Defining a succesful sport.

[Darryl Webster]

It`s seems to me that a sports "succes" has been to typically defined by its public awareness, recognition or participation.
Hence in order to promote many sports the professional elite have become the domininant focus. In bringing more more participants/ interest/ media exposure many might argue theyve been succesfull by the definitions above.
However all alternate arguement is that "grassroots" in many sports have become negleted by there governing bodies and while numbers might be up, "quality" of participents is down. Im thinking more in kind of people that promote grass roots events, do the background work in cycling clubs etc, etc...all for the love of it.
This backbone of a sport comes from the organic growth of a sport, cycling families, friends, school`s etc not in responce to a glossy pro image.
A commen theme im picking up from various comments about many federations is that there not acting in grass roots interests.
Perhaps it`s putting numbers above quailty of memberships thats the problem?

Thoughts peeps?

 

[Sydney Sider]

It`s seems to me that a sports "succes" has been to typically defined by its public awareness, recognition or participation.
Hence in order to promote many sports the professional elite have become the domininant focus. In bringing more more participants/ interest/ media exposure many might argue theyve been succesfull by the definitions above.
However all alternate arguement is that "grassroots" in many sports have become negleted by there governing bodies and while numbers might be up, "quality" of participents is down. Im thinking more in kind of people that promote grass roots events, do the background work in cycling clubs etc, etc...all for the love of it.
This backbone of a sport comes from the organic growth of a sport, cycling families, friends, school`s etc not in responce to a glossy pro image.
A commen theme im picking up from various comments about many federations is that there not acting in grass roots interests.
Perhaps it`s putting numbers above quailty of memberships thats the problem?

Thoughts peeps?

I will only comment on Aussie sports but unfortunately its all run by the corporate world now , its all about TV Rights and sponsorship dollars its never about the fans , i miss the days when athletes were amateurs and the game was played for the glory and not the dollars.

 

[The Hitch]

I will only comment on Aussie sports but unfortunately its all run by the corporate world now , its all about TV Rights and sponsorship dollars its never about the fans , i miss the days when athletes were amateurs and the game was played for the glory and not the dollars.

This is the major reason why cycling is now my major sport ( i dont concentrate on any others).

The top athletes in cycling get nowhere near the money that the mediocre guys in football get.

Theres no big tv rights fights (at least in most countries) over cycling. Most countries dont even show it.

They rarely become big celebrities. I mean, Nadal, Federer, Messi, Bolt all have million dollar nike/ puma / addidas sponsorships. Contador on the otherhand sponsors Sidi.

And its free to watch live.

Cycling isnt effected by the modern media, which is why i like it.

On the other hand,

if the Johny Walkers of this world were getting 50 grand a week (which is what the Johny Walker equivalent in association football, gets),

if you needed to spend $80 a month on cable, just to watch races,

if rumours about Contadors love life appeared on the front pages of tabloids,

and a ticket to stand on the Arenberg cost £300, (£2500 from scalpers)

then i would want no part of this sport.

 

[Sydney Sider]

This is the major reason why cycling is now my major sport ( i dont concentrate on any others).

The top athletes in cycling get nowhere near the money that the mediocre guys in football get.

Theres no big tv rights fights (at least in most countries) over cycling. Most countries dont even show it.

They rarely become big celebrities. I mean, Nadal, Federer, Messi, Bolt all have million dollar nike/ puma / addidas sponsorships. Contador on the otherhand sponsors Sidi.

And its free to watch live.

Cycling isnt effected by the modern media, which is why i like it.

On the other hand,

if the Johny Walkers of this world were getting 50 grand a week (which is what the Johny Walker equivalent in association football, gets),

if you needed to spend $80 a month on cable, just to watch races,

if rumours about Contadors love life appeared on the front pages of tabloids,

and a ticket to stand on the Arenberg cost £300, (£2500 from scalpers)

then i would want no part of this sport.

I will use the Premier League as an example ,how can a league that has only 3 or 4 teams that can compete out of 20 be considered sucessful. To me its a failure that the federation cant find a way to give the smaller clubs a chance to compete.


Im unsure how the system actually works but i like how baseball handles their draftees ,when the clubs have the players rights for so many years without big clubs being able to come steal these players until they become outright free agents and smaller clubs if built correctly are able to compete for a couple of years before they have to rebuild again.

 

[RedheadDane]

This is the major reason why cycling is now my major sport ( i dont concentrate on any others).

The top athletes in cycling get nowhere near the money that the mediocre guys in football get.

Theres no big tv rights fights (at least in most countries) over cycling. Most countries dont even show it.

They rarely become big celebrities. I mean, Nadal, Federer, Messi, Bolt all have million dollar nike/ puma / addidas sponsorships. Contador on the otherhand sponsors Sidi.

And its free to watch live.

Cycling isnt effected by the modern media, which is why i like it.

On the other hand,

if the Johny Walkers of this world were getting 50 grand a week (which is what the Johny Walker equivalent in association football, gets),

if you needed to spend $80 a month on cable, just to watch races,

if rumours about Contadors love life appeared on the front pages of tabloids,

and a ticket to stand on the Arenberg cost £300, (£2500 from scalpers)

then i would want no part of this sport.

This!
Also the fact that theoretically a bike race could pass right through your street (in fact in happens to thousands or so of people each year) should you be charged for being in your own home? Of course not!
And an added bonus when watching on telly is that if nothing happens there's always some nice naturey stuff to look at...

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

if rumours about Contadors love life appeared on the front pages of tabloids

Welcome in Belgium. Tom Boonen can't take a **** here without the tabloids covering it.

Even Patrick Lefevere in this one:

Maybe that's the price of cycling being bigger in Belgium than anywhere else in the world...

 

[180mmCrank]

I think this might be a bit of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' question. It all depends on your perspective as to what success for a sport means.

If it's helpful the main categories seem to include but not be limited to

1. Commercial success - does it make lots of money for somebody!
2. High Participation - lots of people do it
3. High Performance - a few people are really, really good at it
4. Large Fan Base - lots of people want to watch it
5. Global Reach - people either watch or do it in lots of different countries
6. Media Coverage - TV and Media go nuts over it
7. Attractive to Sponsors - people want to pay to be associated with it

And to some a succesful sport is just fun to do - like the nutters who skate board down mountains at 50 mph. Just watch this... http://vimeo.com/1654340 jump to 3 mins in for the good stuff!

 

[galaxy1]

this varies a lot (even just for cycling) between countries, as deftly pointed out by Buffalo Soldier above.