Ok, what should the meet promoters do then? As people running a business should they forego a return they could reasonably expect from their investment?
Surely if an athlete only has a remote chance to win the Golden League JAckpot, yet their manager accepts a no-pay package in order to pursue it it says more about the managers skills than the promoters? Why would the manager accept such a low expected payoff from the deal whem by competing as a non-jackpot conteender and in other meets you can raise that expected payoff.
The promoters can’t be blamed for looking after their own interests or maximising their profits any more than Bolt can be blamed for accepting pay that limits the resources for other athletes - or agents that use the star power of one athlete to leverage the entry of others in their stable over those who are more deserving. In each case each is working in their own best interest.
The problem is that the athletes - through the agents - have only been able to generate limited supplier power causing an assymetry of power in the market and as such have been trapped in a prisoners dilema. Unfortunately the individualistic nature of the sport means that athletes/agents to engaging the necessary in cartel like behaviour is very low.
Basically, I think change can only come from strong leadership from the IAAF. This would require them to actually identify that there is a problem - something which is almost equally as unlikely.
Sure MJ is a dick. But why use that to attack his views rather than argue against the views themselves?