it into the news for something other than his indiscretions.

Phew!

Recently the goaltender has been making headlines not for his skills and outstanding performance but for showing up late to practice, fighting with his teammates, and for his misbehaviour.

Now, I think I am a pretty understanding person. I am a relatively levelheaded person, who tries to give people the benefit of the doubt. But in Emery’s case, my patience is wearing a little thin.

The reason for this is that tardiness has become something of an Achilles heel for Emery. While everyone is entitled to be late at least once, the combination of his outbursts and his continuous lateness is bound to test anyone’s nerves. And it has, especially considering the amount of money he makes.

This past summer Emery resigned a three-year deal worth an estimated $9.5 million to be Ottawa’s top goaltender.

Here is the situation. After spending all-star weekend in Las Vegas, Emery was once again late for practice.

Not really a demonstration of A-class behaviour from the team’s supposed number one goalie.

In order to nip this habit in the bud the team’s general manager, Brian Murray, decided to fine Emery. Under the rules and regulations governing player’s conduct, the Senators fined the goaltender 1/187 of his National Hockey League (NHL) salary.

That means Emery had to pay over $14, 000. I am sure glad it was him and not me.

Anyway, I don’t know if it was out of the kindness of his heart or an attempt at redemption but Emery asked for his fine to be donated to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).

See, that’s what I am talking about. Positive publicity.

For now, things seem to be back to normal and if Emery keeps this up, he may be worth every penny.

-With files from tsn.ca

It has only been talked about thousands of times, but for the sake of my blog, we are going to talk about it one more time.

So, for those you who somehow fell off the face of this earth, Super Bowl XLII was this past weekend.

You know what that means: commercials.

Apparently, companies like Pepsi shelled out $2.7 million for each 30-second commercial to be aired during the game.

Now that is serious cash!

Anyway, professional sporting events have evolved into a platform for advertising.  My personal favourite can be seen when watching an Ottawa Senators home game, and seeing a Viagra ad stretched across the entire bench holding the opposing team.  It makes we wonder if it might be a strategically placed.

 I digress.

It wasn’t always this way.  A commercial during the first Super Bowl cost around $40,000. It wasn’t until two decades later that ad prices soared.  The unveiling of Apple’s “1984” commercial wasn’t only hugely innovative and successful, but it also paved the way for the increase in ad prices.  By 1987, commercials at the event had reached $600,000.

It is estimated that 97.5 million people watched the Super Bowl this past weekend.  Some tuned in for the love of the sport, while others tuned in to watch the commercials. Regardless of the reasons, the Super Bowl will always mean money.

Oh yeah, and in case you are curious, the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots 17 to 14.

-With files from Inc.com 

The Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) unveiled this week their plans to create English and French amateur sport television networks. The purpose of these networks is to bring attention and funding to both Olympic and non-Olympic sports.

Apparently, the COC believes that the networks would contribute more than $100 million to amateur sports within a seven-year time frame.

Here is what I like about this idea.

I like the fact that the COC is trying to find new ways to generate funds for athletes. All too often, parents are held responsible for financing their children’s athletic ambitions. This may put some athletes at a disadvantage as a result of their parents not being able to afford the traveling, training, and equipment expenses.

If in fact the COC does get its own network, I like its decision to focus on the athletes. More often than not, Canadian athletes go unnoticed. Their lack of exposure could hurt the progression of a sport and in turn result a decrease in funding. This might explain the low attendance at last month’s Canadian Figure Skating Championships.

Mike Slipchuk, a Skate Canada director, chalked the lack of audience interest up to the changing nature of the skating market.

Slipchuk said that they needed to continue to sell their sport, sell their athletes, and tell the stories of their skaters, so that people want to come out and see them perform.

This network may be just what the doctor ordered.

While the application for the network was submitted to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) back in December 2007, it is believed that the public hear may take place in late Spring/early Summer.

Lets talk about tennis for a moment. 

The Australian Open wrapped up this weekend, inducting two new champions in both men and women’s singles titles. Novak Djokovic, who is ranked number three in the world, and Maria Sharapova, who is ranked number five, were both elated with their wins.

I have to say that there is nothing more exciting than to watch the championship match of a grand slam.  The players compete as if there is something to lose.  And there is.  Not just bragging rights are on the line, but their livelihood: their prize money.

Unlike many other professional sports, tennis players do not have a yearly salary in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They make their money off of prize money and the amount varies depending on the round they make it to. 

While I realize that the majority of the players do generate heafty sums of money through endorsement deals, it is nothing in comparison to some athletes who receive a salary and endorsements.  As mentioned in a previous entry, LeBron James receives $90-million in endorsement deals, and it is reported that he has been offered a five year contract extension by the Cleveland Cavaliers worth an estimated $80-million dollars.

