If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?
The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still run the same way with the same air and the same gravity.
I'm not terribly worried about stunting development of augments; it's practically the DoD's charter to develop and productize unfair advantages.
The principle is very consistent: You can't do something that gives you an unfair advantage over other competitors. Everything banned basically falls into one of three categories:
- It would be prohibitively expensive for others to adopt the technology. This is why you have weight minimums for bikes, boats, etc.
- Others would have to risk their health to compete. This is why you have bans of performance enhancing drugs, blood doping, etc.
- Others would have to break the law to compete. This is why you have bans on illegal drugs, even if they're not necessarily performance enhancing.
Occasionally things are also banned to preserve comparability to current records or to preserve the aesthetic sense of the sport, but for the most part when something is banned it's for one of the three enumerated reasons.
Weight minimums for bikes is for safety also, riders started using frames that were so light that a race become more of a gamble if your bike would break or not.
Your thoughts on Caster Semenya's "advantages"?
I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely genetically blessed from the world class athletes.
> outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc.
I didn't like Gattaca's message for that reason: it's fallacious to suggest those mental attributes aren't also subject to genetic advantages.
Another issue with the story is that the protagonist has a heart condition, and in the end he got on the spaceship's crew, which meant other people's lives were put at risk if he collapsed due to that heart condition in-transit. Salute the human spirit, but he put others at risk for his own benefit, and that's irresponsible and immoral.
> I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely genetically blessed from the world class athletes.
The other parents in the state were teaming up to try to get him banned for unfair advantage (!)
Another thing to consider is that swimmers internationally compete on the same playing field — any aspiring swimmer can measure their times in direct comparison to the greats. In this way, even a child at his first swim meet is indirectly competing with their idols. I can understand why there is pushback against removing that aspect of the competition.
IIRC the issue was either that you can only use them once, or else that they weren't widely available. $500 wouldn't be disqualifying on its own, e.g. a good 8+ shell costs around 40k.
This is pretty tenuous for some things though, like ephedrine, clenbuterol, or blood doping.
In comparison, blood doping isn't done on a regular basis such as 3 times a week. And 3 times a week isn't much for a regular heroin addict (who are know to destroy their veins), either.
One of the weirdest arbitrary decisions is the difference between almost universally banned "blood doping" and almost universally allowed "platelet-rich plasma therapy". You can draw a patient's blood and put it in a centrifuge to separate out the red blood cells from the platelets. Reinjecting the red blood cells is doping while reinjecting the platelets is an acceptable medical treatment.
Apparently they worked by other mechanisms as well, but the floaty aspect alone seems a reasonable justification for the ban.
Which is the antithesis to principles of competing fairly. And in Running Man there were undiscovered rules, but only ones to game the sport which came crashing down resulting in a loss of trust of the institution.
Transparency is key for trust in sport and thus continuality of the larger body.
There were limits then and there have been limits since. No fairings. How long your helmet can be. I have a vague recollection about them banning inserts in your clothes (no teardrops for your calves, no articulated helmets or dorsal fins).
[edit: and apparently disc brakes were just approved last season]
These days Lemond is watchdogging for electric motors hidden in the bikes. Which is a side effect of trying to fix two other problems. First, PEDs aka doping. Second, paying to win.
The exotic materials some teams could afford resulted in light bikes that other teams couldn’t approach. They set a minimum weight for bikes, which meant you either put heavier equipment on the bike (eg, torque gauges in the rear hub) or you loaded weights into it. Or you hid a flashlight battery and a tiny 20 watt motor in the bottom bracket...
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.
“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied.
“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.
“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
“Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
Or, in other words, making something random does not make it fair; it is still just as unfair as before, only unpredictably so.
UCI has lots of rules around the size, geometry, and weight of equipment that can limit how much better you can make a bike. They even explicitly don't allow new innovations without their prior approval. Manufacturers find ways around the rules but to a large degree better bikes are actually not OK.
(I don't feel strongly about this personally, just listing some of the counterpoints)
Because the Rotary engines are something in between a 2-stroke and 4-stroke calculating it's displacement in comparison to 4-stroke engines was difficult.
For example, the trend of the past few years is to limit engine capacity and reduce fuel consumption. So the rules say your engine must go down from 3 liters to 2.4 liters capacity and now it's your job as an engineer to maintain the same horsepower (of roughly 800 hp) at that lower capacity.
Actually, changing those rules every year puts teams with lower budget at disadvantage: they are basically limited to buying engines from richer teams, because they wouldn't be able to keep up with all those rule changes on their own.
and it's interesting that you mention better bicycles being okay, because for the most part they aren't. UCI rules state "no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI executive bureau."
the full ruleset for what constitutes a race-legal bicycle is here: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/51/...
