Track and Field is what is. It’s not going to compete with the major sports no matter what. Just let it be MJ.
I disagree. Claiming that Track and Field is not going to compete with major sports no matter what is not entirely accurate. Sure, it's true that Track and Field may not have the same level of mainstream popularity as sports like football or basketball, but there is evidence to suggest that it can still draw significant interest and attention.
Evidence, you say? Yep, according to World Athletics, the 2019 World Athletics Championships in Doha drew a total of 1.27 billion broadcast audience impressions worldwide. This indicates that there is a significant audience for Track and Field events, both in person and through media coverage.
Furthermore, high-profile Track and Field events such as the Olympics and the Diamond League attract widespread attention and generate significant revenue. In fact, according to a report by the Sports Business Journal, the Diamond League generated more than $30 million in revenue in 2019.
Overall, while it may not have the same level of mainstream popularity as some major sports, Track and Field has proven to be a compelling and enduring sport that can still draw significant interest and attention.
What some people (not you, you get it) fail to differentiate is that track and field is a world wide sport.
Doha got 1.27 BILLION. The Super Bowl gets 200 Million world wide.
It's just in the United States that it lacks the mainstream popularity. Watch commercials0 NFL, NBA players are all over the place- insurance, fast food, etc track is nowhere- in the US.
I’ve always thought the field events in particular are poorly marketed. I think the fans need to be closer to the action. imagine seeing a 20’ pole vault up close.
Been to a 1000 track meets at all levels, the sport is fine as is.
I have never left any track meet dissatisfied, it's all good.
So many memories.....
It's pouring down rain, all us fans under cover but out on the track there stands Don Quarrie waving to come on lets go don't let a rain stop us......ha! That was at the Bakersfield Classic.
Speaking of Don Quarrie, now in Fresno. The 4x1 with Quarrie anchoring a club, former teammate Willie Deckard still at USC. Well Quarries team dropped the baton so at the final exchange its all USC, no not really because there goes Quarrie running stride for stride with Deckard, with a few yards to go Quarrie backs off. smiles all around.
Well if the entire world were like you, the sport would be massively popular. In the real world though? Nope.
People who suggest teams are trying to relive their HS days. Seriously it gets brought up all the time and it never works. Nobody cares about what jersey some random runner is wearing. Throw in balancing is almost impossible. My local area has team comps. Nobody cares cause the same running club has won for a decade.
People who suggest teams are trying to relive their HS days. Seriously it gets brought up all the time and it never works. Nobody cares about what jersey some random runner is wearing. Throw in balancing is almost impossible. My local area has team comps. Nobody cares cause the same running club has won for a decade.
Yeah people need to drop the team ideas, it doesn’t work in T&F. The Saudi Golf League is trying to make their selling point the team aspect and nobody cares. Some sports are just meant to be individual, you can’t force the team aspect outside of special competitions.
I think that track would benefit from looking at Formula 1, since that is basically the same thing but with cars. In Formula 1, you have one event every 2 weeks or so, with the same 20 people each time. Place is emphasized, while time is either ignored or only considered relative to what has been seen that weekend (no comparison to previous races and few to previous years at the same track). Each track is different, which poses a new challenge to drivers and provides a new backdrop and story for each race. There is both an individual and a team championship, which helps to provide more context, especially for competitors further down the field. The race is long enough that there is time for drama to unfold several times a race in several spots, so there's 2 hours of action.
To make this work for running, I'd suggest making the pro circuit something that looks like a ~10K cross country race. Each course would be different, some hilly, some narrow, some with lots of tight turns, different surfaces, etc. This would take care of removing the focus on time and give an interesting new challenge every time out. 10 teams of 3 or so runners each would give us lots of mid-field battles to follow, especially when the top runners aren't doing anything interesting. A set up like this would let people follow the action and get 30 minutes of enjoyment.
I know some people would bemoan the loss of other distances and field events - those can still exist in the Olympics and other events, just like MMA didn't kill more "pure" martial arts. However, a single competition makes for a much more watchable product where we can actually follow more than just the top 1 or 2 athletes in each event. It also prevents a watering down effect that we see, where the person who won the 5K at a meet may have only done so because the better runners decided to run the 1500 or the 10K.
This new event would still have to find a way to market the runners as competitors and people you want to cheer for (or against). Many sports do this better than track, where most runners are afraid to show personality or aren't comfortable enough on camera to show it (or don't speak enough English). Drive to Survive brought this side of Formula 1 to many Americans, but the clashing egos and personalities have always been a part of the sport.
