The End of Grand Slam Track?

When Michael Johnson announced the creation of Grand Slam Track, he touted it as a "game-changer" and "the next big thing" in the sport.  Johnson had good intentions.  With the promise of big prize money, a number of big-name stars signed on.  They all went into it thinking Grand Slam Track would work.  As they unfortunately found out, it didn't.  And Grand Slam Track's inaugural 2025 season will likely also be its last.

There were originally four meets on the Grand Slam Track schedule.  The first, in Jamaica, was sparsely attended.  The crowds at the second, in Miami, weren't much bigger.  The third meet in Philadelphia was reduced from three days to two.  The fourth meet in LA, meanwhile, never happened.  Because of financial issues, most notably the failure to pay the athletes their prize money, that meet was cancelled.  Unless they can figure something out, the 2026 season won't happen.  (Translation: the 2026 season won't happen.  Grand Slam Track is as good as dead.)

While the failure to pay prize money and appearance fees is by far the biggest issue, the financial struggles go back even further.  As of last month, Grand Slam Track still owed the City of Miramar (outside Miami) for the facility rental.  That meet was at the beginning of May!  Johnson has vowed that all prize money and appearance fees will be paid out, but it has been reported that the circuit owes more than $13 million.  I'm not sure where or how they'll find the funding to cover that.  (Although, when it comes to prize money and appearance fees, they'd better find it somewhere!)

To his credit, Johnson took responsibility for Grand Slam Track's financial struggles.  He acknowledged that they might've gotten a little overzealous and spent too much off the bat.  Then, one of the major creditors dropped out after the Jamaica meet, which only made matters worse.   Throw in the lack of ticket sales and the lackluster TV ratings and it shouldn't be a surprise that they had financial problems.  As every start-up does.

Grand Slam Track was always going to be a tough sell.  Track & field is a niche sport, so you're already working with a limited audience.  Then they took out the "& field" part.  Distance races were included, but even within Grand Slam Track, they were treated as afterthoughts.  It was essentially a circuit of sprint meets.  Which, as it turns out, isn't as appealing in reality as it is on paper.

I'm a fan of the sport and, theoretically, a part of their target audience.  But my interest in Grand Slam Track was limited at best.  And the one meet I did watch on TV, quite frankly, I found pretty boring.  Part of that was because the quality of the broadcast simply wasn't very good.  But I think the bigger reason was the amount of dead time.  I don't know what the atmosphere was like for those attending the meet live, but the races only lasted anywhere from 10 seconds to a few minutes.  And, with no field events going on, there was literally nothing for a few minutes until the next race.  How is that supposed to fill a three-hour broadcast?

Contrast that to the Diamond League, the top-level global track & field circuit.  Diamond League meets are two hours long, and those two hours are packed with action.  The first race is already on the track when the broadcast comes on the air.  The next one is ready to go as soon as they come back from commercial, etc., etc.  And, while that schedule doesn't include every event at every meet, it runs the whole range from short sprints to longer distance.  With field events going on the entire time and taking the stadium's full attention between races.

Diamond League meets are never boring.  I'm a fan of the sport, and I found Grand Slam Track boring.  If even people who enjoy the sport find the product boring, that's a problem.  And how is it supposed to appeal to the casual fan then?  If people who like track & field are turning it off, what chance do you have of getting people who aren't hard-core fans to stick around?  The intention was to grow the sport, but the format didn't achieve the desired effect.

Another problem Grand Slam Track ran into was resistance from the athletes.  They did a great job of getting big names like Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone, Gabby Thomas and Kenny Bednarek to sign on as the series headliners, and the whole idea was that a handful of "racers" would compete at every meet against a rotating group of "challengers."  And they'd all race twice on the weekend, once in their primary event and once in a second event (the hurdlers raced an open 100 or 400 meters, for example).  Except that twice a weekend requirement, including once in their off event, turned off a lot of potential Grand Slam Track participants.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to focus so much on the shorter races.  I get it.  The sprints are exciting.  And there were some great individual performances during the Grand Slam Track season (Melissa Jefferson-Wooden may have made herself the favorite for the World Championships in the women's 100 after dominating Grand Slam Track).  But they also alienated so many athletes and a good portion of the audience by not including certain events.  They indirectly said "we don't care about you" by determining those events not important enough to be a part of the circuit.

That even extended to a group who was included--the Long Distance group.  At the first two meets, the Long Distance group ran both a 3000 and a 5000.  However, Grand Slam Track later decided that four 10-plus minute races per meet were too much and took too long, so, when Philadelphia was cut from three days to two, the Long Distance events were also trimmed from two to one per gender.  And, since they were only competing in one race, they'd have their prize money cut in half.  That's not what any of these longer-distance runners signed up for.  (Grant Fisher's best event is the 10,000, how does running one 3K benefit him at all?  Especially when he's only getting half the prize money of everyone else?)

The biggest problem, of course, was that Grand Slam Track simply didn't generate enough revenue.  They went in with big expectations.  Expectations that, as it turns out, were too high.  As the attendance and lackluster TV ratings proved, there simply wasn't enough interest.  Whether it's because of the format or not, it really doesn't matter.  Had they drawn the crowds and TV audiences they thought they would, Grand Slam Track wouldn't have had financial trouble and been able to pay the athletes their prize money and appearance fees on time.  They'd also likely be planning for the 2026 season.

Was it worth a shot?  Absolutely.  But I think the failure of Grand Slam Track proves something else that's very important.  Track & field is a niche sport for a reason.  There's nothing wrong with being a niche sport.  There's also nothing wrong with wanting to expand beyond that niche.  However, you need to get the buy in from those who are part of that niche to have any chance of success.  And Grand Slam Track simply didn't have that.  Which, ultimately, led to its demise.

You also don't know if it'll work if you don't try.  Michael Johnson had an idea that enough people found worthwhile to try.  Would the format have succeeded had they handled the finances better?  Perhaps.  But, even if it had lasted beyond those three initial meets, you had a feeling Grand Slam Track would've eventually suffered this fate regardless.  As Michael Johnson & Co. found out, the sports market is simply too saturated.  They deserve credit for a gallant effort, but this really did feel inevitable (even if it's not official yet).