The reason track isn't popular is simple: It's not relatable

Others have taken you to task for the "grass roots/mass participation" thing but I can't resist piling on too. If you live in a fairly big city with a significant immigrant population you frequently will see adults playing soccer. In other places if you see soccer match happening it's played by kids. Where I live we have lots of soccer fields crammed with players and it's almost never with players who can legally buy a drink. On the other hand the streets have a constant stream of adult runners here, minor road races attract hundreds and not uncommonly thousands of entrants. Major road races attract tens of thousands and that's pretty standard in much of the US. Of course almost none of those runners race on the track and few watch track meets either in person or on TV.

This sort of discussion usually deals with the issue of why track and even high level road racing is so unpopular as a spectator sport despite the huge number of people who participate in it and I'll go back to the second paragraph of my first post as to why I think that is.

My wife plays loads of tennis. She's probably the tennis equivalent of the serious local road racer. She belongs to the local club, gets instructions, plays on a couple USTA teams, gets a tennis magazine, etc. She bought a "sports package" from our cable company specifically to get The Tennis Channel. When the Grand Slam events happen she tries to arrange her life so she can watch as much as possible. Her tennis friends do similar things. Sometimes they'll have a little party in the lounge of the tennis club when the big events are televised and watch them while they eat and drink. And they do this because they have players that they like and who they hope will win the tournaments. They get really into the matches. And if the player they hoped would win is eliminated they pick another and hope s/he wins.

That's why most people watch sports, to see who wins and hope it's who they wanted to win. You can't do that with track. If basketball were played like track is no score would be kept and instead you'd have one guy who wins the competition for most points, another who wins for most three point shots made, another for most assists, another for most steals, yet another for most blocked shots, etc. And very few people would care.

All sports use their star performers to market the sport but track and maybe swimming, not sure, are the only ones whose stars are never overall, unqualified winners, either individually or as team members. And there's this. Steph Curry is on the floor for maybe 40 minutes of a 48 minute game, Mike Trout is on the field for nine innings of a nine inning game, Tom Brady plays about 30 minutes of a 60 minute game. Bolt is probably the biggest name and most marketable athlete track has produced in the current century. In a 90 minute long meet he competed for 10 seconds. Even in the very unlikely event that a 10,000 meter runner became the biggest name in the sport he'd be performing for about a third of a 90 minute meet. Track is a different kind of sport and as structured just doesn't do the sorts of things that make other sports attractive to the general sports fan.

1. I agree with the others that there is very poor promotion of the stars. Usain Bolt is the only name that people know.

2. The drug cheats have hurt. Nothing more to be said about that.

3. Too much time and too many interviews between events. The post-race interviews are a huge waste of time. I try to DVR the few meets we have in order to jump past these wheeze fests.

4. Distance races are never discussed (except for a very few times by Craig Masback) as strategies by the different runners... just "going for records". The strategy is what auto racing commentary is built on in their broadcasts. Also cutting away to commercials is the default. The second screen can help here (see below).

5. Everyone in the same Nike or Adidas jerseys is a huge killer of the sport. Stop it! At least separate them by club / country / points held --- we get the white jerseys (wow... really boring) for the Diamond League champions. Please, please fix this!

5. Action, action, action needs to be the focus of the broadcasts. This was done in a few instances in the past but those producers seem to have moved on. This can be enhanced with a second screen experience - via twitter - links to results - links to the stars bios.

T&F's popularity plummeted when the Soviet Union broke up and there was no longer a West v. East plot to international competition. With growing tensions with Russia, that sort of drama might reignite interest in T&F. But the E. Africans have taken over distance events and the Russians have doped themselves out of international competition. And even if the Russians cleaned themselves up, Russian athletes are indistinguishable from their European counterparts in that they pretty much post the same shots of themselves have fun in European capitals and resorts on the Mediterranean. So, even if a nationalist rivalry made things more interesting, the athletes aren't really buying in.

The main problem for T&F is that the marketplace for sports has greatly expanded thanks to cable and internet. Back in the 1970s, network TV was the only place to see sports. The only thing that made it on were pro team sports, Olympic events, motor vehicle racing (and smash em up derbies), golf, tennis and horse racing. Now, there is MMA, a bizzilion different X-games, Crossfit games, bass fishing, poker, and so on. Tennis and golf have their own channels, which is instructive for T&F. T&F would never be able to have its own channel because athletes do not compete enough. You cannot change that without risking injury or compromising the quality of competition. Having few events worked well during the Wide World of Sports days when network TV was the only outlet. But the new on demand media environment demands constant content. T&F cannot deliver that and its popularity has suffered as a result.

The beer swilling fat people can have their spectator sports. I'm glad to have a sport that revolves around participants instead of spectators.

