That's a good question...
I think with all of the new divisions, including a "Fit Model" division that the IFBB had in Poland [I believe], and even a CHILD division in Serbia!
Because of all these new divisions, the number of people competing is much higher than ever before...and therefore, there is more room in the industry to make money off these new entrants.
On the flip side, back in the day, there may have been fewer spaces for anyone, but those who did get past the gatekeepers made some serious cash.
Back in the day, when gatekeepers would tell you that you were good enough to do something or not.
Do you remember Leonard Maltin from Entertainment tonight? In the video/interview of him below, he complains about how these days, with social media, anyone can do anything...basically.
I was watching this with my brother, and he said "It sounds to me that he's just upset that he got displaced."
But I do get Maltin's point...back in the day, we needed people to tell us "You're good enough to be a pro", whereas now, anyone with a digital camera and an internet connection can become a journalist in a particular field.
This even sort of applies to me...I was able to get my IFBB press pass simply because I had a bodybuilding website, and had some experience talking with bodybuilders. And over time, with more and more interviews, I got better at what I did. But back in the old days, I would never have been able to get my foot in the door, in terms of interviewing pro bodybuilders. Again, there were gatekeepers.
I guess this sort of comes down to - is it better to live in a system where we have gatekeepers? Or is it better to have the current system where anyone can be a "pro" thanks to social media?
IMO, there are pros and cons to both models!
I suppose a more direct answer to your question would be:
The same people employed today would not necessarily be employed in the past, but the reverse of that is true too! I would say that, as with most products of capitalism, there is a bigger pie today than there has ever been before - and that's what matters the most, because the consumers benefit the most. I think the days of certain individuals making all the money has been traded in exchange for more people making a bit less - but there are still some people who are making a lot of money.
It's much like Hollywood - the day of the "star" is gone [as someone posted an article with basically that exact title], and it seems like those at the top of Hollywood have to share the status and money more than they did in the past, but the flip side of that is that there is more opportunity for all of us to get some eyeballs on our work, thanks to social media.
We - all of us - can get a pretty significant social media following if we're willing to put the time in. Having said that, YouTube has been sanitizing the website like crazy lately, and the search results and circulation of the video are not as "organic" or "meritocratic" as it used to be - as YouTube is trying very hard to force people into certain videos, based on their leftist political views.
Regardless, there is still more opportunity for all of us to be seen by others because of social media, which offers certain benefits...and as Leonard Maltin said in the video above, certain costs.
I think the way he worded it was that it is both good and bad.
I hope this long-winded post summarizes my views somewhat, LOL. Let's just say - times have changed!