Championships get very large audiences because they have real stakes, the best individuals, and nations competing against other nations for pride and laudits. In the old days, the biggest other meets were nation v. nation, U.S. v. USSR, USA-Germany, and the like. We need to resurrect that format, maybe even have a nations' league, a competition with points all along for the top countries and individuals. Just having 8 Kenyans in identical kit and few known backstories does not do it. You need, then, to police doping better so that nations are not dominating because they cheat.
It's true that teams are not likely to become the main basis, and the country medal tallies or notional rankings at the moment are a secondary thing. This would change if country rankings were connected to qualifying places/quotas for major champs.
The Davis Cup in tennis provides a nice team element parallel to the main tour, and world relays were a good initiative, but it's feats at the elite (truly 'olympic') level that draws the general public for the big champs in track and field.
F1 and tennis are interesting sports to compare in terms of scale. F1 at just 20 seats would imply a very select group of men and women in track and field terms, probably too narrow.
Tennis provides a living to not many players outside the top 100 ATP or WTA. That's a narrow group too when applied across all T+F events, averaging five or so athletes but obviously with more for the sprints, 1500, marathon, and less for others. This is at least around the level of a Diamond League final, or may be more selective again.
Many US professional track and field athletes are outside a true global top 100 in the sport and not on the cusp of DL finals and medals, but they might do better financially than their tennis playing equivalent. At the top end of course Serena Williams is making much more than Allyson Felix, and even Bolt was not making as much as Federer.
In the sport as it is, many pro and semi-pro track and field athletes move from the blue riband events for competitiveness and to stay in the sport, and a streamlined/simplified format would potentially exclude them. Many countries would not be represented (as many do not have players in the ATP top 20, 50, even 100 at a given time).
Some runners who have commercial attributes (large market, English-speaking etc), and who have a reasonable profile and solid professional contracts are not consistent global elites with parallel outcomes in other individual sports (of course acknowledging doping is a factor). Comparing to NBA, NFL etc will give a different picture.
True, a false start penalty like 0.25-0.5m could serve better than DQ (w/ less penalty where it's line-ball). Gift races and field sports use distance penalties and it's a real disincentive.
The big picture though is that 9.58 and 19.19 do not become Flojo-type records, with JADCO dissolution and testing failures resembling past cover-ups/East German sense (Blake's adjacent 9.69/19.26 one associated with a positive, but of course others).
Lyles is getting close in the 200. In the 100, let it come via the shoes, tracks, blocks, and the competition from hopefully Norman, Lyles, others following Kerley's lead to the 100.
Another positive thing would be the best marathoners racing more and even at 3-4 majors annually, as the new shoe tech. seems to facilitate. The road racing showcases the city like cycling. Add the key track events at a track adjacent and we are some way to MJ's ideas.
Field events: Technology today is such that ALL events can be three efforts with best mark. In the old days this was impossible for events like pole vault or high jump where it is clear the height and move the bar up. Now it is possible to actually measure the height of the jump using lasers or something similar. Have a visible laser wall the fans and athletes can see, where the pole vaulter needs to jump as high as possible and break as little of the wall's surface as possible. Just like long jump, the lowest point of the body breaking the laser wall, determines the jump height. Same for high jump. Using this method, all field events can be 3 efforts and winner is decided. This would take many of the 3 hour events into 30 minutes. No 20 attempts total for a single high jumper anymore. This would also make each attempt extremely important and not just the final heights as the bar has knocked out everyone but 3 men. You're also much more likely to get higher marks/world records since the world record could come by any athlete at any jump vs the current format which can only see a world record when all but one extremely tired man is eliminated and sets the bar for a world record attempt.
Track Season format (Revamped Diamond League): A points running season like Diamond League is a good format. To make it more interesting, perhaps have 10 qualifier race meets and then a final meet where bigger prize money is paid out. Each of the 10 qualifier race meets, the winner of any race automatically gets a birth into the 11th race which is the finals race and is only for qualifiers. Also keep track of points for all 10 races and take the non-auto qualified top point getters for the year as well to get to a total of 16 athletes for the championship meet from the first 10 qualifying meets. This would increase the imprtance of even the first meet of the season as a lot of the borderline athletes will want an early automatic qualifier or at least come into the beginning of the season with a high level of fitness to get a jump on the early points.
Cross country (separate from track and field): I like the idea mentioned by another poster. Have a cross country season with points. Have 10 meets in various countries on various terrain. Have a running point total and a championship meet with double the points. Champion is the high point getter.
Agree on the general idea of changes being needed to make the sport more watchable. Like I would never expect someone who hasn't been a competitive runner at some level or like family or close friends or something of a competitive runner to go to a track meet or watch it on tv outside of the Olympics or WC. It's not presented in an exciting way.