Football is mass entertainment first and a sport second. Track is just a sport. That's more than okay with me.

fat people be lazy wrote:

The beer swilling fat people can have their spectator sports. I'm glad to have a sport that revolves around participants instead of spectators.

Football is mass entertainment first and a sport second. Track is just a sport. That's more than okay with me.

Exactly. I love to read, but would be bored to tears watching someone else read. Track is the same.

Golf is not boring to the people who watch it. (I watch some of the Masters every year for a variety of reasons). Golf is a great TV sport especially in HD (where you can see the flight of the ball) and toss in some stats. Golf also is constantly showing "action". There is not a ton of dead time. You might see a guy lining up a putt or trying to hit out of a trap, but that is of interest to fans. Golf constantly switches to where the action is.

Golf is on tv largely because its viewership appeals to sponsors who pay the ad time. The products advertised during golf tournaments are not limited to golf clubs only. The companies must think that they are reaching people likely to buy their product. During a track meet, I see the same adidas or nike ad for every commercial break. Why? Well the people who buy ad time do not think anyone is watching (actually with ratings they know).

Going to a soccer game in Atlanta or Seattle looks like a LOT OF FUN. I find soccer to be pretty tedious, but I know people who never played who are fans. (Same with American football). There is something about being a part of a social group that is a draw.

I've been getting track and field news for almost 40 yrs and even I get a bit bored with elite level track. For me it's probably that I'm more of a distance fan to begin with,and the top level is dominated by Kenyans ( or let's say East Africans) who have commonly recurring names, making them hard to keep straight (Koech won? Wasn't he good like 10 years ago? Oh, different Koech?)

Plus, it's a bit like being a Cubs fan when the Yankees have won 28 of the last 30 World Series. NCAA and US meets are more interesting because the athletes are familiar, having watched them come up through the high school ranks. And there is diversity among the international athletes at NCAA.

That said, I think efforts to " fix" track and field are misguided. I prefer to accept it as it is.

I am old enough to remember the US v Soviet track meets. People would talk about them. It was played up as Good v Evil. SI had track athletes on the cover and sent reporters to write about track. Now Tim Layden does a great job when SI decides to let him write.

I agree on one level, but they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

I will take issue with #2, the numbers of runners (depending on how you define that of course) is quite fine. As a few others point out, people run but they do not watch running. This example just came to mind: I run with a group many Sunday mornings then we go to coffee. On the morning of the NYC Marathon last November, we got to coffee and I did a quick twitter check and saw that Shalane had won. I shared it and people thought it was pretty cool. One woman was pretty excited (she is the track mom who looks up the results of other kids in the state to see how her daughter fares). But I did not stay home to watch the race. Seeing the final results on my phone told me most of the story. And while I can see a final score in a football or baseball game, it is still exciting to see the highlights. What constitutes a highlight of a marathon other than breaking the tape? How often is there a sprint to the finish in the last 400m? The highlight is a surge at mile 21 that drops everyone. But do I need to see it?

Drug cheats did not hurt baseball (although far fewer positive tests) and actually might have saved it after the strike and cancellation of the World Series.

There is a bit of a double standard in peoples' views on "pro" sports (baseball, football, etc) and "Olympic" sports (cycling and track) where the latter is often not seen as "professional" and held to an old standard of "amateurism".

Yes, the kit issue is a good one from a spectator standpoint. I will admit that I find it hard to distinguish by sight one Kenyan from another or an Ethiopian. I like Worlds and Olympics because at least I can tell what country the athlete is from. I know the names of the Kenyans and Ethiopians, but I do not spend a lot of time looking at pictures of them with a few exceptions.

H.E. Pennypacker wrote:

fat people be lazy wrote:

The beer swilling fat people can have their spectator sports. I'm glad to have a sport that revolves around participants instead of spectators.

Football is mass entertainment first and a sport second. Track is just a sport. That's more than okay with me.

Exactly. I love to read, but would be bored to tears watching someone else read. Track is the same.

Okay, that might be the most on the mark comment yet.

Everybody can easily go for a run. I agree the field events are not relatable at all.

X-Country and track have the highest youth participation rates of any US sport at the high school level.

The reason it isn't viewed is the broadcasts are so horrendously done and the meet structures make it unwatachable. And the way announcers present the athlete they try to make them seem like the kid next door, not a professional athlete. Seriously if Lebron were interviewed the way track athletes are he would flip the interviewer the bird. I love the sport but can't stand watching the horrendous broadcasts, not to mention many showing are behind an expensive paywall. I can watch most NFL games and basketball games every night with my standard cable package. I'd have to shell out hundreds extra per year to watch the poorly done track and road racing broadcasts.

I think it is relatable, can be fun to watch - but I agree the scheduling variation makes it hard to easily follow.

