MJ on Bolt's stardom

[Dazed]

@Charlie_Francis

The meet promoters have a cartel- just look how quickly the Berlin Director was kicked into line over Dwain Chambers. Do you think he had the ability to break ranks and pay Bolt what he was asking?
The cartel controls trade by limiting pay, and deciding where and if you can compete.
The power of A level meet promoters has grown because long ago they went to the IAAF to kill off most of the decent paying B meets (the opportunity came in 1983 with the argument that the introduction of testing in the A meets would create a wholesale exodus of athletes to the B meets)
The move to the Diamond League will make pay appear higher to fans while driving average circuit pay ever lower.
An effective athletes union is incredibly difficult due to both the vast numbers of generally comparable athletes available to the promoters and the possibility faced by athlete organizers that something ‘untoward’ might happen to them in retaliation.
In that light, it’s hard for me to imagine how Bolt bypassing this system is anything but good. He might be the catalyst for new and different competition opportunities which others might benefit from.
As for the IAAF, although Nebiolo was roundly criticized, there is no doubt he was instrumental in creating opportunities for athletes in many way.
Since then, the loss of state supported programs and the wariness of sponsors after the fall and vilification of previous superstars has taken a toll.
It is hard to imagine Lamine Diak as the visionary who can turn that around from the inside.

I’m not sure where you got the impression that I believed there was no cartel/monopsony regarding the GL - that was basically the underlying assumption of my entire post.

The control exercised by a cartel relies on supply, of which price/payment is a function - not the other way round. Bolts actions do not do anything to change the supply side of this problem; there may be one or two extra lanes because of smaller meets being built around him, but the payoff he is attempting to extract will limit the level of competition he faces, which in turn will limit the appeal of the competitions preventing them from growing, while at the same time limiting the growth of meets at which he does not compete because he has priced himself out of them. The growth of smaller non IAAF meets also face the same problem with reprisals that an athletes union would, in that the IAAF sanctioned meets only have to threaten blackballing to deter participation in them.

But these are just symptoms of a greater problem and what we are essentially talking about is a few people fighting over the scraps, and those with power being in a position to to take the greatest proportion. The argument of the article and what i think the argument needs to be over is how to increase the abundance of financial resources by attracting a greater audience. This may also provide a solution to the problem you have identified, as meets will be able to afford to pay more athletes and there will be room in the market for smaller meets. The disparity in pay may continue but at least it gets rid of the case where all but a few athletes struggle with poverty.

The crux of the article was that the key to appealing to the public is to sell the drama of the competition, which is something that is sustainable, rather than building a brand around a single athlete whose performances will fluctuate from year to year and eventually end. I think this is a reasonable argument which may go to the heart of the problems of the golden league (reward dominance in favor of fostering a competitive grand prix system).