Interesting comments by Ed Grant. I'll add a couple of additional points:
1.While the golden age of track field (presumably you mean sometime
between 1950 and 1975) may have been great for fans (and I have no idea
since it wasn't around), it was terrible for the athletes. Both then and
now, only the very few top athletes made any money (even when they were
amateurs), and at least now they are - for the most part - free of the
controlling old boys network that was the AAU.
2.The answer, it would seem, is to separate the amateurs from the pros. All
the really professional sports (and you left out the one most applicable to
track - golf) have their amateur programs separate from their professional
programs. I have said before that the PGA and USGA are who we want to be
modelling ourselves after. We will never have the corporate support that
they have, but that doesn't mean there isn't much to be learned from their
model. A pro track league with rules and responsibilities for members is
what we should be striving for. Yes, I know it's been tried and failed.
One of the big reasons was that athletes were giving up all the major
competitions in excahnge for it, and they were making less money in many
cases than the amateurs. And the devastating battles between the AAU and
the NCAA along with the nearly decade-long congressional interest of the
time definitely didn't help.
Maybe a pro track league won't work. But I tend to think that with some
radical format changes (maybe 8-10 events total) and realistic initial
financial goals, a well thought out plan might develop into something that
would work. My main point - which largely agrees with what Ed Grant said -
is that we are currently using a model for pro track that no other sport
that is remotely professional uses. We are perhaps somewhat close to
tennis, but they aren't doing as well now, and they at least have a
meaningful tour.
Purely for amusement purposes, I'll throw out there that my prospective
pro track league would have only the following events:
100m,400m,Mile,110H,5000m(with primes to inject excitement),javelin,pole
vault,long jump, and maybe the shot. I would change the format of the three
horizontal events to weed out competitors after every round, adding
excitement. And the pole vault would definitely have to have some format
changes to keep it manageable. At first, the whole thing would be men only
(another feature of nearly every pro sport). Most importantly, teams would
be featured heavily.
- Ed Parrot
- Original Message -
From: Ed Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: track net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: t-and-f: What is a professional sport
Netters:
Recent stories in local NJ papers about two professional leagues
have led me to this post
Just what constitutes a truly professional sport?
The easy way is to say that it is a sport whose athletes are paid
for their services and, as it goes, I guess that is an acceptable
definition. But it doesn't satisfy me.
Let's start with naming the sports that are undoubtedly
professional
and have been for some time: baseball, pro football, pro basketball,
hockey,
boxing, horse racing (yes. technically, everyone but the athlete gets
paid
here, but there is little doubt that it qualifies anyway)
What do these sports have in common? Each and every one is
basically
independent of outdoor sources of money., Yes, I know that TV is a
principal
contributor these days, but these sports (as well as the amateur
endeavors
of college football and basketball) get those huge contracts because of
their innate popularity with the sporting public and, if somehow the TV
money diasppeared (it won't) they would still be around, even if the
salaries might have to revert to the sensible levels (adjusted for
inflation) of the pre-TV days.
The recent stories I alluded to were about two women's leagues:
soccer and basketball. The women's soccer league, to no one's surprise, is
in financial trouble. Its attendance figures continue to drop; it used up
its seed money, projected to last four or five years, in the very first
year. And, or course, the men;s league isn;t that much better off.
The WNBA exists solely on the subsidy ($12 Million a year)
provided
by the NBA. That, in itself, takes care of the payrolls of all of the
member
teams. Reported attendance figures are much higher than the soccer league,
but are themselves questionable. Most major arenas have season packages
which are gobbled up by corporations and these seats are considered sold
for all event even if they are ampty. And, of course, the ticket price for
the WNBA does not begin to compare with the extortionist figures charged
for
prime tickets by both the NBA and NHL.
So where does that leave track and field. In my view, the American
pro scene is little else than an advertising vehicle for Nike
