Opinion: Racing is becoming too much show, not enough sport

The Supercross and motocross world has its own huge changes, with those two series joining together (instead of competing) to add a three-race, post-season, SuperMotocross World Championship. Along with that there's the new World Supercross Championship, which took over the FIM world championship title after the U.S.-based Supercross series gave it up. The first season consisted of just two races and attracted few of the top riders, but the the schedule is expanding to six events in 2023, so there's a chance it will grow into something that looks more like a legitimate world championship.

On the roadracing side, MotoGP added Saturday sprint races to every round this year, and the 21 planned rounds make it the longest schedule ever.

So more races should be great, right? Here's where I disagree and where I run the risk of being compared to the grumpy old man yelling at clouds.

Is it about sporting competition, "the show," or the money?

To me, motorcycle racing should be primarily a sporting competition, which means fair rules and a level playing field that lets the teams and riders who work hardest and have the most talent rise to the top. For the organizers, however, motorcycle racing is a money-making endeavor, so they are highly sensitive to any drop in popularity that cuts into revenues, even if it's something that I, as a long-time fan, would consider part of the normal cycles of sports. I see this reaction — overreaction, to me — in both SuperMotocross and MotoGP: a gimmicky approach that is less about sporting competition than "improving the show."

In SuperMotocross, the three new rounds added after the end of the outdoor Lucas Oil Pro Motocross Season will feature the riders who finished highest in the points in Supercross and motocross. But those three races won't pay regular points. The first one will, the second one will pay double points, and the finale in Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum will pay triple points. That's the organizers' way of ensuring the championship won't be decided before that final Los Angeles round, or, as they put it, "guaranteed to provide championship drama all the way to the end."

Someone more cynical might say it also raises the odds that someone will decide the championship with drama such as taking a competitor out of the triple-points final race with a T-bone move. Or that someone could win the title with a lucky break in the last race, after so-so performances in the first two.

But then controversial finishes ramp up fan chatter on social media and are good for the sport, right? No, I'd say they're good for the show, not so good for the sport. Is it necessary? Like every other entertainment option, Supercross and motocross are being squeezed because consumers have more options than ever competing for their leisure minutes and money. Anaheim One saw good racing and a huge, enthusiastic crowd Saturday night. It's not the first time the points system has been tinkered with, but the triple points thing feels to me like a step further down a gimmicky road I'd rather not see the sport travel.

I feel the same way about the MotoGP sprint races. In our annual predictions story, I've already gone on record as suggesting that something is likely to "break" because of the stress on teams and riders of the longest-ever season (21 rounds) times two (plus 21 sprint races). If a top rider gets hurt and knocked out of contention because of a mechanical mistake by an overworked team that's been away from home for weeks or because of an overly aggressive move on the track in a sprint race, is that good for the sport? Is it even good for the show?

In the MotoGP case, I feel this is an overreaction to unrelated problems. A hugely popular rider (Valentino Rossi, the only motorcycle racer most non-motorcyclists in the world could identify) retired. Inflation is pinching budgets and ticket prices are high. In most of the world, MotoGP on television is behind a paywall. While the field is closer than ever in performance, some technical rules make passing in races more difficult. None of these issues are resolved by adding sprint races. But resolving some of them (like getting coverage on free TV) might cut into cash flow, and as we saw with Dorna's decision to expand to Saudi Arabia, the organizers are going where the money is, not where the fans are.

It's an inherent hazard of sports: Not every competition is a cliffhanger. But true sports are about fair competition. The NFL doesn't make touchdowns worth 21 points in the fourth quarter. The World Cup doesn't make the goal three meters wider in the last five minutes. And the Boston Marathon doesn't make the runners compete in a 100-meter dash the day before the big race.