[Travis]

I think you may be overstating exactly how "low brow" Shakespeare was. At the time, high/low brow was pretty much determined by asking, "was this written by the Greeks or the Romans?" So their concept of quality was based on what we moderns consider antiquated rubrics.

I think low production value and Jackass are pretty far off base. You are correct that nobody thought of the bard as highly as Virgil; it is also true, however, that the only way for him to reach that rarified air would have been literally impossible. (Travel time and become an ancient Roman).

Not sure what I'd consider something equivalent in modernity. Maybe something like Lord of the Rings? Hugely popular appeal, enjoyed by a wide range of social classes (something Shakespeare was famous for as well), yet incredibly rich and deep.

I guess I'm just nit picking here, but it is an exaggeration to make too strong of a comparison between a low quality YouTube video and Shakespeare, even looking in the context of their histories.

[Stormbringer]

The modern equivalent is probably something like Harry Potter - mass popular appeal but from a technical point of view not well written, or maybe Stephen King - extremely prolific within his particular niche.

I think you are grossly overestimating the social position of actors in the days of Shakespeare, from what I've read they were regarded as little better than prostitutes (and some were, they were not at all well paid for their stage work).

Additionally, your 'nitpick' about Shakespeare being compared to Virgil etc actually proves my point, that we tend to hold older writings in higher regard than modern writings. Whereas with athletes, this is not the case. Roger Bannister is famous for running the first (recorded) four minute mile, whereas today running a four minute mile isn't even considered noteworthy. Sporting records regularly tumble, and when they do the athlete that set the previous record diminishes a little in our eyes (I'm not arguing that this is good or right, just that it is), whereas Shakespeare and Tolkein are always going to be up on their pedestals.

When I used to read lots of Fantasy I would pick up books in shops and read the blurbs on the back, and almost everyone was going to be 'the next Tolkein' or 'bigger and better than Tolkein' or some such hyperbole. Now I can easily imagine someone being better than Tolkein (he spends an entire page describing a forest just talking about trees for goodness sake. They're big green and leafy, move on for goodness sake!), but you're not the next Tolkein until everyone compares their books to you instead of him. If you see what I mean.

[Travis]

I think the King comparison might be the most apt yet. Most people view him as a Crichton/Tom Clancy level populist, but his Dark Tower series really is an impressive literary piece.

WRT the sports thing: do you think some of that difference could be ascribed to the simple fact that we don't play the same sports as they did back in the day? While sport isn't a modern invention, the particular sports (and the fierceness of pursuit due to the money, fame, etc.) are new.

And finally, I'm not sure if my comment further proves your point, or if it means that we can only compare literature to sport in comparable times. If you accept the idea that sports used to be less important (possible due to the physical nature of regular work and the lack of leisure time), then you can really only compare sports (nearly exclusively happening in the 20th century) to 20th century literature.

In short, sports have just started to catch their stride.

Further, it could be argued that the ethos of the warrior was the true analogue of athletes in premodern times. Hercules, et al.