Jumps | July 3, 2025
When I checked the livestream for the Canadian University Championships in March, I was initially excited to see that they were offering field event coverage. My excitement quickly dwindled when I saw what qualified as “coverage” for the long jump.
On the livestream that was being shown on the official app and YouTube channel of our national network provider, CBC, one seemingly abandoned camera pointed haphazardly in the vague direction of the long jump pit—with the type of minimum effort that a rebellious teenager might give during their weekly chores.
In a competition where upcoming Canadian long jumper Kenneth West had recently broken the national university record with a leap of 7.99 meters, I was staring at a clipped section of the runway instead of watching whether he would be the first athlete in the league to jump over eight meters.
A Sizeable Minority Audience
This is just one specific case study to highlight my frustration, which I know is shared by almost any fan of the field events. As somebody with a background in the jumps, I feel a solidarity with the throwers, who probably have it even worse than we do when it comes to coverage. At least the jumps are usually in the stadium, but it’s not uncommon to tuck the throws off the main venue for logistical reasons.
I get it. Money talks, and everybody says there’s no money in the field events. But in cases like the one I outlined above, which seems to be common, it’s not a matter of money but of effort. If you’re going to do something anyway, why not at least do the bare minimum? If you don’t, of course, you’ll get a self-fulfilling prophecy of low viewership.
From a strictly financial standpoint, I understand why broadcasters focus on highly recognizable events like the 100-meter. More viewers equal more advertising revenue.
A 10-second race is inherently interesting. For the general audience, there’s no need to understand strategy or nuance, only pure speed. There’s a reason some variation of the 100-meter race has persisted since at least Ancient Greece.
Some of the longer races, like the 5,000-meter, struggle to capture the same immediacy as the short sprints until the final laps, but they benefit from relatability. More people have run five kilometers at some point in their lives than have thrown a hammer or pole vaulted.
However, the field events audience is still a sizable minority with a demand for broadcasting and media attention. The Jumpers World account on Instagram has amassed over 600 thousand followers, about 20% of the following of the official World Athletics account. Several throwing accounts, such as Throwers Universe, have close to 100,000 followers, and Neeraj Chopra has amassed nearly 10 million himself.
Watching somebody huck a javelin nearly 100 meters or fling themselves onto the equivalent of the third storey of a building taps into a primal desire to see raw athleticism. It seems like these events are stuck in a loop of not being popular because they aren’t marketed. And they aren’t marketed because they aren’t popular.
Changes in Media Consumption
Media has changed rapidly over the past twenty years, going primarily from cable network consumption to online streaming. This change in consumption habits brings new opportunities to cover the sport in ways that were never possible with cable.
I tuned into Italy’s RAI streaming app during the Paris Olympics in hopes of watching the triple jump—an event where Andy Hernandez would pick up a bronze medal for Italy in the event.
However, at the same time as the event, the Italian runner Nadia Battocletti would deliver a silver medal-winning effort in the women’s 10,000-meter run. I don’t doubt that more people are interested in the 10,000-meter than the triple jump, but you can imagine my frustration of watching all 25 laps of the race and only seeing about three jumps total.
The network, or their partner, already had the cameras in place and commentators, so why not offer an alternative feed and allow viewers to switch back and forth? They already offered multiple feeds for different Olympic sports happening concurrently, so the technological capability is there.
This idea of picking from multiple streams is more akin to the live viewing experience. When I’ve attended Diamond League meetings or the European Championships in person, it quickly becomes obvious that you need to strategically pick which events you want to tune into when you buy your tickets. If you sit by the long jump, you’re unlikely to get a great view of the high jump or finish line. If you want track-level seats near the 100-meter start line, good luck seeing who crossed the line first.
So Why Are These Events Constantly Snubbed?
The field events are consistently snubbed primarily because they’re not seen as profitable. For example, look at the Grand Slam Track program, which notably omitted the field events. Leading into the circuit, the founder and former 200-meter world record holder Michael Johnson told BBC, “Grand Slam Track is track – that is what we’re doing. I am going to save what I think I can save. I think I can save track. I don’t think I can save track and field.”
While I applaud him for what he has done for the sport, I am critical of this self-defeating attitude, one that I think is prevalent in the sport and part of the reason why we’re stuck in the “not-profitable/not-covered” loop. The field events don’t need to be “saved.” They need a chance to properly flourish.
Whenever I watch a jump or throws livestream, I’m left thinking, “I could do this so much better,” which is why I intend to in the hopefully not too distant future.
If I can contribute a small amount to bringing attention to these event groups, then I’ve done my job.