Sorry. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I do not believe I said that Livestrong was a "recognized charity brand." I said that LAF owns the rights to it, and as such, receives the royalties, etc. associated with it. Big difference. Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF; it's more like Livestrong/LAF benefits from Armstrong.Dr. Maserati said:Thank you for answering questions that no-one asked.
Perhaps I am not making my question complicated enough - why should Lance profit in any way through his association with the Livestrong brand - which you have already achknowledged is a recognised charity brand?
Let's face it. Livestrong = Lance Armstrong in most people's minds, just as LAF = Lance Armstrong's charity in most people's minds. He had the vision and the follow-through to create both. It doesn't matter at this point that he is only 1 of more than a dozen foundation directors or that his personal contributions have probably long since been exceeded by public contributions. He is the face of LAF/Livestrong. Without him, the goodwill attached to the "brand," and thererfore it's value, would be substantially diminished.
So, again, Armstrong doesn't benefit from Livestrong/LAF. It's the other way around.