Just sign up for a free account and watch the promotional e-mails for a sale.
Credibility was lost before I could even read the articles.
I hate this as much as the next guy. However it's clearly stated in advance and if you miss it you haven't paid attention during sign up.
And okay, maybe it's not all credibility, but it certainly loose the ability to do business with me.
Just go to nytimes.com, click subscribe, and try figure out what it's actually going to cost? Because I honestly can't figure it out.
I could also excuse myself as not being a native English speaker :)
But I'll go with the autocorrect excuse in this instance..
I too switched to WSJ and don't mind paying the extra cost. I miss the days when NYT feigned neutrality and focused on the balanced reality of stories over fermenting outrage via opinion pieces packaged as breaking news.
You can still find the good NYT content as the pop up on content filters like HN, Twitter, and Pocket without having to put blinders on to ignore half the other content on the site.
If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any time (e.g. Netflix) and a fixed rate so I knew I wasn't overpaying. I'd love to sub.
In this article, it specifically mentions how difficult it is to cancel a NYT subscription.
How is that a good start for a newspaper?
Scammy tactics is dishonest, and that's not a good start for a news source.
(I have problems finding a gym, because I prefer to do honest business - without obscure pricing)
P.S. I am also a happy NYT subscriber. +1 for supporting high-quality journalism!
i think it's totally justified, but i don't think it will have any effect on the advancement of prosthetics, which pave the way to performance augmentations.
Wired did a good analysis on this too https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-zoom-vaporfly-make-you-r...
It's similar to a mini version of prosthetics such as Pistorius's that were banned from Olympic competition, as they are basically big metal springs on the end of your legs. The Vaporfly was explicitly designed to use this spring principle, i.e. store mechanical energy in a carbon fiber plate and release it back on toe-off.
So some, like me, feel that shoes for competition should not be allowed to mechanically assist the runner. It's not about percentages, it's a simple binary criterion.
Look at the top shoes on the list - the Nike streak is a super lightweight shoe without Nike's new foam and it is second fastest. This should tell you weight alone is probably the most important factor. Two other highly rated shoes are Adidas shoes with boost foam, a type of foam similar to Nike's zoomx with a better cushioning to weight ratio. So the newest generation of foam probably provides a small benefit apart from the she's weight alone.
Runners capable of running a three hour marathon probably know the single most important factor in a running shoe for speed is weight. If they still choose to run in Saucony Guide or Hokas there's probably a good reason. What percent of runners who switched to the Saucony Guide were injured and used the shoes to recover, and what percent of runners in heavier shoes with more cushioning and stability features made it to the Starting line vs runners in Nike streaks? It's possible the heavier shoes provide protection from injury or greater comfort - there's a reason runners don't race marathons in track spikes.
I don't think the plate provides much benefit apart from weight and cushioning, my guess is that it is there for the feel of the shoe and without it the new foam would feel too mushy.
Try this: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon...
By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for prize money, I think this sort of thing should be banned. At least the sport needs a discussion of where to draw the line on such devices.
The patent application Ross Tucker cites has close to zero applicability. Nike has been working on a different energy return “spring” shoe that probably would be illegal - the patent could be for those shoes. And people claim lots of things in patents, that doesn’t make the claims true. All shoes have some combination of firmness and cushioning, and shoes have used an embedded firm plate design before, and nobody complained.
What if a biomechanics lab proved the Vapor Fly 4% is not acting as a spring but makes runners more efficient through some other mechanism (firm underfoot feeling but lots of cushioning)?
Right, according to my logic, it would be fine if there was a shoe that was faster empirically but not designed to cheat. (In other words, cheating is still cheating even if you're bad at it.)
Analogy: if a silver medalist is on EPO and the gold medalist isn't, the silver medalist is still cheating and the gold medalist still is not.
Your second paragraph does not match my understanding of the issue. I believe the Vaporfly is the shoe with the embedded carbon fiber plate, and I don't think other shoes (except maybe spikes) with this technology have ever been worn, at least in top level races.
By definition, they are cars that look like they're consumer cars but inside they're made to be powerful racing vehicles.
This is about two weeks of peak marathon training, although if the shoes are as advantageous as the article claims that's impressive in any case. I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.
