A few random comments ...<p>Sports are something that require initial talent followed by hard work and dedication to reach the point where you can earn a sensible living. However, some sports can be spectacles. People can watch and appreciate the skill and excitement. Getting large numbers of people watching can generate money, which can support the teams and players, and so talent/work/skill gets converted into money.<p>Engineering, math, science, etc., are something that require initial talent followed by hard work and dedication to reach the point where you can earn a sensible living. Turning them into a spectacle seems unlikely. Hence they will never generate mass appeal, or money from popularisation. People will never watch a scientist at work and appreciate the skill, and so will never, by that route, aspire to be a scientist (mathematician, engineer, hacker, physicist, etc).<p>All people know of science, and math in particular, is that it's hard, and they can't see the point. With sports they can see the potential for adulation, and enormous sums of money. Hence the "youth of today" aspire to be sports stars. Or celebrities.<p>Where are the celebrity geeks?<p>I have, and on occasion wear with pride, a "Nerd Pride" badge given to me by Gerald Jay Sussman. Maybe we should all be proud to say we're geeks/nerds/hackers/engineers and wear such labels with confidence.<p>For reference, Ron Graham worked his way through graduate school by performing in a circus with a trampoline troupe. Bela Bollobas represented Oxford University at modern pentathlon, and Cambridge University at fencing. Paul erdos was astonishingly good at table tennis, and these are not isolated examples. Many distinguished scientists and mathematicians are extremely good at sports.