I agree with the time aspect, but not the money. Running has possibly one of the lowest barriers to entry, money-wise, of any sport. You need a pair of trainers, but unless you're running pretty seriously any comfortable pair will do. That's it. A good pair of running shoes costs $100, and it's all you need to compete at all but the highest levels. Compared to swimming, cycling, or literally any sport that requires equipment to play, the costs are tiny.
A couple of years back, one of my colleagues worked part time as he came from a wealthy family. Work was more of a hobby for him, like 1-2 days per week. For me, the money I made from work was something real. I needed to do it and did it 6 days weekly. Work days for me was much harder because I needed the work and money. My days were also much longer.
We both signed up for a marathon and he was able to improve much faster and run much faster in the end. I had to stop training because I injured my feet. Why? He had more rest days and then to recover and train. On the other hand, I already stood a lot during the day and injured my feet during one of my runs. I also had much less energy to train after working so much each day.
Running absolutely has one of the lowest barriers of entry, as a general sport. But specifically talking about endurance sports (which I assumed mean't running marathons and ultras etc) it becomes much harder to keep costs to a minimum. I'm sure there are people that run ultras in their 100$ shoes that they purchased last year but most are going through a lot of shoes and technical clothing just while training.
And travelling to the few and far between ultras there are compared to shorter local races that most running enthusiasts without a lot of savings and with limited ability to take time off work settle on.
> And travelling to the few and far between ultras
Depends where you are, I suppose. In South East England, there's fairly frequent 6h challenge races where you can ultra if you're quick enough and they're pretty cheap (~£40).
It's not quite that cheap. Most marathons have a significant sign-up fee (~$100). If you're serious about running a marathon you'll probably average about 80km/week in training. Running shoes last about 1000km so you need a new pair 4 times a year.
That said, iff you run two marathons a year and don't care which ones you do you can probably do it for < $1k a year.
Competing costs money in any sport, and yeah commercial races can be expensive but there are many many cheap races to be had too. I am based in the UK, and here's how you can get involved in running cheaply:
* Join Parkrun[1], free weekly timed 5k runs almost anywhere in the UK and in many other countries. Open to all abilities, and there are tail-walkers for all runs so you literally cannot finish last!
* More serious? Join a running club. Subscriptions will be ~£50 per year, include (lots!) of training, track access, free entry to many races throughout the year and reduced price entry to all others (via your included UK Athletics membership).
* Find cheap runs (non-commercial), e.g. those run by the Sri Chinmoy Marathon team, which only cost ~£5 to enter[2]. Many other such races around the country can be found via Run Britain[3].
Of course, all you need to run is a pair of trainers, weather-appropriate clothing (doesn't have to be running gear) and motivation to get out the door. The great thing about running is you can do it anywhere.
I suspect for most people, it's because a full marathon is at the very limit of their abilities, and a rare event. Most runners will run exactly one; even runners who keep at it will run only one per year. They'll need course support (including the enthusiasm of onlookers and other runners) just to be able to complete it. And they'll want to celebrate it and commemorate it with all the rigamarole that accompanies an organized race: the shirt, the medal, the banana.
None of that's necessary, of course, but if you think of it as "150 dollars per year" invested in the sport, rather than "a really expensive day doing the same thing you have been doing", the fees don't seem like all that much.
For me, those fees are motivation: I don't want to fail or look stupid at something I paid to do. Stupid, I know, but it's kind of a dumb event anyway. I'd be in overall better shape if I didn't run 26 miles in October and then take two weeks off to recover.
As far as I know, you can even enter these events without paying a dime. You only don't get the t-shirt, medal, and the official time. But run you can, and get the cheering and everything. Definitely some that a poor person can do.
In theory you don't get the course support, though I doubt anybody is ever going to say "No race number, no Gatorade for you!"
I'd feel weird about it: they put a lot of effort into closing the roads, coordinating volunteers, getting the water ready, etc. But if I were broke I'd probably put that aside.
When I was in Chicago during the marathon last year, they had a segment
on the local news station about the average cost for a participant.
Travel to Chicago, hotel, meals shoes, entry fees, it was like $3,000 USD.
that doesn't include training up to that point and qualifying at another
marathon, etc etc
Yeah the $3k figure I can believe, but then again Chicago is one of the World Marathon Majors. There will be another marathon aroudn Chicago that'll be <$300 all in.
I don't know where they got that stat but it must be very inflated.
* entry fee < 200
* airfare < 500
* hotel x 2 days < 300
* food x 2 days < 100
So if you try hard you can break $1000. I don't count shoes because you use them for months, not one event.
One the other hand if you live in Chicago the cost goes down to entry fee (I think marathon entry fees are insanely high though), and if you're a member of a local running club you can often even get around that.
> If you're serious about running a marathon you'll probably average about 80km/week in training.
For my first marathon, my training was a half marathon the month previous and my training for that was zero (signed up 3 days before.) Now I'll concede it wasn't fast by any means (5h35) but you absolutely do not need to do 80km/week for marathon running if you're going to be in the 4h30-6h timeframe (and, indeed, most of the extreme runners I know don't do any training because they're averaging 50+ marathons a year and there's just no damn time for anything else.)
I think most people in reasonable, healthy shape can physically cross 42km. I don't mean at all to diminish it as an achievement to complete one in any time, but I think you are minimizing the effort many people put into training. The OP's amount is not an unreasonable weekly target for many people. IMO being "serious" as mentioned above is closer to a 2.5 to 3.5hr finish time.
> I don't mean at all to diminish it as an achievement to complete one in any time
Good.
> but
Oh dear.