(My last marathon training period peaked at a little over 70mpw. Normal trainers last me about 500-600 miles, my lighter shoes (Kinvaras) last 400-500, and my race flats even less than that)
Now, this is pure conjecture, I don't think the shoes magically make you more efficient. Efficiency is something you learn when running over long period of time. I would expect, to reap benefits of these shoes (assuming there are) you would need to get used to the new mechanics of running that the shoes will require.
That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.
I would save your money.
4% of 3 hours is more than 7 minutes! That could be equivalent to tens of hours on the road. $250 is a _great_ investment at that rate.
This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again. When it's your hobby, and it's important to you, the thought process behind the purchase is very different.
There's literally NO WAY I'd buy a pair of shoes I can run in for 100 miles for $250. I wouldn't be able to NOT think about every mile just costing me $2.50.
Call me frugal, but that's two pairs of any other shoe, and I can run in those for most of the summer.
A $250 pair of shoe is nothing but a luxury item for an extremely simple pastime. It's absolutely marketed to make you first feel inferior, then offer a solution. You always lose out when you fall for marketing.
Even with these shoes (provided these shoes do what they say they do), there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who can run faster than me, even if they all wear flip flops. I would be embarrassed to even consider purchasing shoes that promise to make me faster like these are marketed to do.
> This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again.
I mean, I guess so: "expensive" doesn't mean, "best". It just means, "expensive". The food may be good, or people pay because of the exclusivity the price creates. I'm not really about that sort of classicism. I like good tasting food too, but you know what I learned to do?
To be a better a runner, I decided to run. Running taught me a lot about keeping things simple, and to get rid of the b.s.
Explain to me how, in a gym setting there are, "better" shoes that "take away a false limit due to inappropriate technology" What does that mean?
Honestly, I thought the best shoes to use in the gym were just a pair of All Stars. I would use the weight room barefoot, but they yell at me too much.
Are you talking about Oly Shoes? 'cause those just counteract a mobility problem. Kinda better to solve that mobility problem. But thinking that's cutting edge technology is garbage. It's just a raised heal.
> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.
That's like literally every single midsole "technology" companies like Nike try to market their shoes with.
Your foot already has one of those catapult like things - it's called the Achilles. Just let it do it's job.
You'd have better return on investment by just going to yourself, "Hey for every 10 miles you run this week, you get a beer!" and using that as a reward for actually following your training plan.
I mean try it out: $250 buys a good few slabs of beer!
And if it doesn't work - well, the beer was delicious.
Throwing technology as something as simple as running shouldn't be the first idea to get better. It should literally be the last. If you're marathon pace is some-a-wheres near 2:25 - then let's talk.
At that pace, good chance someone is buying your shoes for you.
I'm not certain what this will mean to you, but if it's worth anything: I am very comfortable saying this article was 100% not an ad, because I'm one of the people who created it. The rough draft was written by me.
Overengineered shoes in general are not as popular: if you look at something like thruhikers on the AT or PCT, a lot of them opt for a wide-toebox, neutral heal drop trail runner over an overly built up and heavy hiking boot. I've seen thruhikers do whole sections in Crocs.
So perhaps "minimal" wasn't the right thing to focus on. But the design of the shoes have def. changed.
As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.
There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not really familiar with that idea.
What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot.
I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.
Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.
Can you cite any studies at all on the subject, even showing the converse? It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side.
> As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.
I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.
And it's not because of ad dollars - you don't see them wearing hats or gloves just because some company would pay for that.
...in which case it's definitely illegal under IAAF rules.
BTW, even the dreaded "heel strike" isn't as bad as many seem to think. In the article I cited in another comment here, they actually found that heel striking is more energy-efficient. Other studies I've seen have suggested that heel striking is more often a symptom of another problem than a problem itself. It might or might not be ideal, but among dozens of other mechanical issues people can have - e.g. overstriding, pronation/supination - it's only one part of the picture and IMO is often a distraction from any given runner's real issues.
> It is thought that shoes may have been used long before this, but because the materials used were highly perishable, it is difficult to find evidence of the earliest footwear. By studying the bones of the smaller toes (as opposed to the big toe), it was observed that their thickness decreased approximately 40,000 to 26,000 years ago. This led archaeologists to deduce that wearing shoes resulted in less bone growth, resulting in shorter, thinner toes.
It is believed to be one of the oldest hunting techniques, and so would indicate that humans are in fact meant to run long distances. According to Wikepedia, the runner runs for "about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi)".
Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.
A Speedo vs a Short is a very big difference in swimming. Shaving body hair is a thing males at the high school level are doing.
Oh, it's huge. These new "tech" suits are big and you now see them in competitions for young kids. Some states have banned them for the under-10 groups, other have not.
