Why do many newschoolers believe that increased media exposure will be good for the sport of freeskiing?
Though this is in no way a new idea, recent discussions of freeskiing in the Olympics and Level 1's promotion by a cbs blogger have made it a relevant topic. Usually one person suggests that freeskiing will be ruined by an influx of posers, while another counters that the "wannabe invasion" is a neccissary evil, a byproduct of the sport's growth.
Obviously, with a greater public interest in skiing, comes a greater influx of cash into the industry. This means bigger budgets allotted to the skiing divisions of major sponsors, like Oakley, Red Bull, etc. We can expect this to result in more lucrative contracts and prize purses for riders, better funded research and development, and increased contributions to film companies.
That all sounds great I guess. But what does that actually mean for me and you, the weekend warriors, the aspiring up and comers, the lovers of the sport?
Will lift ticket prices come down? No.
Will gear prices come down? No.
Will terrain parks be better? Probably not.
It won't snow more and the summer won't get shorter. The feeling dropping a cliff with first tracks on a powder day and the feeling of landing a new trick sure as hell won't change. The act of skiing will still be skiing, no more and no less.
Don't take this as an argument against increased exposure for skiing. Even if it was, skiing's mainstream popularity is not something that we can really control. Think of my words instead as a challenge to that gut reaction to mindlessly embrace the public evolution of our sport. What would it really mean? How would skiing change? Or would it change at all?
