If an amateur is good enough to compete with pros then of course they should be able to take part. That article by Kyle Merber is arguing from a marketing and protectionist perspective not a sporting perspective. It is just gatekeeping.
Fair point, Richard. And my instinct is certainly the same as yours. That said, I do think the marketing perspective has been severely undervalued in track, which, in the long term, I think has made it more difficult for some of the best athletes in the sport to make a living and keep going.
I'll connect the marketing side to another sport that does not like upstarts that make noise: soccer. The English Premier League is probably not the best in the world, and its clubs' on-field record across European competition and the national team's record at continental and international competitions are pretty solid data points.
However, the league constantly pumps itself as the best in the world and it works! That is not the only thing it does well, it is by far the best produced television product of any soccer league and being English-speaking is a huge advantage, but you also have to build that 'illusion' or 'belief' that this is the best of the best, whether it is or not.
Yes, but even in the hyper tribal world of football, excluding the "lesser teams" does not go down well in the court of public opinion. Remember when the "elite" clubs tried it a few years ago with the announcement of the European Super League. Fan outrage was immediate across the board and all the elite clubs furiously backtracked and discovered that they were shocked and horrified that they had agreed and signed up to this thing they had been planning in secret meetings for months/years.
He's showing his weakness, he's making himself vulnerable, he's sincere. To me this is clearing inspiring, and I do hope he continues to work out and gets what he wants.
On the contrary, comments berating him make me feel sick. Leave the guy alone.
Rafa, your instinct is very much in line with mine. Just to stick up for the beraters in a way, though, there's part of me that actually sees this sort of strident criticism in a positive light for the sport. I know that sounds ridiculous, but unhinged criticism seems to be a really important part of the ecosystem of the major pro sports (i.e. talk radio, endless podcasts, Stephen A. Smith..) Not to say I like it, and I certainly can't identify with most of it, but there's part of me that feels that it may be a sign that people really care about the sport. Friends that have been critical of Holt have suggested to me that the "participation culture" of track is overboard and harms the ability to have a premium professional product. Now, I'd take a healthy participation culture over a premium product any day, but I can understand the other perspective. Thanks for the comment!
This tension between purists and others can be found in all kinds of settings, both sports and non-sports. I'm a gymnastics fan, and there are plenty of fans and commentators who view the Soviet-era gymnastics style as the pinnacle, and all others, including the more difficulty-focused athleticism that currently reigns, as debasing the sport. And left politics has struggled with this--I think of the various strains of socialists for whom competing socialists were almost as bad as right-wingers. Ultimately, where you come down depends on what you think is most important. Do you want to win elections and govern? Do you want your sport to have a broader appeal, or reward only certain styles or paths that appeal to a smaller number of people. There isn't one inherently "right" answer to those questions, really.
Beth, now this is a fascinating comment, and I appreciate you taking this prompt and going somewhere really unique with it. I don't know much about gymnastics, but I'd love to hear you provide a little more detail on this, if you're willing: "...there are plenty of fans and commentators who view the Soviet-era gymnastics style as the pinnacle, and all others, including the more difficulty-focused athleticism that currently reigns, as debasing the sport."
The Soviet-era style was very ballet-focused; gymnasts studied ballet intensively for many years starting at a young age. This training made their leaps and turns really beautiful and fluid. The body type gymnasts of that time period had was somewhat muscular, but more of the slender lean type of musculature as opposed to a stockier body type. Their gymnastics was difficult, but with a top score of 10.0, as long as a routine satisfied the requirements for a 10.0 start, extra difficulty above that was not rewarded. As a result, the differentiator was execution. Over time, stockier body types started to be more accepted--think Mary Lou Retton in 1984--and the focus of the sport shifted to difficulty, eventually adopting an "open-ended" code where difficulty is much more rewarded (score consists of difficulty + execution), to the point where a gymnast like Simone Biles with tremendous difficulty can win with a fall. The rewards for difficulty mean that there is less focus on dance training (there are only so many hours in the day) and stronger, more muscular gymnasts are at an advantage. The way this gets talked about is as the decline of "artistry." In response, the international governing body for gymnastics recently adopted an artistry checklist for floor exercise that penalizes gymnasts who don't have full extension, use all the body parts, etc. There are definitely folks who hope this will reward the more balletic style, carriage, and movement quality that characterized Soviet-era gymnastics. Sorry for the disquisition!
I find it inspiring, and think the average non T&F aficionado would too. A point the pros miss is that a general audience is more likely to get interested in a story like this or the high school sprinter than watching the Trials in general (which is why NBC does all the human interest stuff around the Olympics). I'm a recreational runner, but would not have paid any attention to the Trials if I hadn't seen this story in advance but ended up watching a few hours over the wekend. Assuming there are others like me, the pros and their sponsors end up benefiting from the increased attention at no additional cost/effort of their own. I get T&F aficionados will always find the best of the best duking it out compelling, but that just isn't the case for the average non-T&F fan and screening out amateurs and their stories is only going to limit the audience (and the rewards pros and sponsors can reap).
