I subscribe to the Yahoo Groups mailing list for USATF Associations, and I posted a note about the possible exodus of Masters T&F (and mebbe LDR) from USATF. The USATF Association folks reacted, all right. Most think the idea is nuts. Some point out the complexity of such a move. I’ve copied their comments below. Just to give a sense of the politics/nuances of the issue.

Ed Parrot was the first to respond. He wrote:
Hmm, 60-70% of the membership fees are youth, right? Then there gotta be at least 10-20% open athletes or masters athletes that would continue to support USATF (probably even more of the latter, since most masters at the association level want nothing to do with this kind of high level political fight and would stay with USATF).
Losing 10-20% of the membership revenue would hurt, and probably a few associations would suffer more than others, but my guess is that the revenue loss will not affect decision-making much. Perhaps I’m naive, but I have trouble understanding what it is that masters want that cannot be accomplished within at least the loose confines of USATF. It can’t be funds, because if someone has the capability to generate funds, and the support of the applicable sport committees, I know for a fact that Craig and Bill are more than open to creative solutions for making sure it gets to the right people.
Sven Jordan wrote:
Argh!
All the work that has to be done just to a start masters T&F NGB would be crazy.
Pros –
You get to keep 100% of the money you raise for masters
You don’t have to answer to Indy
All members are 100% Masters
Cons –
New Bylaws
IRS Forms – 501 c. 3. status
Start new committees
Try to generate start up funds – Find Sponsors (very hard)
Elect new officers
Find a place for a national office and staff.
Find insurance to hold events. You could sanction your events with USATF but
what would be the point.
Yes, there are many issues with the way things work but in the end, it will be the same old mess.
I say “you” because I will stay with USATF at this point. I could be missing
something or a lot of things.
Bob Fine (longtime masters racewalker and WAVA founding father) wrote:
At the last USATF Convention the possibility of a restructuring in which the Masters would be eliminated from the Board was discussed. To be prepared for
such a possibility George was directed to explore other possibilities. No one in a leadership position wishes to leave USATF. USATF has created a committee to explore the situation. The findings of the committee, headed by Ed Koch, will probably be presented at the 2007 convention.
Financially, USATF will not be hurt if the Masters & Youth left, since the whole
thrust of the proposal is that the professional athletes via the US Olympic Committee’s stipend and the sponsorship engenderd bring in the bulk of the
funds.
Administratively it could be a disaster since the Masters provide officials, club leaders, coaches, sponsors (particularly in local events) and Association officers. If all of the USATF members over the age of 35 left the organization,
there would not be an organization.
There are many groups within USATF: Associations; Officials, Youth and Masters
who strongly oppose modifications of the Board as being pushed by USOC. If these committees remain united then they totally control the votes in the USATF
Assembly.
Hopefully, there will be a resultion in which the professionals have their interest assuaged and the non-professionals continue to have a major influence in how USATF is run.
Joe Lanzalotto of New Jersey wrote:
As I understand it from Ed Koch, the restructuring committee he is heading will
present recommendations and they will need to be voted on by the board and the general membership. The numbers (of members) favor the youth and masters groups, not the elite, open athlete. Any restructuring that would result in a recommendation that USATF focus on Olympic level athletes could be defeated by a vote of the general membership, if I understand Ed’s comments.
As far as master’s leaving of it’s own volition, I am happy that the possibility is being explored – we should always know what the alternatives are – but I would hope that would not happen. I am not interested in the additional time and overhead that it would cost to set up a new national organization. I for one believe that we have the organization that is needed in place – USATF – we “might” just need to tinker with the structure to get it right.
And to me the structure does NOT look like the USOC wants it to – all focus on
medals at the proximate Olympics and not nothing else.
BTW, I am not sure that the statement about 60% of the membership fees coming from youth is correct. Youth may comprise that percentage of the members, but in many associations they pay reduced fees.
Bob Fine wrote again:
The average Master is only concerned about competition. If the Masters formed aan organization outside of USATF, as has been done in Canada, Great Britain, NNew Zealand and Australia, WMA would recognize such a group. Such a group could have an alliance with USATF, similar to AAU and the Senior Games.
Since most of the Masters meets are on the local level, the average competitor
would not care who is sponsoring same.
USATF would not be able to host meets if it’s officials and administrators, in the Masters program, started our own group outside of USATF.
This is not something the Masters are pushing for, although financially we probably would be in better shape. The reason being that at the present $20 dues $7.50 goes to the national and $12.50 to the Association. If there was a separate Masters orgaization the full $20 would go to that organization. With 8500 Masters paying $20 per that comes to $170,00. At present the Masters’
Committees receive less than half of that. In addition, USATF dues will be increased and over the course of a few years could reach $40 per year.
Since nothing will probably happen until the Dec. 2007 Convetion, there is plenty of time to resolve the situation. I had made the suggestion to have a Board of Directors for the Professionals, structured anyway they want and a Board of Directors for the non-professionals..
The issues narrow down to the money that the Professionals bring in and the man and women power the Non-Professionals bring in. Both are needed.
Dr. Walter M. High (chair of the USATF Organizational Services Committee) wrote:
There seems to be an assumption in the messages that have been posted so far that if the Masters attempted to set up a separate organization, that USATF would just let them go. Please be reminded that USATF is congressionally mandated to be the governing body for all track and field. If some masters left and tried to begin on their own, I assume USATF would continue to run its own masters program as it is required to do. We would end up with another situation like we have with the AAU and its continuing youth program. USATF will not just roll over and turn all masters activity over to a separate group.
Ed Parrot wrote again:
I had forgotten about this (ridiculous in my opinion) restructuring proposal. So I do understand more the impetus behind the proposal. And I also understand the pressure behind this proposal is somewhat external to USATF.
