Run-Down Forums

[Kishan Gill]

Their has been a lot of debate over the past years and particularly recently about the steady decline in popularity of track around the world.

I do not want to get into individual countries such as the US where it has been unable to take on the major Pro-sports despite american dominance in Track and Field. Here in Britain the popualrity has hit an alltime low and the fact that it now has the weakest team in terms of worldclass talent and potential in it's entire history and it's dismal performance in Helsinki helped put the final nail in the coffin. now UK athletics is desperately trying to revive the sport in the country and hopes it's new athletics director can come up with some knew ideas.

Looking at the sport in general I think there has been a case of overkill. Like many I have always been against the world championships being held every two years. It has taken out the excitement from the sport and transformed it into something that is mundane and unable to revitalise any interest.

The championships should be reverted to four years and only athletes with A standard times should be allowed to run thus removing the need for some heats in certain events. The regional championships are always there for athletes to attempt to make a breakthrough and until they do they should not be ruuning in a global Meet until their perfomances are up to the required standard.

The worldcup should be scrapped as it has become a peripheral event with little interest from the casual fan.

At the end of the day the Olympics games is and will always be considered the ultimate arena for competition and accomplishment , hence it is still regarded a greater honour to win there than a World championship.

The IAAF and the european Meet promoters are involved in a tussle. The IAAF are considering some cosmetic changes such as renaming the Grand Prix circuit which I fail to understand how it will help to move the sport Forward.

Another setback for the sport is the electronic media. Whereas little coverage of the circuit is available in the US , even in Britain where it was regularly covered by the Terrestrial (non-satellite) channels, only select meets are shown and the Golden league is only available on Pay-channels. The fact is the general public is not prepared to pay to watch running on TV, but happy to do so for Football or Cricket. The Governing bodies and the media need to realise this and work hand in hand to try to revive the waning interest in the sport.

[Conway]

Wow … Tough subject … Where to begin ???

Everyone keeps saying that the sport is not popular, but hold a big meet and the stands do fill !!!! I'm not sure what the phrase "not popular" means … If it means that there is little to minimal televising of the sport, then that phrase holds true … But if it means that you can't get people to watch or attend meets, then it is VERY false …

Here is Sacramento, for example we have held the following meets over the last two seasons: State High School Championships, Olympic Trials, and NCAA Championships … ALL had HUGE attendance !!! The local qualifying meets for the State Championships (Sub Sectionals and Sectional meets) are also HUGELY attended … These events are as heavily attended as Sacramento Kings games which Sacramento has the most rabid basketball fansn in the country !!!

I also go to other meets like the Payton Jordon Invite at Stanford and Home Depot in Carson … And again large crowds … So I really think that we need to identify what it is we are talking about when it comes to the term "popularity" … See I think the issue is marketing … And not in the way that most people think … When I say marketing I am referring to the ability to sell it to television … And that lies in the availability of selling stars … And it is there that it gets tough here in the US … See we have a lot fewer meets here than we did in past decades … Professionalism of the sport has hurt us here in the US because we went from having tons of high quality meets to only a handful, because the infrastructure was not in place to PAY the athletes what they suddenly started commanding !!! So only a handful of meets were able to survive … And even those have difficulty raising the funds necessary to fill the lanes with the top talent …

A whole different topic, but the sport was hurt tremendously in this country because professionalism was lead by the athletes and NOT the national body and/or the meet directors … In Europe, by contrast, the infrastructure was already in place as they have been paying appearance fees for ever - under the table in the pre professional days !!!! The simply had to pull the money from under the table and put it ON the table … Business as usual !!!

Anyway, back to topic … The problem with "popularity" is one that lies with the US - both here AND abroad - in my opinion .. And here is why … We are clearly the dominant nation … Yet we lack the high level meets … Without these meets it is difficult to sell to OUR media as a viable sport … Televised sport requires stars … Without a sufficient number of stars to showcase most meets here are hard to sell to TV !!! Therefore the perception that the sport is NOT popular … Can't sell a meet with only 2 or 3 bonified stars in attendance !!! Prefontaine is a sell because it is full of stars … Few other meets carry this distinction … Our stars can't get paid here so they compete sparingly in the states … Choosing instead to run in GPII meets primarily during the spring …

Then they compete at Nationals and head immediately to Europe and the Circuit where the money flows … And this causes problems for Europe … Why ??? Tons of European high level meets with AMERICANS showcasing … Do Brits, for example, want to watch meets with Americans running amok or with Brits winning … I would assume with Brits winning … But they are not … So that makes selling meets to British television a bit more difficult now doesn't it ??? Add the general anti American sentiment that exists in Europe in general and I'm sure that there are a lot of channels that would rather not show Americans dominating anything …

Now Europe does have Eurosport and they show tons of track and field … But I would imagine that regional television could give a flip …