These things are so ridiculous. They can cost hundreds of dollars, they take 5-10 minutes just to put on, and they wear out after wearing them 10-15 times.
The Vaporfly 4% could simply be viewed as a technology transfer to shoes intended for longer distances.
If this kind of thing is important, the best approach is to narrowly define what athletes can wear. (Shoes, socks, compression sleeves, clothes, ect.)
Then, working within the limits is part of the sport itself.
This is true, humans have been running for thousands of years without them.
> You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore.
> Abebe Bikila (August 7, 1932 – October 25, 1973) was an Ethiopian double Olympic marathon champion. He won the marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome while running barefoot, setting a world record.
He finished in 2:15:16.2
Or take Roger Bannister: 
> Sir Roger clocked three minutes 59.4 seconds in the historic race at Iffley Road Track in Oxford on 6 May 1954 when he was a 25-year-old medical student.
> The thin leather running spikes which weigh just four and a half ounces were snapped up by an anonymous buyer at the auction in South Kensington, London.
I don't know about you, but I can't run a 2:15 marathon or a 4 minute mile, and I don't think fancy shoes would make the difference.
We didn't evolve to run on tarmac or concrete. Public roads are strewn with broken glass and fragments of metal. Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form.
The studies I'm aware of (e.g. ) point in the opposite direction: runners have a lower risk of osteoarthritis, potentially because they have a lower BMI. As an avid long distance runner myself, if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to read it.
But for those that can, fancy shoes make a massive difference.
Would that be so bad? I imagine if I had trained so hard for so long, and overcome so much, I would rather accept that I'm in a group of people who "are all so good it's impossible to tell who is the best", than have it decided by who has the bigger R&D department.
0 - https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7u2bmk/the_suspen...
It wouldn't be the first time the Olympic Committee has been confusing.
WRT to carbon fiber plate... how is that not "cheating" like the stilts? Its like electric motors in bicycles if you ask me.
> (e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.
Nobody has brought a challenge over this shoe and its debatable use of a "spring"; the IAAF may in fact decide it's a mechanical advantage if/when somebody does
Corked bats? Hidden motors... etc...
If the Nike shoe is banned from professional competition, athletes will stop wearing it, and officials will investigating other shoes for carbon fibre inserts, and will likely catch some. They're not stupid.
I mean for things which might vaguely count as running shoes... not oscar pistorius etc.
But barefoot running is a great way to run, no knee or back issues after doing this for years.
This is especially relevant because there's been decades of shoe manufacturers designing for poor running form.
Surely HN isn't just for commenting on support of a product in a linked story, but also considered criticism?
While I can see a competitive athlete reaching for whatever legal means they can to try and buy themselves a victory or podium or some other high-profile result that buys them sponsorships, there's just no good reason why amateur runners should care — you don't magically become a fitter, better runner by posting faster numbers through fancier shoes. Selling people on to the idea that they _should_ care about this is, depending on perspective marketing at either its finest or at its worst.
Qualifying for marathons is a good reason to care. If these shoes could make the difference between me qualifying for Boston, and me not qualifying for Boston (or same for NYC, Tokyo, London, etc etc), $250 would be cheap if that's a big goal for me.
edit: really, $130 or so since my shoes _already_ cost $120
If you're enthusiastic about something, I think it's quite natural to want to do it to the best of your ability. It's also quite natural to covet shiny toys. You can't buy youth or good genes, but you can buy a little bit of speed, a little bit of prestige, a little bit of the aura that surrounds professional athletes.
People that run in shoes not fit for running or in wore down shoes put their health at risk as well as making it a hell of a lot harder for themselves.
Also there is a psychological factor if you feel that you are improving you might be more likely to keep running instead of giving up.
You don't have to be elite to want to run faster. Keep in mind there seems to be no good reason to exercise more than 30 min 3-4 times a week, but many runners choose to do a lot more than that.
For that matter, there's no good reason for most of the things people buy or time they spend on the hobbies and other leisure activities they pursue.
I can assure you, they will not need to focus their marketing efforts on convincing people to care about going faster. A great number of amateur runners already do. (Not all, different runners are motivated by different things.)
> “Any type of shoe used [in competition] must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics.”
It seems to me that enthusiasts are the perfect market for it. People with serious hobbies are often fairly comfortably well off and also may have neither the time nor ambition to train harder. Poor people often can't afford to be enthusiasts. They are too busy scrambling to survive and too tired to do anything other than stare at the TV or something like that when they aren't desperately trying to make their life work.