Bob Bowman wrote:
Walter is absolutely correct. There can only be one recognized governing body
for all of Track & Field. The USOC can only recognize one such organization.
Joe Lanzalotto wrote again:
The USOC could care less about masters athletes. We’re not going to win any
medals at the next Olympics.
William Brasington replied:
Wow, I thought I was cynical…..
Joe Lanzalotto wrote back again:
Is that cynical or just realistic? It is what it is and while I do not like it that the USOC does not take the longer view with respect to development of youth
athletes, I understand their perspective on masters.
Sorry if that offends you but it is what I believe.
USATF President Bill Roe weighed in:
Group,
Wasn’t Carlos Lopes 37 or near that — certainly over the new 35-and-over threshold now — when he won not only the Olympic marathon in 1984, but the World Cross that same year?
Wasn’t Lorraine Moeller at or near 40 in a medalist performance in the marathon as well? 1992 I believe.
In her last “tryout” wasn’t Gail Devers over that 35 mark as well?
With the new age definition, and the longevity of our newly “professional” athletes, look forward to more Masters athletes in the Olympics. Somebody better care!
On another point raised earlier, USATF’s budget would hardly be impacted by loss of masters’ memberships. We lose money at the national level, or break even. It is the Association budgets I worry about, where the funds do make a difference in the programs you can offer.
I think this issue is going to be thoroughly vetted in the restructuring process, and while our budgets may not give everyone their desired levels of support (including high performance, where projects, programs, and grant proposals were about a half million higher than we and/or the USOC had to put there), it is a fairly even process, and a fair one.
Joe Lanzalotto replied to Bill Roe:
You have cited 3 examples that are valid to varying degreees (you can argue that the world has changed appreciably since 1984). However, those three certainly have to be viewed as the anomalies that they that they are, not the rule.
Bob Fine piped in again:
It should be emphasized that the Masters are not seeking to break away from USATF. The problem was percipitated by the USOC. The USOC has no jurisdiction over the Masters. It’s only concern is winning Olympic medals.
There is nothing to prevent the Masters from forming our own orgaization, just as there was nothing to prevent the AAU from continuing programs for the Youth.
The key would be the recogniton by WMA.
Certainly, USATF could continue to have a Masters program, but if enough of the
activists in the prsent program opted for our own governing body, there would not be anyone to organize and maintain the program.
The Masters are not asking for much – just the opportunity to be part of the Board and to have a voice in the overall operation. The Masters have never sought to be involved in the Olympic and open programs. The fact is that USATF
does nothing for the non-elite (non-professional) athletes). That is the group between the ages of 19-29. The Masters have opened many of our track meets to
these athletes to afford them competition until they reach sub-masters’ age.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” applies to the present situation. Our country has done quite well in Olympic competition. The USOC putits resources into those Olympic T&F events where there would be a good chance of winning a medal.
They fail to realize that the Youth are our farm system and that the Masters are prime administrators of that program. Squeezing these groups out of the Board would be counter productive to developing Olympic calibre athletes. Instead of trying to dominate programs that the USOC has done nothing for, the USOC could use its resources to help improve these programs and develop athletes in those events that the USA generally doesn’t medal.
Alan Roth wrote:
Lopes was 38 when he broke the world record in the marathon by 54 seconds (2:07:12). He was injured that same year (1985) which forced him to retire from competition and from running . I introduced him at an event in NYC about 5 or 6 years ago and he was quite plump.
Priscilla Welch was 42 when she won the NYC Marathon in 1987 in 2:30:17. Miki Gorman was 40 when she took 2nd in the NYC Marathon in 1975. Then she won the race the next two years. Grete Waitz was 35 when she won the NYC Marathon in 1988 for her 9th win there. Joe, these may also be anomalies but I think older people can hang in there for longer distances better than when more strength is involved such as in sprints.
Recent research shows that max VO2 doesn’t fall very much as people age. It’s just that as you get older, biomechanical problems can interfere with the intensive training needed to compete at the international level. Also, as you get older, it takes much longer to recover from injuries (as I’m sure you know!).
Associations provide an infrastructure that facilitates Masters T&F activities. It will be very difficult to replace that.
Craig has spoken with many companies about sponsoring Masters T&F and
Masters LDR. While he hasn’t brought such a sponsor onboard yet, he continues to pursue that. The Editor of GeezerJock Magazine told me a few days ago that he is looking for sponsors for masters where sponsorship would support T&F as well as swimming, tennis, etc. He thinks that a company may be interested more when more sports are combined. He didn’t express a preference for how Masters T&F should be structured. That wasn’t a factor.
Bob Fine is right that we have a lot of votes in USATF General Sessions. We in grass roots can defend our position very well. Perhaps with that in mind, Ed Koch, who chairs the restructuring committee is working closely with us during the restructuring process. Ed is on this list and can comment on this collaborative process.
Joe replied to Alan:
They are all welcome anomalies and NONE of the ones you mention are recent. You do not have to sell the value of masters’ competition to me….that happened when I hit the magic number! Masters comprise the majority of the LDR members and competitors here in NJ, to the point that you wonder where all the open women and men went. All that said, the political power is behind the open runners simply because that is where the majority of the Olympic medals are and there seems to be a need to be recognized by the general public. Masters will never be recognized by the general public and the fools gold is that neither will our very deserving open athletes, except once every four years.
Cynical or not, that is the realistic manner in which I see it. It is a shame to say the least.
Bob Fine replied to Joe:
Extremely well said. I would disagree with only one point – the Youth group should be our farm system. They aren’t only because people have problems
thinking more than one Olympics down the road.
Me again:
And that brings us up to the moment.
I’ll keep monitoring the USATF Associations list for further thoughts. These folks know the nitty-gritty involved.