MJ on Bolt's stardom

[Charlie_Francis]

@Dazed

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).

The isseu is really: "Who benefits from the cartel, Diamond League etc? There are clearly other issues that are forcing meet promoters into line, potentially against their own interests at times.
A clear example is Dwain Chambers. The Berlin meet promoter could see that he could stir up sales and controversy by bucking the trend- and he was, no doubt, influenced by the low price Dwain could command because of his lack of options. He was stymied by the others, most likely orchestrated by Diak.
Same goes for paying Bolt the 250,000. On a fast track in Berlin, a gigantic stadium, and the site of the WCs later, are you telling me the additional seats that Bolt would generate wouldn’t pay off for him?
Let’s do the math:
150 euro premium seats = 207usd. So he needs an extra 1300 seats to meet the 250,000 fee plus travel and expenses. Are you telling me that Bolt’s presence wouldn’t generate an extra 2000 or 3000 premium seats plus lesser seating as well??
Even at the minimum difference, the Berlin promoter was forced to give away 150,000usd in additional revenue. Best case, he might have made an extra 350,000. This is just gate and doesn’t include any TV premium or additional revenue sharing that could be arranged through related appearances in Berlin during what would otherwise be dead time. (Promoter arranges fee for Bolt to cut ribbon at bank, department store, appear on TV show, sip from a bottle of milk at the end of the race, etc, etc, for a 15 to 20% commission) I can guarantee from personal experience that this can happen.