This is a great perspective. Thanks so much for sharing it. You bring up one point that I hadn't thought much about until some of the aforementioned friend's brought it up: the NBC human interest stuff. There are definitely T&F aficionado's who feel that the sport has over-indexed on human interest stories in a way that makes the sport seem more like high-school cross-country and less like the NFL. Personally, I don't see human-interest stories and a premium pro product as in zero-sum competition. That said, I do understand from the perspective of someone who would like to build the sport (and not have it hanging on the whims and marketing budges of a few shoe companies), how the thing to try is to create a more premium product where viewers are following athletes for performance, more than human interest. I think that's only possible with a league that would bring in more typical, performance-centric sports viewers, so I'm glad the Michael Johnson startup is going to give it a try! So I guess their hope is that the average non-T&F fan (who is a sports fan) can become a more regular T&F fan if they get to see the best of the best at least several times a year. I have no idea if that's possible, but given that people started buying pickle ball teams, I gather there's more untapped demand for sports in general. On the pro side, NCAA track and field has 30-40,000 participants each year, and very few subsequently follow the sport, so maybe there's a potential audience?
I love sports—always have. But my perspective on it has changed as I’ve aged. I used to see sport as a “battle” to find the best of the best. However, I also used to root loyally for crappy teams, believing it was somehow noble to do so. It wasn’t until I watched NASCAR for couple seasons in college due to my die-hard NASCAR roommate at the time. I never liked it before, but when he explained each major driver’s backstory and why this guy hates that guy, and why this race is important because of what happened here last year, I started to watch eagerly. It was because of the backstory—the context for the “battles”. It’s like watching a war between nations—do you just watch to see who the better trained military is, or do you root for one side because of their reasons for being in the fight? Now, I watch sport to figure out which “stories” I want to root for. It helps me balance the tension between being a loyal fan (I know their story the deepest) and being a fan of other teams and players (or runners, in this case).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree human interest and premium product should not conflict. If the NFL feels a need to lean into Travis and Taylor to get viewers I don't see why any other sport should not take the same opportunities frankly.
Considering I've been in his shoes before, I take the perspective of - he’s just saying the quiet part out loud that all of us dealt with. And I’m totally cool with that, and I wish I would have recognized that struggle for what it was and said things like this to try to drum up support for my team and I.
At the same time, I've never loved an athlete perspective/framing of “sacrifice” on this stuff, though I know what he means and why he's saying it! And he may subscribe to what I'm about to lay out, anyway. But I chose to not look at my dedication x lack of money, etc as a sacrifice when I was in his shoes. I feel like that may be at the core of what's rubbing people the wrong way. Since, ultimately, he’s really just doing something for himself and trying to reach a goal.
(And I say this without any hate or negative judgement, but more so critical feedback with - let me help you, Dave, think about this more positively to both bring you more peace and joy AND give you a better opportunity to find sponsors/supporters. But when I think of sacrifice, what comes to mind is a single parent working multiple jobs, not getting to see their kids very often just to keep food on the table. They're sacrificing time with their kids, often their own mental and physical health, etc to do what they need to in order to keep their children fed and housed.)
Because really, what are you sacrificing? A job you could have to make money? That’ll be there whenever you’re ready, don't stress, Eric - you're a dedicated, intelligent, driven individual and will absolutely find your way in the working world whenever you're ready! But currently, you're living the dream in so many ways, trust me. Yes, it's hard, it's long days and nights, it feels like your friends and others are leaving you behind. But you're currently having an experience that will age better than almost anything else you could be doing right now.
You're not sacrificing right now, you're simply delaying the inevitability of office/other work, family, etc... which are all awesome in their own ways. But what you're doing now, you can't do ten years from now - just keep that in mind.
Now that I'm 45, I often say to people "I got to spend my 20's wearing tights, traveling the world, sliding down mountains - and there's nothing I would have rather been doing."
You'll make up the debt, you'll be better for the challenge and hardship, and you'll appreciate every opportunity that comes your way that much more.
Enjoy the struggle, Eric, keep speaking your mind, and get after it my friend!
Just for others who see this comment above, Steve was also a member of the board of directors of the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and he's the founder of Classroom Champions, a non-profit that connects classrooms to Olympians and Paralympians for digital mentoring.
One wonders if the Pro's protests are, in fact, related to the fear of competition, not necessarily on the track but at the window of sponsorship opportunity.
Thanks for the thought, Peter! Personally, I don't think it's a fear of competition, but I think there are some pros who feel that the sport would be better off (and help more athletes make a better living) if it were more of a premium product. Many of the current pros themselves competed with pros when they were collegians, so I think they're used to that aspect. It's been interesting to see high school 400m runner Quincy Wilson make the Trials finals this week!
My gut reaction was to be upset that someone would act like such a gatekeeper for a sport, but after reading this:
> if it were more of a premium product
I think you hit the nail on the head. Pro "sports" aren't the endearing heart-warming thing that my brain wants to associate with the word sport. They are a business, and it's important that I remember that fact. Things are different when you are living off of them!
I feel deeply for Eric. The man was "four one-hundredths of a second behind the 2022 world champion." That is an absolutely awesome accomplishment. That is the headline. He's an amateur in title only. Yet his body language says a completely different thing. The Sliding Doors-split screen of Eric Holt running five one-hundredths faster would be a sight to behold. Would his body posture and outlook be completely different? Or is this who he is in good times or bad? I really hope that he's able to make it, because he has worked extremely hard. And if he does succeed, will he see himself differently and hold himself higher? Hopefully we'll see that someday.
