Can We Provide Some Examples of "Non-Professionals" Ruining Track?

what?

The point they were making was that popular sports do not let high schoolers and amateurs compete in professional events to “test the waters before they turn pro.”

Imagine if you watched the NFL every week, and each team had like 5 new random players starting from various HS or college teams. Then next week some of those players are on other teams, or not playing at all.

I wonder what MJ and Merber’s thoughts are on the co-Ed nature of professional track. If we are looking to popular professional sports as models, then why do we not separate the men’s and women’s sides of the sports like basketball or soccer?

Your analogy immediately breaks down because track does not compete as ‘teams’. If it was ‘pure’ competitive sport, the fans would naturally want to see interesting competition, and if that includes high-schoolers, so be it. But it seems to be staged shows, yes?

What you’re positing is ridiculous.

I was looking forward to seeing Sophia Gorriaran line up against Mu & Wilson in the 600 this weekend at Millrose. I wanted to see if she closed the gap on Mu after Mu posted such a decisive win over both she and Wilson at the Penn Relays last April. I’m sure that Gorriaran was also looking forward to it. With Mu’s withdrawal from the event, that’s not going to happen.

I like Mu a lot. She is an incredible talent, is respectful, and seems to have her head on straight. However, her withdrawal from the meet, and other pros withdrawing from other meets, is far more detrimental to the sport than having high schoolers and non-pros line up against the pros. If anything, allowing the non-pros in the same race would seem to generate more interest in the sport. It also give the pros more incentive and motivation. What pro is going to want to get beaten by a high school kid? I like Ajee Wilson a lot but she probably did not like getting beat by Gorriaran at the Penn Relays last year.

The problem is that “pro” can mean mean anything from Jakob Ingebrigtsen with a seven figure deal to some recent D3 grad that pocketed $50 at a local road race. Some people consider social media influencers professional because they make money off of running. It’s very confusing to casual fans when they see a Kenyan women winning an Olympic medal and a cute hobby jogger promoting vitamin smoothies being labeled as professional runners. No one confuses LeBron James and a street ball hustler. But our sport has no real gatekeepers to enforce the meaning of the word “professional”.

Events are also an issue. There are track meets with exclusive entry and held in large stadiums. There are also “pro” meets being held on high school tracks with less than 100 attendees. The NFL doesn’t play games at middle school fields. Outside of The Olympics, Worlds, and Diamond League, track in the United States looks more like low level minor league baseball or some old fashioned barnstorming tour where a few washed up names race locals for a little scratch. Nothing about that promotes class, elite performance, or professionalism.

One thing is for certain, Gorriaran is no “influencer” and is definitely not out of her element mixing it up with the pros. She will be one of the top pros herself someday.

Running is not a professional sport. It is an Olympic sport. It's vaguely pro.

Alan

For anyone confused, part of Kyle Merber's Lap Count weekly newsletter this morning dealt with professionalism in track.

Kyle has thrown out both decent and bad ideas in his newsletter in the past, mostly related to getting more viewers in the sport. These ideas are hit or miss and typically not followed up on or 'pushed' very hard. So it is probably more about getting ideas out there.

That being said I think this notion of some sort of professional designation is a terrible idea that would be full of unintended consequences. We can look at the pre-70s AAU to see some of the pitfalls. Why one would want to add some barrier to entry into the sport is beyond me. It would be ripe with discrimination (likely against foreigners in our case), there would be more Max Siegel types taking money from where it should be, handshake deals for which meets to promote, under the counter paying into meets, the opportunities for failure and corruption are endless. We all see how well USATF is run, why would a new organization (or additional responsibilities for USATF) be any better?

I thought this would be about so many meets that are impossible to watch because you have pros sandwiched between 40 heats of the mile, but no -- we're supposed to think track isn't popular because a high schooler got 9th in some race? Just grasping at straws.

"Pro" is used loosely in running. There have been more than a few world championships medalists who are unsponsored in less popular events, and there's not even much prize money on the track. And then you have examples like Ben True in distance events, he got dropped while still at a level to make world teams, only having the ability to make some limited prize money. The person getting paid the most is often not the best.

In major sports every single athlete you see is making money. League minimum in bench players making hundreds of thousands of dollars. And then I guarantee you that there will be a runner finishing about 10th at the US olympic trials marathon who is lucky to have made a few thousand dollars from running in a year. And then there will be some sponsored people who finish 15th or worse who might have made in the ball park of $100k in a year.