Now as for the Olympics, they are about over 100 sports and THAT is why they are so big … Track, along with swimming and gymnastics happen to be cornerstone sports and given primary attention, but it is the fact that the Olympics are so all encompassing that the focus is so huge …

The World Championships are every bit the meet that the Olympics are - WITHOUT another 100 sports surrounding it !!! And I think you need a Championships to maintain some legitimacy as a sport … Otherwise what are the athletes competing for ??? Matter of fact, I think the "off year" (without Olympics or Worlds) should remove the stupid World Cup (it served its purpose prior to Worlds being instituted) and insert another World Championships … The athletes should have a goal EVERY year not 3 out of 4 …

As far as what to do to improve the visibility of the sport, I would first forget about trying to appeal to the "casual fan" or general public … The ONLY way you have a casual fan is to be televised regularly !!! Its not like someone drives by a track and sees something going on and stops to take it in !!! Casual fans see things on TV when they are surfing and stop and while viewing become interested … So the first thing you have to do is GET ON TV !!!! Here in the US that means MORE meets with MORE stars in attendance … AND USATF and the IAAF need to get together to work on that as a joint project …

To me that means that you do not reinvent the wheel, but try to improve the wheels you already have … For example … You take a meet like the Modesto Relays, which used to be one of the top meets in the world, but was killed by professionalism, and you provide them with a grant to help them pay for stars to attend … The infrastructure is already there … The audience is already there - both those that have kept attending and those that have left because of the drop in quality … BAM … You instantly have a quality meet that is televisable as part of some US TOUR package !!! You do this regionally for another 3 or 4 meets during the spring … Maybe Tom Black Classic in Tennessee, Texas Relays, Florida Relays and you do something to bolster the new meet in New York and the Carson meet here in California … You add some funding to these meets … Designate them Grand Prix status or even part of some revised Golden League type theme where the entire season (spring thru summer) becomes important and the US is a player … That means you get Europeans to the US as well as US stars staying home during the spring !!!!

Now the US is a major player …. And THAT is marketable to TV !!!! Not just American TV, but now you add a new piece for foreign TV - its stars on US soil taking on Americans and the rest of the world !!!! You do this by not having to add a lot to the table, but by supplementing what is already there !!!

Now there is one piece that must be done, and that is ensure that the stars do show up to compete … Golden League sort of does that except that after the first meet only 1 person per event has a shot at the money … So I would add some US meets to the "league" AND I would change the focus … Instead of having to WIN every single race/competition, you create a point system … And you award major dollars based on point accumulation … For example lets say for the sake of using round figures that total available points are 1000 … Then you award a certain level of payment to anyone scoring 950 - 1000 points … Maybe another level of payment to those earning 900 - 950 … And finally maybe another level of payment to those earning 850 - 900 … Now obviously a real system would have to be developed and the point ranges tough enough so that money is not just being handed out to everyone, but to those that compete often and at a high level … But I think you get the gist of the idea !!!

What you end up with is top level athletes competing against each other rather than simply waiting for that years championship event to go head to head !!! Now you have marketable, televisable world sport … And a reason for Joe Public to stop and look when surfing channels … But quite frankly this sport isn't about Joe Public … Either you are a fan or you aren't … And we should be staying true to OUR fans … We have MORE than enough to support and sustain the sport … We just have to provide them with the means to do so …

Have I talked too much ???
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Kishan Gill]

You made an interesting point at the end. Maybe our expectations of making the sport mainstream is just far-fetched. The nature of track and it's individualism will appeal only to a section of the public like you and I and we will continue to watch it on tv when available and attend the events when we can.

Team sports I suppose will always hold their sway over the audience due to local, regional and national allegiances. Our ancient loyalties to king and country are now reflected in competitive sport as a form of tribalism and nationalism. On that basis track will always take a second seat to team sports.

It is a sad irony that professionalism in track though necessary has brought the sport into decline and I think increased the scourge of drug use. The casual fan when discussing track will tend to bring drugs into the conversation such is the reputation of the sport at the moment. As you just said maybe if the governing bodies had taken charge of bringing professionalism into the sport than vice-versa it could have been done in a far more constructive way.

Despite the fact that track will always have a selective audience it is still possible with the help of more meets and more coverage to expand it's sphere. The idea of introducing an equivalent grand-prix circuit to North america may go a long way in increasing the visibility of track in that hemisphere.

The US high school and collegiate system has been instrumental in bringing talented youngsters who would have otherwise been lost to other occupations and nurturing them and eventually producing world class athletes. This system may not necessarily work in the UK or rest of europe due to a smaller pool but sending potential talent to the states under lottery funding may be the answer to the problems facing british athletics at the moment. Then again the likes of cram, ovett and coe were all nurtured in the uk. I recall triple jumper jonathan edwards once mentioning the reluctance of todays athletes to make the sacrifices and put in the hardwork as one cause of the demise in our sport.