Laate, thanks so much for this comment. I love this line: "And if he does succeed, will he see himself differently and hold himself higher?" I was already hoping he'd make the Olympic team (although he's a lower seed in the 800 than he was in the 1500), but if he does, I'm now immediately going to be looking for this.
Neither pathetic nor inspiring for me. I see him as extrinsically motivated. He wants to “show people…”. Whatever works for him. He’s fueling his own fire IMO.
Chris, I love this. "Neither pathetic nor inspiring..." I've found it stimulating just to get different opinions, and this is the first time I've heard that take. I appreciate your nuanced brain.
For Eric (and his agent), the question is, do shoe companies see this as inspiring or pathetic? Not that shoe companies do an excellent job at storytelling around their athletes currently, but you could imagine a pretty incredible advertisement centered around his story. Granted he has to execute (e.g., make finals) but there are enough folks inspired by this where you could drive some value. Unfortunately for Eric, the contract he could get would probably still not be enough to buy his girlfriend dinner that often.
Great points and well put, Kyle. Thinking through that company perspective, one of the track friends I talked to (former college and pro coach), felt that there's a missed marketing opportunity here. You could pay Holt a pretty small amount ($30K and gear?) and bring him around to a hundred high schools to share his story with runners. That does seem like an opportunity to me, but obviously there are both limited budgets and limited bandwidth for this sort of thing in track. The larger issue of return on investment for shoe and apparel companies is an interesting one. I wonder how they attempt to evaluate it... I'm excited to see what Michael Johnson's league comes up with, as it does seem like leaving the entire sport to be floated by shoe sponsorships is precarious. I'm glad to see others bringing some entrepreneurial energy to it.
Woah. I side with inspiring for my own reasons, but struck by how counter-culture Eric Holt’s interview style is.
I expect a certain gravitas with humility in my athletes and Eric is not that. He’s unpolished ; over-share-y and exposes the reality of sponsorship: you gotta fit.
Makes me question whether talent always prevails in this sport.
Carol, this is a great and thought-provoking: "I expect a certain gravitas with humility in my athletes and Eric is not that. He’s unpolished ; over-share-y and exposes the reality of sponsorship: you gotta fit." I wonder how much of one's reaction to Holt, or to any athlete, is due to expectations of what the role should look like. You've definitely got me thinking about this, and as an aside about some of the research on how juries and judges assess people in courtroom by their body language, whether or not it is indicative of their guilt or innocence. Really appreciate your unique comment.
It would be interesting to understand from any of the naysayers which nerve was touched. For the pro athlete, it might be that he worked hard and made it, and he wants that accomplishment to be elite in every conceivable way. Plenty of people do that after they achieve something, in most fields, whether that's academia, business, social circles, doesn't matter.
Donn, this is a great comment. I hadn't actually thought about that in the other circles you mention, but you're obviously absolutely right. You just reminded of a time many years ago when I attended a conference for certified athletic trainers, and the main issue that kept coming through to me (regarding what members wanted from their professional association) was to make sure everyone referred to them as "athletic trainers," and not "trainers," to differentiate them from someone who just helps people workout at a gym. I don't think this tiny difference of nomenclature made an impression on anyone outside of athletic trainers, but I definitely understand why it was an important part of professionalizing their practice.
In some cases it's a sad thing. Studies have shown that the greatest discriminators of women who aspire to higher positions in the world of Advanced Education (i.e. Professorships, Deans, on up) are... other women who have already done it.
That's NOT meant to attack women in any way. It's just that you might think that there would be support within minority or discriminated-against groups, helping each other in solidarity. But often that's not true if a person's own accomplishments feel as if they are under-appreciated. There are endless examples.
Can't understand the blow back at all. He works his ass off -- professionally and at track -- has put himself in a position where qualification for the Olympics isn't an unreal possibility, and humbly and honestly addressed the struggle of fringe athletes, especially those in fringe sports. The people in his life are willfully supporting his dream, he's not taking hostages here. Who's getting hurt by this?
Even in the top tier pro systems -- minor league baseball, UFL football, USL soccer, G League basketball -- guys are making less than 50k a year. In the lowest tier of minor league ball, the average salary is under 20k, so unless you're an early round pick with a big signing bonus, that's not livable wages, even though you're a "pro." And Eric doesn't even seem to be asking for livable wages in track, he's just trying to get the basic expenses of an elite athlete covered.
There's obviously some argument to be made about the parasitic nature of a system in which the best athlete hauls in $70M and the entry level makes $20k. (I love Shohei and realize that you're basically paying for two players because of his value as a pitcher and a hitter, but it is emblematic of the larger rot here). There's so much blowback on CEO salaries -- not unreasonably -- but we tend to celebrate athletes earning that kind of money with the same level of wage gap between top and bottom. (Iger for example, made 32M last year. As an entry level employee at a Disney company 15 years ago, I made about 32K).
Got on a tangent there, but the overall point is -- across all sports everywhere, the guys right on the edge are going to struggle. And the margins between those in and those just out are so incredibly fine, that I have to respect someone who knows how close they are and keeps pushing every day.
