People like 'worst generation ever' are inclined to make this an 'entitlement' issue because that's the hot button political rhetoric these days. Others will respond to the Original Poster by offering some answer vaguely intended to exhibit business savvy: "things cost money," "upkeep," "overhead," "production."
Both of these posts are wrong. The original issue was that the high amount Flotrack is charging is bad for the sport. As someone who has been to several USATF championships and more Millrose Games than he can count, I feel at least minimally involved and qualified enough to say that, yes, the $150 a year is bad for the sport. I do not think it is at all unreasonable to charge money--but the amount Flotrack is charging is high enough not only to turn off track fans (which actually isn't that big a deal--all of us on here will find other ways to appreciate results) but, more importantly, it's so high that it ensures only die-hard track fans with the proper disposable income will be exposed to all that Flotrack has to offer--thereby ensuring, in turn, that Flotrack attracts new fans to the sport (with the exception, perhaps, of a handful of athlete-parents).
It's possible to argue that this would be the case no matter how much Flotrack charged; however, I think a cheaper fee of, say, $5 per meet, would allow wider and more flexible involvement on the part of fans than the $20/month charge.
It's possible to argue, too, that none of us should expect track to be free, since, after all, we invariably pay in some form to watch more mainstream sports like basketball, football, and baseball, whether through a cable subscription or a beer at the bar. But a large and unfortunate difference between track and these more mainstream sports is that track enjoys far fewer competitions than, say, football, meaning that you get far less "bang for your buck" with a Flotrack subscription rather than an ESPN subscription. Flotrack is throwing in videos, documentaries and the like to convince us that the money is being well spent, and I like the idea; but they are, ultimately, supplementary videos, and until Flotrack gets solid writers to complement the videos, that supplementary material will not be worth the cost.
Another word about a pay-to-watch company like ESPN--it does for the sports it showcases something that Flotrack, in its present state, will never be able to do. It attracts single sport viewers (say, football fans) to other sports like basketball or tennis by diversifying its coverage; commentary on football is interlaced with commentary on basketball, or the football game ends and a basketball game can be watched. This diversification ensures that single sport fans quickly become multi-sport fans. This is why I think it is wrong-headed to point to ESPN as any kind of model for Flotrack; Flotrack, in focusing solely on track, has no means of attracting new audiences to a sport. This is not a fault of Flotrack's so much as it is just a condition of the sport of track and field. But by making people pay so steep a price, Flotrack ensures that audience grows smaller and stagnant--not larger.