I disagree with this completely. I have witnessed many people who have never been to a track meet or cross country meet, they show up to watch and walk away amazed at how thrilling it is.
I have heard many people say "I had no idea this sport was so _________" ... fill in the blank with "exciting", "emotional", "dynamic", "fun", "energetic", "inspiring" ...
It is sometimes a parent whose kid is competing for the first time, they are wowed by a sport they didn't know anything about. I have seen parents shed tears because they are so overwhelmed by the experience.
For those who don't get into it, they may be blocking out the fierce competitive nature of every event, they maybe don't want to let those emotions in. But those who do let it in are often thunderstruck.
It's true that teams are not likely to become the main basis, and the country medal tallies or notional rankings at the moment are a secondary thing. This would change if country rankings were connected to qualifying places/quotas for major champs.
The Davis Cup in tennis provides a nice team element parallel to the main tour, and world relays were a good initiative, but it's feats at the elite (truly 'olympic') level that draws the general public for the big champs in track and field.
F1 and tennis are interesting sports to compare in terms of scale. F1 at just 20 seats would imply a very select group of men and women in track and field terms, probably too narrow.
Tennis provides a living to not many players outside the top 100 ATP or WTA. That's a narrow group too when applied across all T+F events, averaging five or so athletes but obviously with more for the sprints, 1500, marathon, and less for others. This is at least around the level of a Diamond League final, or may be more selective again.
Many US professional track and field athletes are outside a true global top 100 in the sport and not on the cusp of DL finals and medals, but they might do better financially than their tennis playing equivalent. At the top end of course Serena Williams is making much more than Allyson Felix, and even Bolt was not making as much as Federer.
In the sport as it is, many pro and semi-pro track and field athletes move from the blue riband events for competitiveness and to stay in the sport, and a streamlined/simplified format would potentially exclude them. Many countries would not be represented (as many do not have players in the ATP top 20, 50, even 100 at a given time).
Some runners who have commercial attributes (large market, English-speaking etc), and who have a reasonable profile and solid professional contracts are not consistent global elites with parallel outcomes in other individual sports (of course acknowledging doping is a factor). Comparing to NBA, NFL etc will give a different picture.
I think Golf is a decent model to compare to. Top 125 in the season long points race retain their PGA tour card for next year. There is a clear minor league system (Korn Ferry Tour) where the next batch of players compete to finish top 30 to make it to the PGA tour. World Rankings actually matter in golf and are largely the basis for players to qualify for Majors. You can't avoid competing all year while still retaining rankings/points.
Golf was also having some issues outside of Majors where the top guys would be scattered across different tournaments, not too dissimilar to T&F. So they created a series of "elevated events", with bigger prize pools, smaller invite-only fields, and required the top guys to play. And its been a huge success this year, all the top players in the PGA are competing against each other repeatedly.
T&F needs to take a serious look at whats working in other individual sports and start considering some changes. This sport will never be successful until the top athletes are consistently competing against each other in events that actually matter. No more ducking the whole year until Worlds.
It's worth observing that the marathon has successfully 'stepped out of the shadow of the Olympics (and is worthy of their [sponsors'] investment)' as Johnson hopes for T+F.
This advance of marathoning has happened in a relatively brief time, with women's marathoning particularly having a short history.
What are the reasons track and field, where top sprinters at least have an equal profile to marathoners, has not joined this success (just mass participation?)? Should closer merger with marathon events be approached, like a festival format with marathon eve meets?
It's true that teams are not likely to become the main basis, and the country medal tallies or notional rankings at the moment are a secondary thing. This would change if country rankings were connected to qualifying places/quotas for major champs.
The Davis Cup in tennis provides a nice team element parallel to the main tour, and world relays were a good initiative, but it's feats at the elite (truly 'olympic') level that draws the general public for the big champs in track and field.
F1 and tennis are interesting sports to compare in terms of scale. F1 at just 20 seats would imply a very select group of men and women in track and field terms, probably too narrow.
Tennis provides a living to not many players outside the top 100 ATP or WTA. That's a narrow group too when applied across all T+F events, averaging five or so athletes but obviously with more for the sprints, 1500, marathon, and less for others. This is at least around the level of a Diamond League final, or may be more selective again.
Many US professional track and field athletes are outside a true global top 100 in the sport and not on the cusp of DL finals and medals, but they might do better financially than their tennis playing equivalent. At the top end of course Serena Williams is making much more than Allyson Felix, and even Bolt was not making as much as Federer.
