> Running seems like it should be the most affordable sport, but in America, at least, runners tend to be affluent. Perhaps wealthy areas are more hospitable to running, but I don't think that explains much.
Running is the most affordable sport. It requires nothing. So you're correct that pro-running effects in wealthy areas can't explain why runners are affluent; you have to explain it by anti-running effects among poorer people. (Such as "why would I do that?")
To the ancient Greeks, racing was the most prestigious of all sporting events, because it was felt to be the most traditional. If that were still true for us, poor people would probably run a lot more than they do.
Non competitive jogging is something anyone can do for cheap.
The article is about competitive endurance running specifically. Competitive running requires quite a lot of time for training and then regeneration. It is pretty hard on body - meaning time needed for regeneration and healing injuries and also it requires proper food. Meaning, if you work night shifts or lift weight in work you have disadvantage. We can come destroyed into office and take it easy for a day if I trained too much. People who actually compete in those marathons often get sick right after race, which is something a rich person cares about less then poor one.
Add to it network effect and it becomes pretty clear why rich would do it more then poor.
Running is the most affordable sport. It requires nothing. So you're correct that pro-running effects in wealthy areas can't explain why runners are affluent; you have to explain it by anti-running effects among poorer people. (Such as "why would I do that?")
To the ancient Greeks, racing was the most prestigious of all sporting events, because it was felt to be the most traditional. If that were still true for us, poor people would probably run a lot more than they do.