Appreciate this very thoughtful comment Tim! I have no idea if this is true, but it feels to me like when I was a kid, there was more criticism that athletes were overpaid, and then as they've become much more highly paid, that criticism went away. I wonder if part of that is increasing awareness that lower salaries just mean the owners (akin to Iger perhaps in perception) keep more. I really don't know...is your instinct also that there used to be more discussion of this? Are we just culturally more accepting of winner-take-all markets than we used to be? (Although, as you note, there is blowback on CEO salaries, but it doesn't seem to stop them from rising.) In any case, thanks for an excellent comment, and your point about those at the margins is really compelling.
Great call, absolutely agreed that there used to be more noise about it, before awareness of just *how* rich owners became more of a widespread thing (around Occupy Wall Street, maybe? When did that start to shift?)
I also wonder in the era of the eternally online fan and direct point-to-point contact with athletes via social media, if that visibility just made fans root for players more than the often nameless/faceless owner. The whole player empowerment movement happens because the individuals become arguably more valuable than the franchise in extreme cases (i.e. LeBron and the Cavs), and at least creates a little more parity in that relationship with other stars. How far down the roster is that parity reflected, though? With a players union it helps bump up the minimum for the 12th man on the roster, but even that is about 2% of the max deal that Scottie Barnes, for example, just signed.
Also, sample size of one caveat, but Iger's salary is down significantly, he made 45M the year prior and I forget the exact number but it was high 60s before he stepped down a few years back. Crying a grand total of zero tears for him, but in the interest of full context.
My first reflex after watching the video was &remains … good luck to him. He’s not being arrogant or whiny; he’s pursuing what he wants&obviously has a support system w/his parents &gf &is employable if it doesn’t work out as a psyc-tech minimally. I see nothing to be outraged abt but then I don’t know that world or if the “pros” &sport get hurt by amateurs in any consequential way. Is it “perception” or is it personality structure &in the extreme disorders that are the base of the super angry &/or super sympathetic reactions 🤷🏼♀️
Good questions, to which I don't have good answers. And regarding being employable, I tend to agree; he has plenty of time to whatever thing comes next, but not much time to try what he's trying now. I also happen to think that some people would pay a lot of money to be able to run a 3:51 mile.
I do think visual &cognitive “perception” vs emotional reaction are two different things. Certainly influenced by each other but coming from different sensory places, experiences &triggers.
Absolutely agree, no question. I just meant to use it as a stimulating prompt, and to share the association (the dress) that came right to my mind when I encountered the first critical response.
To me he personified the concept of belief without evidence. I found myself admiring his ability to stay focused on his journey, his goals, his beliefs about what he is capable of without some of the 'worldly' evidence, like pro sponsorship, that it seems myself, and perhaps many others, often need to continue.
I think my view of this illustrates a point I took from your article 'we see the world not as it is but as we are'. My perspective of his interview is shaped by my past. The regret I have for the times in my life when I stopped pursuing a goal/dream because I didn't feel I was receiving the recognition or support from others that peers were, therefore I took it as a sign (or if I am being honest) an excuse to stop so I didn't risk exposing myself to the judgment and criticism from others for continuing my pursuit.
Holy cow, Nathan this is a comment that will stick in my mind. I don't have anything to add, just want to thank you for sharing it, and for so clearly explaining the personal perspective you brought to it. I hope some others see this comment as they scroll.
He should have a realistic end-time by which he decides that it's not working out. If he's got that and his girlfriend and parents on are board with it, then he should give track his best shot. He's not a kid, but 29, 30, 31 isn't too late to start making his way in the "real" world if it comes to that. In the meantime, he shouldn't *expect* a sponsorship deal, or at least not a lucrative one, until he either merits it as an athlete or becomes enough of a story that a sponsor picks him up to sell him as a Horatio Alger-like exemplar for their brand.
Dennis, really appreciate this nuanced take. You reminded me of some writing by Annie Duke, and Seth Godin, regarding setting criteria at the start of any undertaking for when you need to walk away. (They argue that if you don't, you'll always move the goalposts, or fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy and keep doing something just because you already sunk energy or money in it.) Anyway, excellent comment. Thanks for sharing it.
At first I thought he seemed like he was embracing victim culture. However when you look at his sacrifices, dedication and accomplishments you realize he's a beast. Now, I hope he gets that sponsorship.
Doug, really interesting take, thanks for sharing. So you seem to have covered both perspectives, one with your first reflex, and another after that with slower thought processes. This feels very Kahneman system 1 vs. system 2 thinking.
Inspiring. Disappointed he isn’t sponsored. Is there a GoFundMe for him? Track fans should help him out I think. With a 3:51 mile, he has earned it and sad that some brand hasn’t picked him up.
Haskell, that was my first instinct too! There's not a GoFundMe that I know of, and I wonder if he doesn't want one. Even if he gets sponsored, it won't be a lot of money, so I wonder if the money or the self-image as a pro is a bigger deal to him. Although, I'm sure both are important. I do expect people would contribute, but I'd be curious to know if he'd actually want that. Thanks so much for this comment.
If an amateur is good enough to compete with pros then of course they should be able to take part. That article by Kyle Merber is arguing from a marketing and protectionist perspective not a sporting perspective. It is just gatekeeping.