Given that you can apparently make money playing video games by grinding for items other people value and selling them for real money to players who have more money than time, I don't see why you couldn't sell pricey shoes to running enthusiasts.
Other options are bad knees (unlikely, honestly. Not many people have knees that are so genuinely shot that they can't run, unless they're former paratroopers or are very years old)
Or, if you're carrying a lot of extra weight (backpack full of water? I don't know, people do whatever they do), that'll hurt.
Since you're talking about running in the woods, it's almost definitely not the sidewalk, but, some people need to build up their muscles and tendons by going from softer surfaces (not so soft like sand, but grass) to ashphalt, to concrete.
Instead, they're focusing on the athletic performance aspect, to the point that, near as I can tell, they're outright fanning the flames of controversy around the idea that these shoes are unfairly fast.
The study itself says:
> This was an observational study where people chose whether or not they wanted to run; therefore there is always the possibility that people stopped running because they had knee pain.
That's a pretty big flaw in their study.
> > This was an observational study where people chose whether or not they wanted to run; therefore there is always the possibility that people stopped running because they had knee pain.
> That's a pretty big flaw in their study.
How do you figure? These people are accounted for in the data. Regardless of why people stopped running, they have better outcomes than never-runners. E.g.:
> Any history of running was associated with less frequent knee pain (table 2) in the unadjusted and adjusted models compared to those who never ran.
All runners who run regularly will eventually develop knee or ankle pain. It's sort of normal for semi-serious distance runners to own a pair of crutches. I'm not saying all of them, but, if you need a pair of crutches, ask your friends who run and one of them will have a pair.
But, your knee can hurt for a while without it turning into joint problems.
> This was an observational study where people chose whether or not they wanted to run; therefore there is always the possibility that people stopped running because they had knee pain. As such, we cannot comment upon the influence of compulsory running on overall knee health.
so... forced running might cause osteoarthritis. But, if you feel like going for a run and it doesn't hurt, it's not going to cause joint problems.
> Our study findings add to the existing literature by including a large sample within which we were able to assess the influence of running in people who participated in running for shorter amounts of time and perhaps stopped running in a cohort that had high quality of assessments of symptoms and standardized radiographs. We found that runners in this group were not at a higher risk for symptomatic knee OA.
Overuse injuries got a bunch of people I knew. They'd use crutches to speed recovery up a bit, or to get around if it was bad enough.
There are exercises, stretches and techniques you can learn, as well as products you can buy that you aren't going to find at a Foot Locker.
Also, it's not uncommon for a runner to spend $50 per pair of shorts and $30 on a shirt, and you need about 5 of each if you train for a marathon because you're going to be running 5 days a week. Not to mention socks. Many if not most runners these days also have a GPS watch, and those usually go for $200 for a basic model.
And then of course, a lot of runners travel to other cities to run marathons. So you might spend $250 on airfare and another $250 on staying in a hotel the night before and after the race. Of course, the race itself charges a fee (lots of logistics to close 26.2 miles of road, time people, provide food, etc.), which is typically around $100 to $150.
So spending an extra $150 on a pair of shoes for the race isn't really going to radically alter the total budget.
Some amateur runners definitely spend $250 on shoes, either because they have so much money that $250 is basically the same as $70 to them or because they are very serious amateurs.
Suunto just released a $650 GPS watch.
Running has so few accessories - it should be a cheap sport to pursue but, a fool and their money...
I had set a goal for myself and a faster set of shoes might have gotten me to the Boston marathon a year sooner, but it was the journey not the destination that was so rewarding.
Almost always true. But it's fun to dream about being in Bill Rodgers' situation (in running or any other activity). In 1973 he was chain-smoking bar-regular who liked eating pizza topped with mayonnaise and who had no interest in running marathons. In 1975 he was the fastest American ever.
I don't know whether this image is accurate, but: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-footb...
Really though, standardised boots would probably not kill this market. In cricket, for example, it's common for players to use a bat that is dressed up to look like the product of their sponsor, while actually being manufactured by someone else entirely. This is a bit of an open secret, so I guess that footwear companies would also be willing to pay good money to have 'their' boots worn by the big stars, even if the public knew that they weren't allowed to be meaningfully different from the boots everyone else was wearing.
A genuinely good reason not to force standardised boots is just how different everyone's needs are. Feet don't just differ in size, but in shape (in three dimensions), not to mention all the other things that can affect a person's natural gait, weight distribution and so on. I think it would be hard to write regulations tight enough to preclude an unfair advantage for richer teams, without also forcing some players into boots that would be not only sub-optimal but even dangerous (in the sense of increasing the risk of injury).