Why isn't Track Popular in America?

Imagine this conversation:

"What did you do today?"

"I went to the Prefontaine Classic."

"What's that?"

"A professional track meet."

"Oh, okay. How was it?"

"It was great!"

"Cool. Who won?"

Here is one of our problems. We have about 20 different winners in every meet, without any overall victor. And before you start jumping up and down about teams, picture this:

"What did you do today?"

"I went to the USC/UCLA duel meet."

"What's that?"

"It's the traditional end of the regular season where USC and UCLA's track teams face off against each other."

"Oh, okay. How was it?"

"Great! Bryshom Nellum set a PAC-12 record int he 400m!"

"Oh, good. So USC won?"

"Well, actually UCLA won?"

"How's that? You just said that the USC kid set a record. How didn't they win?"

Track and field is absolutely an individual sport. We have collections of individuals in schools or clubs, but they're completely unnecessary to be successful in the sport (see Mary Cain). Usain Bolt can fill up an arena alone, while I've never heard of a venue being filled to watch Messi kick the ball around by himself.

People that advocate the team concept for professional track and field haven't really carried it through in their heads. Here are all the reasons why it won't work. First is money. You need lots and lots of money (which the major team sports get from tv contracts) because your kicking out 90% of the shoe company money currently in the sport since you're asking Yohan Blake to trade in his adidas uniform for the Jacksonville Jets uniform and whatever design it has, so Blake is no longer the walking billboard for adidas he once was.

Then you have to decide how people get paid since there's no more prize money, right? LeBron James's income from the Heat doesn't depend on whether they win or lose tonight. He's on a team, with a salary. Pros in team sports want to perform well not to get money that day, but to put them in a better position for their next contract (and to avoid getting cut). Suddenly, your jumpers are much more valuable than someone like Kirani James, right? Christian Taylor can get you points in the Long Jump and the Triple Jump, but James is only good for one event, really.

And forget about developing American distance runners. If I want my team to win, and I'm the team owner, I have chartered flights from East Africa to my training camp bringing in ready made winners, from 800m on up.

Also, you would do well to cancel the World Championships and pull track out of the Olympics. As long as those are the most important meets of the year, everything else will still be expendable. Athletes sit this or that meet out because EVERYTHING is just preparations for Worlds or the Olympics. That's all the matters. If you want your team to count for anything, the team title must be the most important goal. You can talk about FIFA and the Euro Cup, but the difference there of course is that you're selling nationalities and England is still playing without whatever player who might be injured. In our world, there are meets with Usain Bolt and then there's every other meet.

And who's coaching these teams? How many top triple jump coaches are there in the world? What's your plan if Kirani James is languishing under Harvey Glance and says he needs Clyde Hart to turn him into a champion?

No, the team model isn't one for track and field. It was there in the US during the Cold War, when it was the free world vs. the communists, but those days have gone. American sports fans will be much more concerned and aware of the NBA Finals than the FIBA Championships. Unlike the rest of the world, international sport doesn't mean much. The USA could lose to Argentina in basketball (as it has) and it won't make waves like Miami losing to San Antonio.

Look at individual sports like golf and tennis. Those are more applicable to track and field. They have an easier ride, because you're talking about a few dozen athletes all competing in and for the same thing, instead of hundreds of athletes in over a dozen different disciplines. It's tough. How many people do you know that competed in track in school but now couldn't tell you hardly anything about what's going on in this world? All the participation there is in track doesn't translate into huge fan bases (it's easier to be interested in your own performances or those of your friends than in a stranger's, no matter how good it is).

There's no easy answer.

Interesting points, all around. I think it would be an interesting idea to look at why track and field WORKS and is popular in Eugene and try to expand that and replicate it on a large scale.

Obviously easier said then done, haha.

Good points. I think you're a bit wrong about the comparison of college track and field-- I think people still get pretty excited about a team winning a conference or national championship.

And, why do the Olympics work? The US goes there as TEAM, so why couldn't the same model work as a circuit within the United States? If track and field athletes could actually wear more than one logo on their jerseys, I don't even think earning $$ or finding sponsors would be that difficult. (think NASCAR).