Latoya Shauntay Snell-she gets sponsorship from companies because she posts a lot making her a "professional" runner. That money could go to actual runners that are fast. But the return on investment is too small on those people because they don't have the same reach to "regular" people as someone like Snell.

I was around for the Gerry Lindgren/Jim Ryun/Marty Liquori era. Having high school kids performing at the same level as college and post college athletes created loads of interest in the sport. Track's format is just SO different from almost every other sport's that it's almost impossible to imagine it ever being anything more than a niche sport. I've seen countless discussions about this over the decades and no one yet has found the answer. The one thing I can imagine really expanding its appeal would be being able to bet on meets.

This is a riduclous idea [disallowing non pro runners], HS and College runners are often some of the most popular, because they have a mass of peers. Having Thouy, Nico Young, Connor Burns, Sahlman etc. can get HS or college runners who might not be as familiar with the pro scene to tune into a meet. Its also good for their pro careers because they gain longterm fans. Like Drew Hunter has an outsized follow despite his lack of success as a pro.

Love to see the debate! More than happy to answer various points to further drive the conversation. The likelihood of this happening anytime in the near future is unlikely, however, the World Athletics calendar does seem to be moving things in the right direction.

I do find it interesting that so many fans yell at the clouds about problems in the sport, yet are completely closed to the idea of making any sort of infrastructure change to improve it.

Ultimately it's a matter of product and consistency. I think it's hurtful to the sport to see professionals run in janky college meets with rolling schedules then can only be viewed behind a paywall. It's not that high school athletes competing at Millrose is ruining the sport, but the lack of boundaries is one of many issues that ruin its presentation.

Would you agree that a 2-hour NBC window of the NBIGP or Millrose makes for better entertainment? This is merely a step in trying to get that to be how fans always consume track.

Athletes will continue to act in their own best interest and I don't blame Lyles for racing in a college meet and then a week later saying in a press conference that we need professionalism. This needs to come from the top, especially as there is a push to use rankings that are completely irrelevant to stars. My dream is 20 professional highly-produced track meets each year with pre-programs for pros who can't get a lane with their ranking.

"Being the best in the world should not have an age limit"

Why should the best in the world go pro if they can still compete with them? Right now they have the best of everything, especially with NIL.

"Allowing the non-pros in the same race would seem to generate more interest in the sport. It also give the pros more incentive and motivation."

Are you happy with the current interest in the sport? And pros don't need motivation from high schoolers.

"Why one would want to add some barrier to entry into the sport?"

This isn't a participation issue, it's a popularity issue.

"I guarantee you that there will be a runner finishing about 10th at the US olympic trials marathon who is lucky to have made a few thousand dollars."

Most professional sports have revenue sharing with athletes. How would track decide who to share that with?

Kyle, I don't disagree with some of the issues you identified but I don't think the solution is professionalism. I will just address two pitfalls of the idea, there are obviously a number of others. (issues: pay-walled meets, rolling schedules/long meets, multiple meets per weekend with spread-out competition, other things that make it difficult for the viewer/fan or potential fan)

Barrier to Entry - I know that what professionalism entails could vary widely but creating any new system to navigate will turn some talented runners away who have potential to be world beaters. If a 100/200 runner or jumper has the option between T&F and football (or other sport), some amount of them will now chose the other sport over T&F. A 13:45 5k (or 10.6 100m) post collegiate trying to chose between trying to reach the next level or start working? some margin will now choose to start working. There will be missed talent.

Preferences - It sounds like your idea would involve having a limited number of meets and certain meets with higher incentive to participate so that viewership and competition can be focused (and thus viewership increased, monetized etc). To be enforced (influenced) by either the professionalism bureaucrats or sponsor contracts (now changed to adhere to said meets). The result takes options away from and disregards preferences of athletes. Don't race well after traveling and want to do a more local meet? Can only handle a 6 week season but now its 9? Any number of injury related worries, you already have to worry about your shoe contract but now professional contract (plus any number of incentives that would be created to fake an injury). Need to peak for champs but forced to race subpar meets to satisfy your contract? Want to be able to sign up for meets when your in shape and ready and not 6 months beforehand? Want to try out road running or XC (or even ultras) but now have to stay on the track for your professional status? Messing with incentives and taking away options will hurt athletes and it will hurt some more than others.

In prior newsletters you have given good suggestions on how to address some issues. I'm sure there are current methods that could be expanded upon, and new ones yet to be discovered. It is easier to tear down a potential solution than come up with a new solution. My goal here was only the tear down of what I feel is a bad idea.