> I think you are minimizing the effort many people put into training
Nah. Just pointing out that people who say "you must do 80km a week to run a marathon" are talking gibberish. If they added "sub-3", sure, I'd accept that as probably valid (although I know people who do sub-3 without 80km a week.)
Like I keep saying, it's all anecdata and there's no hard and fast rules yet people insist on pontificating as if there are.
You can use cheaper or older shoes for training, and you don't need to train 80k/week for the whole year if you are running two marathons. I'd say you can do it a lot cheaper than 1k if that's what's important to you.
You don't have to pay 100$ to run a marathon. If you have a pair of running shoes and a normal running belt (for water and a gel) that will do. You just have to put them on and there you go. I've done a couple of "Sunday marathons" (aka "long aerobic run") with two friends. They have costed me ~2$ for a gel.
Equipment wise, you don't need to pay 100$ for shoes. There are many <300$ shoes from the last season (last year model) on discount pretty much all year round for 60$-80$. I burn 3 pairs of shoes a year, and even though I could afford expensive shoes, I pretty much always end up finding the ones I want for 70$ somewhere online.
Running belts price varies (from $10 to "as much as you want to pay"), but they are a one time investment. I bought a nice neopren one once, and it will probably outlive my children. If you are running enough to be able to "just go and run a marathon", chances are that you already have a running belt to carry a mobile phone, keys, id, money, gels, water, etc. They are just insanely useful.
I run around 8 hours / week, and my expenses are around 300$ per year. Some years I've paid a bit more, e.g. got a heart rate monitor for 30$, running ear phones for 80$, headlight ~20$, I don't have a running watch yet.., nice running shorts and shirts (couple of 100$s), etc. I've also gone to some races, but I've never paid more than 15-20$ for them. You can do half-marathons and marathons for that money, and some of them are non-profit, so you could deduce that from your taxes if it was worth your time. Also, most races typically give you running tshirts, gloves, and what not as a "finisher" gift.
Honestly, factoring the time I've spent running during my lifetime, and the money I've spent over the last 10 years, it's by far the cheapest hobby I have.
EDIT: That might be a lie. My absolute cheapest hobby is actually swimming. Swim shorts for 20-30$, swim googles for 5-10$, and an annual membership on a masters team (120$/year for 6h of swimming / week, where I only actually end up using 2-4 h). Swim short and googles need replacing only every couple of years, so swimming costs me around 150$/year for about half or a quarter of the hours I spend running / week.
Swimming and running, compared with my other hobbies, are negligibly cheap. I go snowboarding for 2 weeks a year, and that cost me ~2000$ + maintaining my equipment (I basically end up spending ~300-600$ on snowboarding equipment / year). I go cycling with my gf every now and then but not enough to make a 2000$ road bike + equipment cheap. And well I have a motorbike because I want to and that also costs multiple 1000$s dollars per year, I don't even want to know how much.
So yeah, swimming, running, calisthenics, etc. are damn cheap sports. You don't need to spend 1000$s/year on these. If you are tight on money you can probably manage 20h of fun per week by spending ~300$ per year without issues. Obviously, if you want 1-on-1 crossfit training wearing fashionable clothes wearing a go pro and drinking avocado toast kale smoothies you are going to end up paying a lot, but that's not necessary at all.
Assuming you are not poor. Even the lowest price for shoes, you said is $60 and you go through 3 pairs. When I was poor, I was happy to get my one qair of shoes for the whole year at the $20-$30 range. Getting another pair for any special activity wouldn't make sense unless it was required for work.
Outside of that silly aside, running competitively requires running in competitions, and these range into the couple hundred dollar range per run. This is a tough barrier for someone on the low socio-economic ladder. Sure, a dedicated poor person can make it work, but that barrier is practically nil for someone well off.
Of course you can just go and run. No argument there. Training is "free" if you have the time. But most events cost money, and that is where the endurance activity becomes an endurance sport.
I have no idea how people manage to go through 3 pairs of shoes in one season. Maybe those are some kind of special ultra-lightweight running shoes that are designed to fall apart quickly?
8 years ago I bought random New Balance shoes for $65 (New Balance, model MT573 -- just looked up an exact email from Zappos). I've been using them exclusively as my only "gym" shoes for 7 years: I've ran half-marathon in them 2 years ago, I did weightlifting, crossfit, and tennis in them. I regularly exercise 3+ times a week (sometimes more), so I'd estimate that I've logged 1000-1500 miles (~1500-2250km) in them. Sure, they are a little worn out by now, but they are absolutely good to go. And I'm 200-220lbs (~90-100kg).
But long time ago when I was running in high school I've had some other random cheap shoes [1] that I've used for 4+ years. During that time I've been running regularly 3-4 times a week for 10km @ ~40-45min. In warm season I was running in random cotton shorts and a random oversized cotton t-shirt. In cold season I (everyone) was wearing long johns under the track suit and this was it. My father grew up in Seberia doing cross country skiing in way harsher weather wearing something similar.
So yeah ... in my experience running as a hobby is ridiculously cheap.
[1] This was in early 2000s in Ukraine, everyone was poor here, so I'm pretty sure those shoes couldn't cost more than ~$20, which was still a lot for my family.
For what it's worth, $100 spent as disposable income is not really affordable for a huge percentage of the economically-not-well population. In other words, $100 is a lot of money for a lot of people.
You can get a good pair of Champion-brand running shoes for $20 at Payless. I've run in them, and I've run in $150 Nikes and Mizunos. There's nothing wrong with the $20 Champions for most recreational runners.
I guess what counts as 'middle class basics' in the US counts as 'basics' in the UK. Sarcasm aside, I find it a bit bonkers that places might not be safe to run, although I do believe it.