Sure, there are definite issues, like the coaching situation. But I also don't think a circuit of events here in the US would mean cancellation of the World Champs or the Olympics. How could it? Those would clearly still be the most important, the circuit events just add to the excitement leading up to those world events.

I agree there's no easy answer, but I think shooting down a team concept doesn't make sense. Keep it in the conversation. And probably don't have USATF look in to it. Wasn't the TFAA floating the idea around?

ShouldBeStudying wrote:

Would more people show up if the meets were set up differently and there was less down time?

Yes.

Track is pretty unwatchable.

They can take a 3 day meet and compress it down to 2 1/2 to 3 hours and put on a good show.

Hold all prelims a couple days in advance and set all the finals in a 3 hour stretch. Maybe even 2 hours to hold people's attention span.

Do it like the Penn Relays. Fire the gun to the next race within a couple minutes of one race concluding.

Here's my 2 hour schedule.

It allows for the following doubles assuming the 10,000 is held on a different day - maybe a week earlier.

100/200

200/400

1500/800

1500/5000

10,000/5000

1:03 W 1500

1:10 M 1500

1:17 W 100 HH

1:20 M 110 HH

1:25 W 100

1:28 M 100

1:32 W 400

1:35 M 400

1:40 W 400 IH

1:44 M 400 IH

1:50 W steeple

1:55 M steeple

2:01 W 800

2:10 M 800

2:20 W 200

2:24 M 200

2:28 W 5000

2:45 M 5000

That would be a fast moving exciting meet to watch.

Or maybe hold some events concurrently.

Send off the 800m runners right after the 400 runners get around the turn.

With an outside water jump, put the other barriers on the outside as well and adjust the start. Then run the steeple and the 5000 at the same time with the steeplers staying in lane 5 and out.

Put hurdles in alternate lanes and run the 100 along side the high hurdles.

Fire off the 1500 and the 200 at the same time.

"And forget about developing American distance runners. If I want my team to win, and I'm the team owner, I have chartered flights from East Africa to my training camp bringing in ready made winners, from 800m on up."

You guys are trying to discuss Track working in sprint and field terms on a distance running website. the IAAF has shown that they are a joke when it comes to promoting athletics in general. If you guys are wondering why Distance Running is booming in Japan (where it is still behind Football and Baseball), it is because they are doing something right that we are not.

Me? Where do you get that from? I didn't even mention anything about baseball, and certainly don't watch it. Ever.

But, it's a good example, and points to speeding up the meet, as others suggest, not being the issue at all.

Well, they don't come out to watch Usain run against nobody, either. They're fill a venue to go see him compete, and especially when he competes against the best in the world.

You're not familiar with, say, rugby, are you? Rugby League, in Australia, has a HUGE following at both the club level AND the international level. And, for that matter, at the national level (inter-state competition). So what you're saying here isn't consistently applicable.

Capitalism

Survival of the fittest.

Boxing and horse racing are seeing the same thing as track.

There are simply way too many options for entertainment nowadays with all of our gadgets, electronics, etc.

If you're Joe 6-pack, what exactly is compelling about watching a bunch of Kenyans and Ethiopians running around in circles countless times?

With that said, TV focuses on the sprints, where we get the "pleasure" of watching 20 minutes of stretching, talking, striding, nose-picking & posturing for a 10 second race. Hardly must-see stuff.

The general public has got this right - track is not and will never again be a compelling watch, save the Olympics every 4 years and a random event here or there.

RunWild wrote:

If you guys are wondering why Distance Running is booming in Japan (where it is still behind Football and Baseball), it is because they are doing something right that we are not.

The US is better than Japan at distance running on the track.

Estr wrote:

Everyone says track isn't popular because its dominated by blacks. Well that sure killed the NBA didn't it?

Everyone says track isn't popular because there are no teams and there is too much individuality. That sure killed the PGA didn't it?

The reason track died is because of the personalities or rather the lack of personalities in track. That's all it is.

How about the fact that it's boring to watch? I've jumped on the Bruin's bandwagon lately, and I'm constantly amazed at all the high-speed action in hockey. Track doesn't really compare.

(I admit the "interesting to watch" theory doesn't explain the popularity of televised golf).

Wtfunny wrote:

Well, they don't come out to watch Usain run against nobody, either. They're fill a venue to go see him compete, and especially when he competes against the best in the world.