Fair point, Richard. And my instinct is certainly the same as yours. That said, I do think the marketing perspective has been severely undervalued in track, which, in the long term, I think has made it more difficult for some of the best athletes in the sport to make a living and keep going.
I'll connect the marketing side to another sport that does not like upstarts that make noise: soccer. The English Premier League is probably not the best in the world, and its clubs' on-field record across European competition and the national team's record at continental and international competitions are pretty solid data points.
However, the league constantly pumps itself as the best in the world and it works! That is not the only thing it does well, it is by far the best produced television product of any soccer league and being English-speaking is a huge advantage, but you also have to build that 'illusion' or 'belief' that this is the best of the best, whether it is or not.
Yes, but even in the hyper tribal world of football, excluding the "lesser teams" does not go down well in the court of public opinion. Remember when the "elite" clubs tried it a few years ago with the announcement of the European Super League. Fan outrage was immediate across the board and all the elite clubs furiously backtracked and discovered that they were shocked and horrified that they had agreed and signed up to this thing they had been planning in secret meetings for months/years.
He's showing his weakness, he's making himself vulnerable, he's sincere. To me this is clearing inspiring, and I do hope he continues to work out and gets what he wants.
On the contrary, comments berating him make me feel sick. Leave the guy alone.
Rafa, your instinct is very much in line with mine. Just to stick up for the beraters in a way, though, there's part of me that actually sees this sort of strident criticism in a positive light for the sport. I know that sounds ridiculous, but unhinged criticism seems to be a really important part of the ecosystem of the major pro sports (i.e. talk radio, endless podcasts, Stephen A. Smith..) Not to say I like it, and I certainly can't identify with most of it, but there's part of me that feels that it may be a sign that people really care about the sport. Friends that have been critical of Holt have suggested to me that the "participation culture" of track is overboard and harms the ability to have a premium professional product. Now, I'd take a healthy participation culture over a premium product any day, but I can understand the other perspective. Thanks for the comment!
This tension between purists and others can be found in all kinds of settings, both sports and non-sports. I'm a gymnastics fan, and there are plenty of fans and commentators who view the Soviet-era gymnastics style as the pinnacle, and all others, including the more difficulty-focused athleticism that currently reigns, as debasing the sport. And left politics has struggled with this--I think of the various strains of socialists for whom competing socialists were almost as bad as right-wingers. Ultimately, where you come down depends on what you think is most important. Do you want to win elections and govern? Do you want your sport to have a broader appeal, or reward only certain styles or paths that appeal to a smaller number of people. There isn't one inherently "right" answer to those questions, really.
Beth, now this is a fascinating comment, and I appreciate you taking this prompt and going somewhere really unique with it. I don't know much about gymnastics, but I'd love to hear you provide a little more detail on this, if you're willing: "...there are plenty of fans and commentators who view the Soviet-era gymnastics style as the pinnacle, and all others, including the more difficulty-focused athleticism that currently reigns, as debasing the sport."
The Soviet-era style was very ballet-focused; gymnasts studied ballet intensively for many years starting at a young age. This training made their leaps and turns really beautiful and fluid. The body type gymnasts of that time period had was somewhat muscular, but more of the slender lean type of musculature as opposed to a stockier body type. Their gymnastics was difficult, but with a top score of 10.0, as long as a routine satisfied the requirements for a 10.0 start, extra difficulty above that was not rewarded. As a result, the differentiator was execution. Over time, stockier body types started to be more accepted--think Mary Lou Retton in 1984--and the focus of the sport shifted to difficulty, eventually adopting an "open-ended" code where difficulty is much more rewarded (score consists of difficulty + execution), to the point where a gymnast like Simone Biles with tremendous difficulty can win with a fall. The rewards for difficulty mean that there is less focus on dance training (there are only so many hours in the day) and stronger, more muscular gymnasts are at an advantage. The way this gets talked about is as the decline of "artistry." In response, the international governing body for gymnastics recently adopted an artistry checklist for floor exercise that penalizes gymnasts who don't have full extension, use all the body parts, etc. There are definitely folks who hope this will reward the more balletic style, carriage, and movement quality that characterized Soviet-era gymnastics. Sorry for the disquisition!
I find it inspiring, and think the average non T&F aficionado would too. A point the pros miss is that a general audience is more likely to get interested in a story like this or the high school sprinter than watching the Trials in general (which is why NBC does all the human interest stuff around the Olympics). I'm a recreational runner, but would not have paid any attention to the Trials if I hadn't seen this story in advance but ended up watching a few hours over the wekend. Assuming there are others like me, the pros and their sponsors end up benefiting from the increased attention at no additional cost/effort of their own. I get T&F aficionados will always find the best of the best duking it out compelling, but that just isn't the case for the average non-T&F fan and screening out amateurs and their stories is only going to limit the audience (and the rewards pros and sponsors can reap).
