Should running be for particpants or spectators?

ecoli

Following on from this article it got me thinking.

If you look to sports such as football we see a more fan base driven element. If a manager loses the support of fans it can put hug pressure on the chairman (ala Steve Kean or other examples)

Compare this to the likes of Track and Field or even Road running and everything is designed towards getting people to take part in the events. Often it makes more sense to take part in a race than cheer someone on (with regards mass participation) and as such unless you are involved in the sport of running you will not really find too many "armchair fans"

Is this something that should be looked at as an approach to rebrand the sport or should it be about people taking part first and attracting a fanbase is not as prominent?

Obviously increased revenue through a bigger fanbase (Look at the "Bolt effect") has its advantages but should it be looked at as more paramount than the athletes or is the current approach the right to maintain the integrity of the sport (this is not a drugs thread so please dont go on tangent about my use of this term)

RayCun

Interesting question, but I don't know that there is a contradiction...
The mass participation stuff tends to be road-running, and I don't see that becoming more spectator based. You can't see the whole race from a single point, which makes it hard to attract an audience (and expensive to televise).
Track and field has more spectators compared to the number of participants, just not as many spectators as football, rugby, GAA etc.

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

Following on from this article it got me thinking.

If you look to sports such as football we see a more fan base driven element. If a manager loses the support of fans it can put hug pressure on the chairman (ala Steve Kean or other examples)

Compare this to the likes of Track and Field or even Road running and everything is designed towards getting people to take part in the events. Often it makes more sense to take part in a race than cheer someone on (with regards mass participation) and as such unless you are involved in the sport of running you will not really find too many "armchair fans"

Is this something that should be looked at as an approach to rebrand the sport or should it be about people taking part first and attracting a fanbase is not as prominent?

Obviously increased revenue through a bigger fanbase (Look at the "Bolt effect") has its advantages but should it be looked at as more paramount than the athletes or is the current approach the right to maintain the integrity of the sport (this is not a drugs thread so please dont go on tangent about my use of this term)

I think that people running in mass participation road races are always going to have a disconnect with the Allyson Felixes and Sally Pearsons of this world. Unless more of these people running fun runs, 5ks, 10ks, marathons, have the chance to run in track races, then I don't see how anything will change. So many posters here (people heavily involved in running) don't give two fupps about elite athletics, so I don't think huge numbers on the road will do much for the sport in this regard.

ecoli

04072511 wrote: »

I think that people running in mass participation road races are always going to have a disconnect with the Allyson Felixes and Sally Pearsons of this world. Unless more of these people running fun runs, 5ks, 10ks, marathons, have the chance to run in track races, then I don't see how anything will change. So many posters here (people heavily involved in running) don't give two fupps about elite athletics, so I don't think huge numbers on the road will do much for the sport in this regard.

This is the point of the question should we just stick to the usual "oh if you run track you will be more likely to be interested in athletics" or could we learn from other sports who have fans who have probably never kicked a ball in their lives but are die hard football supporters

Its a case of particaption vs spectating as a way of generating interest do we stick to the current (partcipation method) or do we need to revise it and try make athletics look more attractive to the non running community

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

The mass participation stuff tends to be road-running, and I don't see that becoming more spectator based. You can't see the whole race from a single point, which makes it hard to attract an audience (and expensive to televise).
Track and field has more spectators compared to the number of participants, just not as many spectators as football, rugby, GAA etc.

The ironic thing is in Ireland Road Running actually probably has more of a spectator fanbase than track and field races. At most track races the only people you get watching are people warming up for their own race whereas you tend to get slightly bigger crowds along marathon courses or indeed around the finish of some road races

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

do we need to revise it and try make athletics look more attractive to the non running community

But is the AAI, or whoever is concerned with promoting athletics in this scenario, trying to market track and field by appealing to road runners? I don't think they are especially

ecoli wrote: »

The ironic thing is in Ireland Road Running actually probably has more of a spectator fanbase than track and field races. At most track races the only people you get watching are people warming up for their own race whereas you tend to get slightly bigger crowds along marathon courses or indeed around the finish of some road races

I reckon if you surveyed the spectators at the Raheny 5 (for example), you'd find that loads of them are there because they know someone running, some people are there because they're local and it's a local event, even if they don't know anyone running, and a small number are there because they want to see the elite runners. Same with the marathon -> loads of participants means people watch to see their mates and means it's a big deal to watch (like a very sweaty and repetitive parade ) The number of people who go to see the elites run is probably similar to the number who'd go watch them run on a track.

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

But is the AAI, or whoever is concerned with promoting athletics in this scenario, trying to market track and field by appealing to road runners? I don't think they are especially

The number of people who go to see the elites run is probably similar to the number who'd go watch them run on a track.

This is more a hypothetical thing of trying to market running as a sport is it a case of sticking to a more select group of knowledgeable hardcore fans or trying to attract the fair weather fans and more people to try and maximise revenue streams to make it a self sustaining industry (as much as a sport can be getting away from the reliance on grant funding)

Regarding the numbers supporting family etc this could be a case for the current participation but the only problem is that the life span of a fan then becomes limited to a race by race scenario

Again its more to strike up discussion that I bring it up

Pisco Sour

Pretty much on this subject, here is a comment from David Campbell not too long ago:

It’s up to the general public to support whatever captures their imagination. In my opinion team sports achieve this by making fans feel part of the experience, part of a team, which is supported and made accessible by media coverage. It’s very hard to do this with individual sport such as athletics in the current system. I feel the sport is in trouble and unless there is a massive overall from the top down, athletes achievements will be less and less appreciated. I think the way forward is to get rid of clocks from athletics. It works with horses and greyhounds. I would then create a qualification path which wasn’t focused on times but on racing to get to World/Olympic level competition. Tactical races are so much more interesting than time trials. It would create a story for people to follow several months of the year, give the media more time to create characters for the public.