Wendell Gee wrote:
However, the more people running, the better for the sport, in my opinion.
Has that been the recipe for success for the NFL and NBA?
So I guess I'd say no. Without the masses, no matter how slow, prize money and sponsorships would be less.
Then how does it work out that back in the 80s, when the masses were a lot less massive by comparison, there wasn't appreciably less prize money and sponsorships available? I'd guess the sport could survive very well if all marathons suddenly went to closing their courses at 6 or even 5 hours. However, all of the ancillary figures (The Penguin, running mag staffs, running book writers and publishers, charity fundraisers, training programs, running junk manufacturers and retailers) who are making a buck pushing slugs into the marathon and sell themselves, their services, and their clients to marathons by affiliation would suddenly see their market shrink. As was stated in the other thread on this article, this sport could use some tighter regulation.