What stiff competition did Usain face in his Rio 150m?

Rugby is a team sport. Track isn't. That's my point. Team sports will always trump individual sports for popularity. It's us versus them.

The average person can't relate to track and field. There is no understanding how fast athletes are running, jumping and throwing.

The Olympics are popular because people can relate to the pursuit of a gold medal for the USA. People will even watch badmitton if they think the American has a chance at winning.

To make pro track meets popular in the United States I think you have to compromise purity of the sport to make them more entertaining. Example: Bring in pros from other sports. Invite a couple NBA players to participate in the high jump. Invite a couple NFL players for the 100 and shot put. Of course they'll be destroyed by the real T&F athletes, but it gives Joe Spectator a frame of reference.

I'm absolutely shooting down the team concept. Can't work. Suddenly someone who can give me points in long and triple jump is as or more valuable to my team than Usain Bolt or Yohan Blake. Am I asking Bolt to triple in every meet? What do I do when Bolt tells me he's going to sit this one (or four) out because he's trying to save himself for the World Championships or Olympics (as he did last year after the Jamaican Trials)?

The point about the circuit is that none of it matters if it has no bearing on the World Championships or Olympic Games. Bolt said to hell with the Diamond League after the Jamaican Trials and was better for it. How does that translate into the team concept? Suppose training partner Blake does the same thing. Here we have no connection between the regular season and the post season. Everyone is out to do what's best for them. Compare this to a team sport where you have someone like LeBron James needing to carry his team through game seven so he can get to the finals.

And imagine if Usain's team needed to win whatever conference to get to the finals. Usain wins the 100m and 200m but the team gets outscored so no Usain at worlds. Or you could forget that and just have people qualify as individuals (which is how we have it now). Then if you want to win the team title, like a lot of universities, you get really good field event athletes and some sprinters. But then aren't we pretty much back where we started? What team are you pulling for if many of the major stars are on "teams" that have no hope of winning?

Estr wrote:

Everyone says track isn't popular because its dominated by blacks. Well that sure killed the NBA didn't it?

Everyone says track isn't popular because there are no teams and there is too much individuality. That sure killed the PGA didn't it?

The reason track died is because of the personalities or rather the lack of personalities in track. That's all it is.

It would help to have some real success in the distance races. Look at the Pre Meet, it was an East African parade.

Left Said Fred wrote:

What stiff competition did Usain face in his Rio 150m?

Rugby is a team sport. Track isn't. That's my point. Team sports will always trump individual sports for popularity. It's us versus them.

I agree that track is boring compared to basketball, football, maybe a few others.

On the other hand, golf, tennis and even poker seem to have fairly substantial commercial audiences. These are individual "sports" that seem inherently boring to me. So I am not sure if it is simply a matter of team sport vs individual sport.

Well I Dunno wrote:

I agree that track is boring compared to basketball, football, maybe a few others.

On the other hand, golf, tennis and even poker seem to have fairly substantial commercial audiences. These are individual "sports" that seem inherently boring to me. So I am not sure if it is simply a matter of team sport vs individual sport.

They're much simpler, aren't they? I was watching the French Open, and without knowing much about tennis, you get the idea: this person versus that one, don't miss the ball, make the other person miss theirs. And it gets down to the last two. Everyone's doing the same thing.

Golf's the same. There's one activity and everyone's competing against one another. And like a tennis major, there are stages along the way to provide excitement as you progress towards the end.

In this way, marathons are an easier sell for the viewing public (and anyone who has been in Boston on the third Monday of April can attest to how easily such an event can be consumed along with alcohol to an enthused but otherwise largely uninformed fan base).

There hasn't been an American personality in the sport since Carl Lewis, and before that Pre.

Half the time the elites that people paid money to see will drop out a few days before, or use the race as a training run.

Americans don't win, except for the sprints, which take all of 20 seconds.

TV coverage is awful. The announcers are awful. There are too many interruptions.

Kids don't want to do tack and field at school. Football, baseball and hoops are far more glamorous.

A the championship wouldn't work as the top runners wouldn't

run.

A family trip at a Diamond League event at I-Cahn will set you back approximately $300, compared to $200 in Paris $50 in Birmingham UK.