Their is no doubt that there are many causes and many possible solutions in propping up the sport and each country has seperate needs . Europe and the US have seperate problems requiring seperate solutions.

In my opinion regular championships have cheapened the sport. Football or soccer as you prefer to call it is the worlds most popular sport outside of the US and Canada yet it has a global championship every four years. Having a champion say in the 100m year in and year out in my opinion seems to have taken away the aura from the event. The build up and excitement towards a world championship showdown does not seem to have that electricity that it once did. Again this maybe just my feelings alone and the sport may be viewed entirely differently from the eyes of a twelve year old.

In the opening paragraph you prompted me to think that maybe the sport will always have a fringe appeal such as it's nature and it will only hold centerpiece in the olympics which if you think about it is a bizarre contradiction .

[Dan]

[Fry the Sailor]

Ok I hope I don't fly off the handle here...

Just because a sports event isn't televised doesn't make it unsuccessful. There are many successful sports in America that hardly EVER get press coverage: minor leagues for baseball, hockey, and basketball (arena football is actually broadcasted), major league soccer, in fact... the detroit tigers sometimes dion't have television coverage. Yet they manage to pay their players millions of dollars. Why? Because people come.

In my opinion is that the success of a sport in country isn't based on it's major league success, but how many people are participating. Here in the US, far more children play soccer than football or basketball. Volleyball is amazingly popular with girls, but no knows anything about national and international competion; college coverage is very rarely heard. And the US has been consistantly losing ground in team volleyball (beach volleyball being the only exception). Or how about raquetball? I have never heard of a pro raquetball league, but many particapate across America!

There are really way to "participate" in a sport. One is to watch it on television. The money in that situation is based on advertising. The other, healthier (in my opinion) option is to actually play. While there may be little TV advertising and contract dollars made for track, the rest of the money is made from people buying shoes and other equipment.

Wanna help the sport of track and field? Help coach at a High School or probably even better, Junior high. Start a running club. It will help everyone young and old contribute to track and field. Look for some indoor meets and take the kids there in the winter.

Maybe local races in the UK aren't run as succussfully as US events. Here in the US, a carnival, parade, breakfeast or lunch accompany the event and make much more interesting. Here's another idea: get a costume! Many runners and aid station helpers will take on a character for a run. Example: "Rock'n'Roll" running events. These events have live band playing during the race. Drawing crowds to spectate a little, and motivating runners. Some runners dress up as rock'n'roll greats like Elvis.

The sport is definitly not dead. At Penn relays, there were many many Jamaican fans. AT PENN! some of these people must have had to take long flights just to watch a track and field event!

[Dan]

How does amateur participation help the professional leagues? Unless the shoe companies are profiting so much from your purchases that they want to go sponsor a meet out of generosity, I just don't see any direct correlation. If you're buying their product regardless of television advertising, I don't see any incentive for them to do more.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Fry the Sailor]

everyone beat me to the same idea

[Kishan Gill]

To gauge a sports sucess on tv coverage rather than actual participation is one way to look at it. If we go to the grass-roots level than track is probably the most popular as it is a regular part of the curriculum whether you are in tallahasee or timbuctu. You don't need any equipment and you can even run barefoot (Not that I advise it).

The fact that Dan and conway are in favour of annual champs maybe more of a cultural thing in that all your major sports always culminate in a championship final and all the fanfare that goes with it, and you even have the audacity to call it a world series in the case of major league baseball.

The point regarding the unnecessarily long athletics programme and so many heats is why I suggested that the champs should only be confined to a max of 3 athletes per nation who meet the A standard. The world champs should be for the worlds best and until then the other athletes can aim for their national and regional titles.

The A standard for the 100m could be 10.15 for example. You will always get about two dozen athletes under that by july, only problem is most of tham are American. Why don't we just have an annual usa v rest of world thing

[Dan]

[Kishan Gill]

It's the only way forward !

[Micah Ward]

This is a topic we have kicked around before and I am not sure what the answer is or if there really is an answer. I think track and field is one of those sports where you are either a fan or you are totally oblivious to it. I used to think that football, baseball, etc had big followings because most of the fans played those sports at some time in their life. But we have a lot of people who have run track and now run road races every weekend but they aren't providing a fan base for track meets. So I don't know if participation has anything to do with spectating. Although in my case I was not a "fan" of running events until I became a runner myself.

The big meets here in the US do draw fan support but I have been to a lot of meets where my daughter ran and the the fan base was lacking. In both high school and college meets the people in the stands were either teammates or relatives. But then I live in the south where football is king and track is just something to enhance the sprint speed of the football players.

I don't think track will ever be a major spectator sport in the US. But then again, maybe that ain't so bad.
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`

[Kishan Gill]

I think you are right in that track will never be a mainstream sport as such and to hope for that is a waste of time, rather it's better to just enjoy it as an end in itself.

Changes in the sport will be needed however to enhance the enjoyment of the serious track enthusiast.

[Conway]