This is a great perspective. Thanks so much for sharing it. You bring up one point that I hadn't thought much about until some of the aforementioned friend's brought it up: the NBC human interest stuff. There are definitely T&F aficionado's who feel that the sport has over-indexed on human interest stories in a way that makes the sport seem more like high-school cross-country and less like the NFL. Personally, I don't see human-interest stories and a premium pro product as in zero-sum competition. That said, I do understand from the perspective of someone who would like to build the sport (and not have it hanging on the whims and marketing budges of a few shoe companies), how the thing to try is to create a more premium product where viewers are following athletes for performance, more than human interest. I think that's only possible with a league that would bring in more typical, performance-centric sports viewers, so I'm glad the Michael Johnson startup is going to give it a try! So I guess their hope is that the average non-T&F fan (who is a sports fan) can become a more regular T&F fan if they get to see the best of the best at least several times a year. I have no idea if that's possible, but given that people started buying pickle ball teams, I gather there's more untapped demand for sports in general. On the pro side, NCAA track and field has 30-40,000 participants each year, and very few subsequently follow the sport, so maybe there's a potential audience?
I love sports—always have. But my perspective on it has changed as I’ve aged. I used to see sport as a “battle” to find the best of the best. However, I also used to root loyally for crappy teams, believing it was somehow noble to do so. It wasn’t until I watched NASCAR for couple seasons in college due to my die-hard NASCAR roommate at the time. I never liked it before, but when he explained each major driver’s backstory and why this guy hates that guy, and why this race is important because of what happened here last year, I started to watch eagerly. It was because of the backstory—the context for the “battles”. It’s like watching a war between nations—do you just watch to see who the better trained military is, or do you root for one side because of their reasons for being in the fight? Now, I watch sport to figure out which “stories” I want to root for. It helps me balance the tension between being a loyal fan (I know their story the deepest) and being a fan of other teams and players (or runners, in this case).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree human interest and premium product should not conflict. If the NFL feels a need to lean into Travis and Taylor to get viewers I don't see why any other sport should not take the same opportunities frankly.
Loved this one, Dave!
Considering I've been in his shoes before, I take the perspective of - he’s just saying the quiet part out loud that all of us dealt with. And I’m totally cool with that, and I wish I would have recognized that struggle for what it was and said things like this to try to drum up support for my team and I.
At the same time, I've never loved an athlete perspective/framing of “sacrifice” on this stuff, though I know what he means and why he's saying it! And he may subscribe to what I'm about to lay out, anyway. But I chose to not look at my dedication x lack of money, etc as a sacrifice when I was in his shoes. I feel like that may be at the core of what's rubbing people the wrong way. Since, ultimately, he’s really just doing something for himself and trying to reach a goal.
(And I say this without any hate or negative judgement, but more so critical feedback with - let me help you, Dave, think about this more positively to both bring you more peace and joy AND give you a better opportunity to find sponsors/supporters. But when I think of sacrifice, what comes to mind is a single parent working multiple jobs, not getting to see their kids very often just to keep food on the table. They're sacrificing time with their kids, often their own mental and physical health, etc to do what they need to in order to keep their children fed and housed.)
Because really, what are you sacrificing? A job you could have to make money? That’ll be there whenever you’re ready, don't stress, Eric - you're a dedicated, intelligent, driven individual and will absolutely find your way in the working world whenever you're ready! But currently, you're living the dream in so many ways, trust me. Yes, it's hard, it's long days and nights, it feels like your friends and others are leaving you behind. But you're currently having an experience that will age better than almost anything else you could be doing right now.
You're not sacrificing right now, you're simply delaying the inevitability of office/other work, family, etc... which are all awesome in their own ways. But what you're doing now, you can't do ten years from now - just keep that in mind.
Now that I'm 45, I often say to people "I got to spend my 20's wearing tights, traveling the world, sliding down mountains - and there's nothing I would have rather been doing."
You'll make up the debt, you'll be better for the challenge and hardship, and you'll appreciate every opportunity that comes your way that much more.
Enjoy the struggle, Eric, keep speaking your mind, and get after it my friend!
Steve Mesler
(for reference, 3x Olympian, Olympic Gold medalist, 4-man bobsled)
Just for others who see this comment above, Steve was also a member of the board of directors of the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and he's the founder of Classroom Champions, a non-profit that connects classrooms to Olympians and Paralympians for digital mentoring.
One wonders if the Pro's protests are, in fact, related to the fear of competition, not necessarily on the track but at the window of sponsorship opportunity.
Thanks for the thought, Peter! Personally, I don't think it's a fear of competition, but I think there are some pros who feel that the sport would be better off (and help more athletes make a better living) if it were more of a premium product. Many of the current pros themselves competed with pros when they were collegians, so I think they're used to that aspect. It's been interesting to see high school 400m runner Quincy Wilson make the Trials finals this week!
My gut reaction was to be upset that someone would act like such a gatekeeper for a sport, but after reading this:
> if it were more of a premium product
I think you hit the nail on the head. Pro "sports" aren't the endearing heart-warming thing that my brain wants to associate with the word sport. They are a business, and it's important that I remember that fact. Things are different when you are living off of them!
I feel deeply for Eric. The man was "four one-hundredths of a second behind the 2022 world champion." That is an absolutely awesome accomplishment. That is the headline. He's an amateur in title only. Yet his body language says a completely different thing. The Sliding Doors-split screen of Eric Holt running five one-hundredths faster would be a sight to behold. Would his body posture and outlook be completely different? Or is this who he is in good times or bad? I really hope that he's able to make it, because he has worked extremely hard. And if he does succeed, will he see himself differently and hold himself higher? Hopefully we'll see that someday.
