As one answer for your rhetorical question, there is still a riders' championship, and while it is not uncommon that the 4 best riders end up on the four best bikes in a given year, riders grow old or lose motivation, and new talent arises. Riders on bikes that can't win can demonstrate their potential, as stoner for one did to an extent on a satellite bike in 2006. If people think there are too many spanish +/- italian riders and that factory rides are determined by nationality and sponsorship now, what would happen with only 4 bikes?
I admit to being something of a shallow nationalist as a sports fan in general, but many are like me and with no-one to support even for the future I would probably take less interest, and the same would apply to sponsors who might start on a small scale and then expand. In F1, which I don't like invoking as a parallel to motogp but seems to be what ezy aspires to in terms of the type of team involved among other things, redbull didn't start off dominating the field.
I am with povol on contrived nascar style close racing though, and to an extent also with those who think honda's apparent dominance would not be such a problem if someone else, especially one particular rider, was doing the dominating on a honda. I can't really criticise the CRT thing though with no idea of my own, or from anybody else, to otherwise address the currently financially unsustainable nature of things, whoever is at fault for the sport arriving at such a pass. If ezy is using CRT to bargain with the factories about limiting excessively expensive technology, to make them provide engines or bikes to other teams on more realistic terms, or to break the cartel which fairly effectively in practice excludes the entry of new factories now, maybe he is being really smart.