-Sam Dever

It’s a thought-provoking conversation. I think the solution you’re looking at is backwards, though. Instead of barring collegians from racing in a pro meet, why not bar pros from racing in a college meet? It is incredibly lame that Adidas professional Erriyon Knighton ran his 19.4x in some random likely 8-hour meet nobody was watching live except for family/friends of college athletes there. I think that World Athletics is pushing in this direction by not taking times from meets that aren’t certified. Short-term it seems absurd not counting times, but if the long-term move is to push collegians to compete in pro meets (or national champs)/go pro as opposed to running (bad for fans) college meets all the time…good. In general, pro athletes running as many pro meets with live coverage is the goal. For the collegiates that are good enough, let’s see them do it on a real stage. If you want to play around with this to be more inclusive of meets at BU/Washington, how about a “pro” part of the event that runs 2 hours that has only top collegiates/pros and is designed for consumption. But the general idea is the competitions are built for the fans and accessible, and yes professionalized.

My main disagreement comes from the question of "who pays for this?" They aren't paying money, they're paying attention.

Running is a somewhat unique (I think that skiing is probably somewhat similar but I know nothing about it) because it is a sport that is participated in by many, with a small but significant proportion that take it very seriously, and watched by "some" (I won't say few). Many of those who watch track and field are those who have participated at some level in the past. I would call Athletics an "enthusiast driven" sport. Those who pay attention (the only real currency) are driven by their enthusiasm for running, which is expressed by their own participation and what attention the offer the pros.

Basketball and others differ -- you have professionals, people who play pick up games or in a league at their gym (who probably watch the pros), and then you have a massive audience of people who haven't picked up a ball in any meaningful sense in many years who find glued to the screen during march madness or the NBA finals. Sports like this are "fan driven". The fan is driven by the entertainment derived from paying attention to the sport. Here we have a categorical difference between the enthusiast and the fan -- the enthusiast pays because they have intrinsic motivation to do so and the fan pays because of what they think they'll get from it. This is why big sports fans get so disappointed after a bad game: they didn't get what they paid for! I know I'm being a bit derisive towards fans, but why shouldn't we call out those who don't take their attention seriously?

A similar distinction can be made outside of sports. There are many Star Wars fans, I was one at one point so I can't judge them and it still reminds me of my middle school days. There aren't many James Joyce "fans" but there are many Joyce enthusiasts. People "learn about Star Wars" (laughing at my middle school self) because of the entertainment they derive from doing so. People learn about Joyce because feel a compulsion to do so. The type of media is a big difference between this and sports and the difference primarily comes from the amount of engagement with the media. This analogy is strained, but no good analogy lacks tension. Of course I am comparing a mass produced franchise with one of the pillars of Modernism, I wouldn't have it any other way. Star Wars doesn't exist without James Joyce: Lucas was greatly inspired by "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell, a former Joyce scholar who took the term "monomyth" from Finnegan's Wake.

I finally get to my main point: I can't help but think that by wanting expanded viewership and entertainment your position seeks to change Athletics from an enthusiast driven sport to a fan driven sport. I don't doubt that the changes you suggest could lead to greater attention/viewership. The price payed for greater attention is a change in the makeup of who is paying. My question to those who support increased viewership and attention: What do fans add to the sport? What do millions of Star Wars fans add to Star Wars?

This is a bad take all around. Should professionalizing Track and Field be a priority? Yes. Is this a good way to do that? No.

Probably the single most impactful race for Americans in the past 30 years was Alan Webb running 3:53 at Pre in 2001. That race did three MAJOR things for the sport (all of which grew the T&F in different ways):

1. Inspired countless high school kids to believe that they could achieve something on a much higher level than H.S. and kicked off the Dyestat generation of runners

2. Excited a nation of existing running fans that we had a prodigy who could potentially compete on the world stage and they followed his career obsessively for 10+ years.

3. Actually brought new fans to the sport with his appearance on Letterman and the national interest that came along with it.

"Would you agree that a 2-hour NBC window of the NBIGP or Millrose makes for better entertainment? This is merely a step in trying to get that to be how fans always consume track."

I honestly do not believe it would make for better entertainment because we have a sport that almost no "general' sports fan is really entertained by. Go through the spectators at a track meet and look for ones who don't have some personal connection to the sport, were on a cross country or track team in high school or college, have a friend, a girlfriend or boyfriend or son, daughter, etc. who's running. Good luck. Even people who have taken up running and run road races just don't find a track meet very entertaining. If there is a marketing mistake track makes consistently I think it's changing the sport to appeal to that general sports fan in ways that make it less interesting to that hard core group who have some direct connection to the sport.