Laate, thanks so much for this comment. I love this line: "And if he does succeed, will he see himself differently and hold himself higher?" I was already hoping he'd make the Olympic team (although he's a lower seed in the 800 than he was in the 1500), but if he does, I'm now immediately going to be looking for this.
Here's to hoping we get to see the possible become real :)
Thanks for an absolutely awesome conversation!
Neither pathetic nor inspiring for me. I see him as extrinsically motivated. He wants to “show people…”. Whatever works for him. He’s fueling his own fire IMO.
Chris, I love this. "Neither pathetic nor inspiring..." I've found it stimulating just to get different opinions, and this is the first time I've heard that take. I appreciate your nuanced brain.
For Eric (and his agent), the question is, do shoe companies see this as inspiring or pathetic? Not that shoe companies do an excellent job at storytelling around their athletes currently, but you could imagine a pretty incredible advertisement centered around his story. Granted he has to execute (e.g., make finals) but there are enough folks inspired by this where you could drive some value. Unfortunately for Eric, the contract he could get would probably still not be enough to buy his girlfriend dinner that often.
Great points and well put, Kyle. Thinking through that company perspective, one of the track friends I talked to (former college and pro coach), felt that there's a missed marketing opportunity here. You could pay Holt a pretty small amount ($30K and gear?) and bring him around to a hundred high schools to share his story with runners. That does seem like an opportunity to me, but obviously there are both limited budgets and limited bandwidth for this sort of thing in track. The larger issue of return on investment for shoe and apparel companies is an interesting one. I wonder how they attempt to evaluate it... I'm excited to see what Michael Johnson's league comes up with, as it does seem like leaving the entire sport to be floated by shoe sponsorships is precarious. I'm glad to see others bringing some entrepreneurial energy to it.
Woah. I side with inspiring for my own reasons, but struck by how counter-culture Eric Holt’s interview style is.
I expect a certain gravitas with humility in my athletes and Eric is not that. He’s unpolished ; over-share-y and exposes the reality of sponsorship: you gotta fit.
Makes me question whether talent always prevails in this sport.
Carol, this is a great and thought-provoking: "I expect a certain gravitas with humility in my athletes and Eric is not that. He’s unpolished ; over-share-y and exposes the reality of sponsorship: you gotta fit." I wonder how much of one's reaction to Holt, or to any athlete, is due to expectations of what the role should look like. You've definitely got me thinking about this, and as an aside about some of the research on how juries and judges assess people in courtroom by their body language, whether or not it is indicative of their guilt or innocence. Really appreciate your unique comment.
It would be interesting to understand from any of the naysayers which nerve was touched. For the pro athlete, it might be that he worked hard and made it, and he wants that accomplishment to be elite in every conceivable way. Plenty of people do that after they achieve something, in most fields, whether that's academia, business, social circles, doesn't matter.
Donn, this is a great comment. I hadn't actually thought about that in the other circles you mention, but you're obviously absolutely right. You just reminded of a time many years ago when I attended a conference for certified athletic trainers, and the main issue that kept coming through to me (regarding what members wanted from their professional association) was to make sure everyone referred to them as "athletic trainers," and not "trainers," to differentiate them from someone who just helps people workout at a gym. I don't think this tiny difference of nomenclature made an impression on anyone outside of athletic trainers, but I definitely understand why it was an important part of professionalizing their practice.
In some cases it's a sad thing. Studies have shown that the greatest discriminators of women who aspire to higher positions in the world of Advanced Education (i.e. Professorships, Deans, on up) are... other women who have already done it.
That's NOT meant to attack women in any way. It's just that you might think that there would be support within minority or discriminated-against groups, helping each other in solidarity. But often that's not true if a person's own accomplishments feel as if they are under-appreciated. There are endless examples.
Donn Dobkin , you said what I thought much better- thank you!
Can't understand the blow back at all. He works his ass off -- professionally and at track -- has put himself in a position where qualification for the Olympics isn't an unreal possibility, and humbly and honestly addressed the struggle of fringe athletes, especially those in fringe sports. The people in his life are willfully supporting his dream, he's not taking hostages here. Who's getting hurt by this?
Even in the top tier pro systems -- minor league baseball, UFL football, USL soccer, G League basketball -- guys are making less than 50k a year. In the lowest tier of minor league ball, the average salary is under 20k, so unless you're an early round pick with a big signing bonus, that's not livable wages, even though you're a "pro." And Eric doesn't even seem to be asking for livable wages in track, he's just trying to get the basic expenses of an elite athlete covered.
There's obviously some argument to be made about the parasitic nature of a system in which the best athlete hauls in $70M and the entry level makes $20k. (I love Shohei and realize that you're basically paying for two players because of his value as a pitcher and a hitter, but it is emblematic of the larger rot here). There's so much blowback on CEO salaries -- not unreasonably -- but we tend to celebrate athletes earning that kind of money with the same level of wage gap between top and bottom. (Iger for example, made 32M last year. As an entry level employee at a Disney company 15 years ago, I made about 32K).
Got on a tangent there, but the overall point is -- across all sports everywhere, the guys right on the edge are going to struggle. And the margins between those in and those just out are so incredibly fine, that I have to respect someone who knows how close they are and keeps pushing every day.
