A shocking revelation has surfaced in the world of sports administration, leaving many in disbelief. USA Swimming, the national governing body for competitive swimming, has paid an astonishing $400,000 in severance to their former CEO, Tim Hinchey, and the story doesn't end there.
But wait, there's more to this financial saga. SwimSwam's publication of USA Swimming's tax form 990 unveiled a surprising fact: the top four earners in 2024 are no longer with the organization. Among them, Hinchey stood out with a whopping $1,051,489 annual income, with only a fraction coming from his base salary. His resignation in August 2024, with 16 months remaining on his extended contract, led to this substantial severance payment.
The 990 form, available on USA Swimming's website, discloses that Hinchey received the $400,000 as part of a severance agreement and is set to receive another installment in 2025. Similarly, former National Team Director Lindsay Mintenko was granted a one-time severance payment of $139,500.
The organization's 2025 Budget document sheds further light on these expenses, allocating $415,800 for 'CEO Transition', a significant decrease from the projected $517,800 spent on the same in 2024. This transition includes costs like severance, search firm fees, PR services, legal services, and temporary housing for the interim CEO.
The CEO search process was lengthy, spanning over a year, and involved two search firms before Kevin Ring was appointed after a period of leadership vacuum. This tumultuous period, coupled with declining membership and ad revenue, has led to a projected $1.8 million revenue shortfall and an operating deficit of $414,752 for 2025.
And here's where it gets intriguing: How does a sports organization justify such substantial severance packages and transition costs? Are these payments indicative of a larger trend in executive compensation, or is there more to the story? The public is left with many questions and a desire for transparency. What do you think about this financial situation? Is it a fair use of organizational funds, or is there room for debate?
