USATF Foundation Grants

[donley2]

First of all let me say its great that this exists, but it does seem to highlight the fact that track and field is not a particularly "professional" sport these days. But the list from this artcle

http://usatffoundation.org/news/usat...grant-funds-2/

Had a couple names (Shelby Houlihan and Paul Chelimo) that I thought between shoe contracts and prize/appearance money would be making decent money. Anyone know what the income guidelines for these awards are?

[wamego relays champ]

According to the Grant Application form:

1.A majority of grants will be awarded to athletes who rank"TOP 10 IN THE USA"in their event in either of the past two years and / or are a recent graduate that ranked “TOP 5 IN THE NCAA” standings

.2.A majority of the grants will be awarded to athletes who have achieved the IAAF world standard.

3.Preference will be given to athletes making less than $50,000 a year; however, all athletes are encouraged to apply regardless of their income level.

[tandfman]

There are several athletes on that list who I assume are making more than $50,000 a year. But they may still be worthy of some financial support. Remember that from their earnings, they are paying an agent (up to 15%) and very possibly a coach (which could be a significant expense), and taxes, and living expenses, which could be substantial depending on where they're living and whether they have any dependents.

I imagine that the Foundation recognizes these realities; hence their willingness to consider applicants whose earnings are above their threshold.

[ATK]

That grant list is a bit misleading to me. There are tons and tons of athletes who's names do not apprear on that grant list who may or may not need it.

I just think it's unfair to say one athlete needs the money over another as for the most part, in track and field, we have very very little knowledge about how much these athletes make in general. Not do we know how they handle their money in their daily lives. Everyone has different needs.

Again, most were surprised that Felix didn't even have a sponsor for over a year when she showed up at USAs.

[18.99s]

There are several athletes on that list who I assume are making more than $50,000 a year. But they may still be worthy of some financial support. Remember that from their earnings, they are paying an agent (up to 15%) and very possibly a coach (which could be a significant expense), and taxes, and living expenses, which could be substantial depending on where they're living and whether they have any dependents.

I imagine that the Foundation recognizes these realities; hence their willingness to consider applicants whose earnings are above their threshold.

The application form says income tax returns are required. I would expect that the $50,000 is after the deductible expenses for training, travel, coaching, agent, etc. (which would show up on the tax return), not raw gross earnings of $50,000.

[18.99s]

You have to apply for a grant to get one, I believe.

Yes, this is a link to the application form.
http://usatffoundation.org/grant-inf...t-application/

The application requires submitting a tax return as proof of income. With the stated preference for athletes making under $50,000*, some athletes making far above that level may decide it's not worth it to reveal the details of their income just for a tiny chance of winning a tiny percentage of their earnings.

The highest-paid athletes may even feel guilty or embarrassed to apply for a $25K grant that's primarily meant for athletes who are just getting by or struggling financially.


*which I presume is after applicable expenses for coaching, travel, agent, etc.

[18.99s]

I just think it's unfair to say one athlete needs the money over another as for the most part, in track and field, we have very very little knowledge about how much these athletes make in general.

However, the committee deciding who gets the grants knows how much every applicant earns.

[tandfman]

Yes, this is a link to the application form.
http://usatffoundation.org/grant-inf...t-application/

The application requires submitting a tax return as proof of income. With the stated preference for athletes making under $50,000*, some athletes making far above that level may decide it's not worth it to reveal the details of their income just for a tiny chance of winning a tiny percentage of their earnings.

The highest-paid athletes may even feel guilty or embarrassed to apply for a $25K grant that's primarily meant for athletes who are just getting by or struggling financially.


*which I presume is after applicable expenses for coaching, travel, agent, etc.

I just took a look at the application form that you referred to. I don't see the requirement of submitting a tax return. I also see a request for detailed information about sources of income and support, but nothing about expenses. Am I missing something?

[tandfman]

I wrote:

There are several athletes on that list who I assume are making more than $50,000 a year. But they may still be worthy of some financial support. Remember that from their earnings, they are paying an agent (up to 15%) and very possibly a coach (which could be a significant expense), and taxes, and living expenses, which could be substantial depending on where they're living and whether they have any dependents.

I imagine that the Foundation recognizes these realities; hence their willingness to consider applicants whose earnings are above their threshold.

You (18.99s) replied:

The application form says income tax returns are required. I would expect that the $50,000 is after the deductible expenses for training, travel, coaching, agent, etc. (which would show up on the tax return), not raw gross earnings of $50,000.

When I wrote what I did, I had not looked at the application form. Now, having done so, don't see where it says that income tax returns are required. Am I missing something?

[18.99s]

They referred to "income tax statements" on the next-to-last page.

It is well understood by the IRS, and by people who adjudicate need-based or need-influenced awards, that the "income" from an occupation which has substantial expenses directly related to practicing the occupation is the amount after relevant expenses, not the gross dollars coming in.

If for example, you are a college student applying for need-based aid and your parents are carpenters, and they collected $100K/year from their customers but spent $70K on lumber and supplies and subcontractors, they would be evaluated as having $30K of income, not $100K.

Or if you're a traveling musician who collected $120K for all your gigs during the year but spent $50K on hotels, airfares, road miles, and assistants, your income would be $70K, not $120K.

[18.99s]

There may be some disagreement over which specific expenses qualify to be deducted from gross revenue when calculating "income"; a scholarship foundation evaluating you for need-based aid may not necessarily agree with the IRS on the relevance of every aspect of your family's occupational expenses, and different countries have different rules for the specifics when income evaluation is related to taxation. But the concept of deducting occupational expenses from gross revenue when computing income is widely accepted.

[spikes007]

https://projects.nj.com/features/syd...gn=syd+the+kid

Amazing article on SM

[tandfman]

They referred to "income tax statements" on the next-to-last page.

The say "verifiable by income tax statements", which is not quite the same as requiring that income tax returns be attached. It seems to me that the concept of taxable income (whcih excludes deductions) is well-established in U.S. tax law. If that's what they meant, it would have been easy enough to ask for that. Instead, they simply referred to sources of income and support. Not the same.

[18.99s]

The say "verifiable by income tax statements", which is not quite the same as requiring that income tax returns be attached.

Perhaps they ask for tax returns only after narrowing down the applicants to a short list. It still means the athlete has to state their income and be prepared to provide their tax returns upon request (or equivalent, such as a tax transcript printed by the IRS).

It seems to me that the concept of taxable income (whcih excludes deductions) is well-established in U.S. tax law. If that's what they meant, it would have been easy enough to ask for that.

They probably didn't mean taxable income, because that has non-occupational deductions such as mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Instead, they simply referred to sources of income and support. Not the same.

Correct, not the same as taxable income (for the reason I stated above), but also not the same as gross revenue.

If somebody owned a small shop that had $200K in sales, it would be absurd to say their income from the shop is equal to $200K, without subtracting the cost of goods sold, the rent they paid for the shop, and wages paid to employees.

They do specifically ask about prize money, travel money, and shoe/apparel company stipends though, so they are interested in gross track & field revenue to some extent, but I doubt that would be the basis for deciding who meets the under-$50K threshold without considering coaching and agent expenses.

[tandfman]

I don't think we really disagree. I have every reason to believe that the people at the Foundation are intelligent, have good common sense, and are honestly trying to determine whether individual athletes really need the grant money. I'm sure they take all of the relevant factors into account.