My cynical view of humanity is that in track/field its harder to assert your status as there's much less disparity between the haves and the have-nots. In running the equipment difference between a pro and a hobby jogger running the same race is what, maybe $400? $500 with the 4%?

In biking that difference can be $20,000 if not more. A lot more opportunity to people replace their training with their day jobs. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with biking because of that, but keeping up with the Jones' is appealing to a lot of people. Same thing with Golf, even football - helmets, pads, cleats. When there's a culture of dropping that much money, more sponsors pay attention, more events pop-up. *not saying you can buy results but at lower levels gear can make a big difference

If an athlete gets all their expenses paid for a year;

the shoe company is attracting people to go look at their $100 pair of spikes, maybe some shorts, watch sunglasses.

The bike company is getting people to buy their $7,000 frame, $4000 wheels, $200 tires, $500 "kit" (plastered with $hitton of logos), $400 helmet.

TL;DR - Not enough monetary incentive for sponsors to grow the sport

Professional sport is a comedy. Grown men/women grappling in leotards, or dribbling a ball with proficiency, or racing around a track in near nakedness, all to see who on that day can do it best. And this is the soul focus of their lives. Laughable but sad.

some good ideas...

I think we need coaches/meet organizers who are will to try new things.

Distance carnivals are great - so why not build upon this with:

- sprint carnivals

- field carnivals

Some of this is being done with great results.

Our state meet is the biggest in the nation, but it is too much for me. I would like to see the schedule changed more toward a distance carnival because there are distance fans, sprint fans, field event fans, and some who like them all. Too many times college conference meets are running the 5000 (for instance) in the middle of the afternoon.

Pro's could make their events 10X more exciting with a prize structure the go lap by lap in the distances. These prem help push the pace. Something like $ given at certain points in the race (could be done every lap with the amount increasing as the race progresses or at various mile marks).

The USSR vs USA meet idea is also interesting. Maybe more dual type scoring (hs and college). Leagues at the Pro level.

What is the purpose of generating more interest? Why not just let it be what it is?

A few thoughts:

For one, those who follow track are more likely to have competed in it.

Track & Field/Cross country running is primarily an individual sport.

Who can run the fastest, jump the farthest, etc.

In my opinion, most people, once having reached high school, have realized who the

better athletes are and may feel certain limitations on their perceived athletic ability.

They may see a cross country race or a mile run as being daunting.

These are the same people who'd walk the long run around the field in PE class.

For whatever the reason, running a full mile, or whatever distance, just isn't appealing to them.

Those who've found success in the sport are often those who've realized they are pretty

good at running or jumping and have persevered to become even better.

At it's core, track and field is about your basic athletic ability.

I don't have any hard data, but I'd estimate that in a high school of

1000 students, perhaps 10% will have an interest in track and field.

Fewer will go on to compete in it.

Call me negative, but it seems to me that in North America, many students have largely given up on their athletic

potential once having reached high school. Some even earlier.

It's a special breed of athlete to succeed in this kind of sport because as I've said, it's a highly individual sport.

I would imagine that track and field tends to attract more introverted personalities.

Most people tend to not be very introverted.

OK, now for marketing aspects of track and field:

Track needs to be marketed more heavily and differently.

There's no doubt there.

A few thoughts:

-The indoor season is a great opportunity for rivalries, showdowns.

The current IAAF gran prix format of a number of European meetings (that the majority of North Americans likely don't even realize are going on) and a few major American ones (Boston, New York) isn't enough, even with network coverage.

A half dozen indoor meets in North America between early/mid January and early/mid March is something that needs to happen.

Boston & New York is a good start, but what about other markets? Saskatoon (in Canada) has a big meet that attracts some stars in January (K of C indoor Games). Perhaps this meet, along with a revival of the LA meet and two others would be the way to go.

You need showdowns. Most people don't know who the top sprinters are.

A 60 meter showdown every week or every other week between known names could attract attention provided their was some rivalry established. The way it goes now, I may see Christian Coleman run at Milrose and win his prize money, but really, that's because I almost expect it. And I'm not really excited to see who might knock him off because even though there are other good sprinters, they aren't marketed enough to make me really want to tune in. Being a fan, I still might tune in to see the performance aspect and see whether any WR's are broken, but unlike the NFL where I want to see if a wild card team can knock off an opponent in the playoffs or divisional round, I'm not super excited to see a 60 meter race at Milrose.

I think the indoor season is a good start. A half dozen meets or at least 4 major indoor meets in North America, if marketed well, could command more attention for track and field. I'm from Edmonton, so why not.. Edmonton, Saskatoon, Boston, New York? Maybe a little idealistic, but hey it's a start.

And to add a little..

Yes, the sport needs to be action packed and compact.

Everything compacted into 60 minutes (with commercials) is very important.

I.E. show the Long jump or pole vault while a long distance race is going on and alternate

between attempts and the race.

Action action action.