In the sport as it is, many pro and semi-pro track and field athletes move from the blue riband events for competitiveness and to stay in the sport, and a streamlined/simplified format would potentially exclude them. Many countries would not be represented (as many do not have players in the ATP top 20, 50, even 100 at a given time).
Some runners who have commercial attributes (large market, English-speaking etc), and who have a reasonable profile and solid professional contracts are not consistent global elites with parallel outcomes in other individual sports (of course acknowledging doping is a factor). Comparing to NBA, NFL etc will give a different picture.
I think Golf is a decent model to compare to. Top 125 in the season long points race retain their PGA tour card for next year. There is a clear minor league system (Korn Ferry Tour) where the next batch of players compete to finish top 30 to make it to the PGA tour. World Rankings actually matter in golf and are largely the basis for players to qualify for Majors. You can't avoid competing all year while still retaining rankings/points.
Golf was also having some issues outside of Majors where the top guys would be scattered across different tournaments, not too dissimilar to T&F. So they created a series of "elevated events", with bigger prize pools, smaller invite-only fields, and required the top guys to play. And its been a huge success this year, all the top players in the PGA are competing against each other repeatedly.
T&F needs to take a serious look at whats working in other individual sports and start considering some changes. This sport will never be successful until the top athletes are consistently competing against each other in events that actually matter. No more ducking the whole year until Worlds.
We have just had a 52 come second in the Masters. There is no comparison between Golf and Track for competing hard and often throughout the year.
In the UK funding is based on performance in the World / Olympics.
I'd agree very much that a calendar year points race or twelve-month roll over of ranking points makes for a very different sport. The new world rankings system is a nice start but for the best a top-45 and auto-qual marks are a low bar, the main thing still trials races in top countries.
A trouble is parallel incentive structures from personal sponsors and from the DL tour - it's tough if Nike or Adidas et al are paying big for major champ medals and making teams (or deducting big for their absence), and it does shift the athlete's periodisation and focus compared with year-round efforts at four majors in golf or tennis.
Some would question this as an excessive contribution, or power and importance, of the big personal sponsors (mostly shoe companies) in comparison and relation to media rights holders and athletics federations.
Been to a 1000 track meets at all levels, the sport is fine as is.
I have never left any track meet dissatisfied, it's all good.
So many memories.....
It's pouring down rain, all us fans under cover but out on the track there stands Don Quarrie waving to come on lets go don't let a rain stop us......ha! That was at the Bakersfield Classic.
Speaking of Don Quarrie, now in Fresno. The 4x1 with Quarrie anchoring a club, former teammate Willie Deckard still at USC. Well Quarries team dropped the baton so at the final exchange its all USC, no not really because there goes Quarrie running stride for stride with Deckard, with a few yards to go Quarrie backs off. smiles all around.
Well if the entire world were like you, the sport would be massively popular. In the real world though? Nope.
This always makes me wonder.
Why does it have to be popular - i.e. - financially lucrative, like other sports.
Even though its sport, its not a competition.
Those love T&F don't care if it's more popular than Basketball. It won't be. Its an individual sport. Its professional for very few, and pin money loss for a few more, and costs shoes and shorts for the rest.
Enjoy it and watch it or don't.
When I grew up in track and field it I never expected to make a career of it., I learned about competition and injury, and that eventually I was going to have to get a job, where I applied my life lessons into my future. Now we suddenly have to compete for TV and funding?
People will always run. People will always look to be fitter and measure themselves. It will find a way. In the scheme of things its not that important.
Personally don't have much of a problem with the sport as it stands now, but I've felt that taking some cues from auto racing might be useful to bring in casual fans.
Start with tv presentation. Auto racing broadcasts have tons of interesting info on the side of the screen - gaps between drivers, current tire, last pit stop, etc. You could show each runner's gap to the leader, last lap pace, time ahead/behind record pace, make/model of shoe, maybe even things like heart rate and cadence/stride length.
Then, something like an F1 season with points and individual and team championships could be interesting if done right. Have an event champion and an overall points champion. With enough prize money, who knows, maybe you might even see the big stars show up and race consistently.
This.
More stats are needed. Live and as events finish.
I've mentioned the heart rate thing to friends for years. Wouldn't it be interesting to know who in the pack is revving high versus someone sitting in looking to pounce?
Launch angles and exit speed of the thrower's implements would be interesting. Speed of the jumpers coming down the approach. Even the shoes info this poster mentioned. People can obviously see what brand the runners are wearing, but what models are they using? The super shoes are the biggest advancement in sports in a while and the shoe models are never mentioned in broadcasts.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