 Now, I don’t ever remember hearing of a tennis player making that much, not even Roger Federer.

 The following is the prize money given at the Australian Open in men and women’s singles titles:

 1st Round - $19,400

 2nd Round - $30,250

 3rd Round - $50,000

 4th Round  - $85,625

 Quarter finalist - $171,250

 Semi finalist - $342,500 

Runners-up - $685,000 

Winners - $1,370,000

 Yes, that’s right both Djokovic and Sharapova won over $1.3 million dollars.  I didn’t say it wasn’t a lot of money.  I just said it wasn’t $80-million dollars.

Professional athletes are no longer just competitors, they are walking billboards. Sports superstars like Michael Jordan, Jeff Gordon, and Phil Mickelson are plastered with logos and trademarks. Even Roger Federer at the Australian Open can be seen with a swoosh across his forehead.

It is hard not to notice that these types of athletes are full-fledged businessmen, and two of the most notable are Tiger Woods and LeBron James.Tiger Woods takes in an absurd amount of money yearly. He has generously donated his face to several different companies, like Nike, allowing them to market his image to the public. In doing so, Woods is able to generate additional revenue on top of his tournament winnings. According to Forbes magazine, it is estimated that by the end of 2009, his net worth will hit the billion-dollar mark.

LeBron James has a similar story. Besides taking in millions of dollars playing basketball of the Cleveland Cavaliers, he also has many starring roles in television commercials. You may remember him in the following advertisements for: Nike, Coke, Upper Deck, Bubblicious, and Cub Cadet.

And yes, I did say Bubblicious!

While Tiger and LeBron may be the easiest athletes to identify in advertisements, they are far from the only ones guilty of excessive endorsement deals.

Here is a list of the endorsement incomes of the top 10 athletic superstars for 2007.

1. Tiger Woods: (est.) $100 million

2. Phil Mickelson: (est.) $47 million

3. LeBron James: (est.) $25 million

4. Dale Earnhardt Jr.: (est.) $25 million

5. Michelle Wie: (est.) $19.5 million

6. Kobe Bryant: (est.) $16 million

7. Jeff Gordon: (est.) $15 million

8. Shaquille O’Neal: (est.) $15 million

9. Peyton Manning: (est.) $13 million

10. Dwyane Wade: (est.) $12 million

Wow, if I only knew then what I know now, I think I may have chosen a different profession.

-With files from CNN.com

The tension between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Canadian national women’s ski jumping team continues to heat up, as the women fight for their inclusion in the 2010 Olympic Games. While the issue of gender discrimination has been widely discussed, one topic of debate that has failed to be addressed is the women’s inability to receive funding.

As of November 2006, the women have experienced many setbacks due to the IOC’s decision to reject the inclusion of women’s ski jumping. As a result, the women also lost their opportunity to receive funding from the federal government. Sport Canada through the Department of Canadian Heritage provides funding to athletes based on an evaluation of their medal potential for 2010 and with women’s ski jumping not being considered an official Olympic sport, they will not have access to the funds. “It was a snowball effect, since we are not in the Olympics we don’t get certain funding or we can’t apply for certain things like grants,” said Katie Willis, who is the top female ski jumper on the Canadian team and is ranked sixth in the world.

Although not being able to participate in the 2010 Games is unfortunate, the real problem is the lack of funding going towards the girls and their quest to succeed. Competing in a sport can be costly at any level, now imagine fitting the bill to compete in Europe.

In order to cover their costs, the women’s team has to resort to hosting bottle drives, fundraisers, and silent auctions. These tactics can only raise so much. With the lack of federal funding, the majority of the expenses fall upon the parents’ shoulders.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw reading, “My kid and my money goes to UBC.” It is now very likely that the parents of these girls will be sporting a bumper sticker that reads: “This athlete is paid for and funded by the Bank of Mom and Dad.”

In her first interview since being sentenced to six months in prison for lying to U.S. government prosecutors about her steroid use, former Olympic gold medalist Marion Jones appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss her regrets.

Although many of Jones’ comments surrounded the shame she has placed upon herself and her family, little discussion was raised as to why she would use steroids in the first place.

Why would a naturally gifted athlete decide to use performance-enhancing drugs in competition? It cannot be for the glory. After all, one cannot truly claim a victory if that win is based on cheating. It seems to me in this day and age that the motivation behind drug use in sports is the financial incentives that follow a win.

Jones, who is best known for her three gold medals at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, received millions of dollars during her prime, winning on average $70, 000 and $80, 000 in prize money per race.

Furthermore, Jones, like many other star athletes, ventured into a lucrative endorsement deal with Nike Inc. worth millions of dollars.

This amount of money, I would argue, is a far better explanation than glory, as to why an athlete would choose to go down the performance-enhancing route. After all, no one really remembers who came in second, and cheating athletes are banking on that.