Appreciate this very thoughtful comment Tim! I have no idea if this is true, but it feels to me like when I was a kid, there was more criticism that athletes were overpaid, and then as they've become much more highly paid, that criticism went away. I wonder if part of that is increasing awareness that lower salaries just mean the owners (akin to Iger perhaps in perception) keep more. I really don't know...is your instinct also that there used to be more discussion of this? Are we just culturally more accepting of winner-take-all markets than we used to be? (Although, as you note, there is blowback on CEO salaries, but it doesn't seem to stop them from rising.) In any case, thanks for an excellent comment, and your point about those at the margins is really compelling.
Great call, absolutely agreed that there used to be more noise about it, before awareness of just *how* rich owners became more of a widespread thing (around Occupy Wall Street, maybe? When did that start to shift?)
I also wonder in the era of the eternally online fan and direct point-to-point contact with athletes via social media, if that visibility just made fans root for players more than the often nameless/faceless owner. The whole player empowerment movement happens because the individuals become arguably more valuable than the franchise in extreme cases (i.e. LeBron and the Cavs), and at least creates a little more parity in that relationship with other stars. How far down the roster is that parity reflected, though? With a players union it helps bump up the minimum for the 12th man on the roster, but even that is about 2% of the max deal that Scottie Barnes, for example, just signed.
Also, sample size of one caveat, but Iger's salary is down significantly, he made 45M the year prior and I forget the exact number but it was high 60s before he stepped down a few years back. Crying a grand total of zero tears for him, but in the interest of full context.
My first reflex after watching the video was &remains … good luck to him. He’s not being arrogant or whiny; he’s pursuing what he wants&obviously has a support system w/his parents &gf &is employable if it doesn’t work out as a psyc-tech minimally. I see nothing to be outraged abt but then I don’t know that world or if the “pros” &sport get hurt by amateurs in any consequential way. Is it “perception” or is it personality structure &in the extreme disorders that are the base of the super angry &/or super sympathetic reactions 🤷🏼♀️
Good questions, to which I don't have good answers. And regarding being employable, I tend to agree; he has plenty of time to whatever thing comes next, but not much time to try what he's trying now. I also happen to think that some people would pay a lot of money to be able to run a 3:51 mile.
I do think visual &cognitive “perception” vs emotional reaction are two different things. Certainly influenced by each other but coming from different sensory places, experiences &triggers.
Absolutely agree, no question. I just meant to use it as a stimulating prompt, and to share the association (the dress) that came right to my mind when I encountered the first critical response.
To me he personified the concept of belief without evidence. I found myself admiring his ability to stay focused on his journey, his goals, his beliefs about what he is capable of without some of the 'worldly' evidence, like pro sponsorship, that it seems myself, and perhaps many others, often need to continue.
I think my view of this illustrates a point I took from your article 'we see the world not as it is but as we are'. My perspective of his interview is shaped by my past. The regret I have for the times in my life when I stopped pursuing a goal/dream because I didn't feel I was receiving the recognition or support from others that peers were, therefore I took it as a sign (or if I am being honest) an excuse to stop so I didn't risk exposing myself to the judgment and criticism from others for continuing my pursuit.
Holy cow, Nathan this is a comment that will stick in my mind. I don't have anything to add, just want to thank you for sharing it, and for so clearly explaining the personal perspective you brought to it. I hope some others see this comment as they scroll.
Thanks for all you do to help all of us grow and improve performance!
He should have a realistic end-time by which he decides that it's not working out. If he's got that and his girlfriend and parents on are board with it, then he should give track his best shot. He's not a kid, but 29, 30, 31 isn't too late to start making his way in the "real" world if it comes to that. In the meantime, he shouldn't *expect* a sponsorship deal, or at least not a lucrative one, until he either merits it as an athlete or becomes enough of a story that a sponsor picks him up to sell him as a Horatio Alger-like exemplar for their brand.
Dennis, really appreciate this nuanced take. You reminded me of some writing by Annie Duke, and Seth Godin, regarding setting criteria at the start of any undertaking for when you need to walk away. (They argue that if you don't, you'll always move the goalposts, or fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy and keep doing something just because you already sunk energy or money in it.) Anyway, excellent comment. Thanks for sharing it.
I appreciate the kind comment (and your writing in general!) - thank you.
At first I thought he seemed like he was embracing victim culture. However when you look at his sacrifices, dedication and accomplishments you realize he's a beast. Now, I hope he gets that sponsorship.
Doug, really interesting take, thanks for sharing. So you seem to have covered both perspectives, one with your first reflex, and another after that with slower thought processes. This feels very Kahneman system 1 vs. system 2 thinking.
Inspiring. Disappointed he isn’t sponsored. Is there a GoFundMe for him? Track fans should help him out I think. With a 3:51 mile, he has earned it and sad that some brand hasn’t picked him up.
Haskell, that was my first instinct too! There's not a GoFundMe that I know of, and I wonder if he doesn't want one. Even if he gets sponsored, it won't be a lot of money, so I wonder if the money or the self-image as a pro is a bigger deal to him. Although, I'm sure both are important. I do expect people would contribute, but I'd be curious to know if he'd actually want that. Thanks so much for this comment.