Posted by ryan woerner on October 15, 2007 at 16:32:13:
Happened to be browsing some old results - the 1983 New York City Marathon. 25 guys under 2:15. 63 guys under 2:20. 110 under 2:25. How many of these guys were sponsored? Five, maybe. And they were just getting running gear. How many of these guys were American? Out of the top 100, 55 were American. Fast forward to 2006 event. 12 guys under 2:15. 20 under 2:20. 29 under 2:25. How many sponsored athletes? Well 17 males and 15 females. And trust me, they get a lot more than sneakers. I bet our old school runners would have killed to train in this day. They wouldn't have had to work 50 hours weeks on top of running 100 miles a week. Here's a better question : if sponsorship was so prominent during the running boom, how much MORE competitive would it have been. If more than 10 guys worldwide could make a living running back then, how many more guys would be fighting for spots and make it that much more competitive.?
Post a Followup