Natural talent was and still is a major topic of discussion. In Ancient Greece, natural talent could be directly applied to the sophists. In the reading, Isocrates argues that sophists do not have natural talent. Some do not, while others do. You can say that natural talent is born, not created. This is the reason why we apply this idea to sports. People believe that truly great athletes, take Tom Brady for example, are born with this special ability to play the game and be the greatest playing. They believe that these people are born with this ability, and that it can not be coached or taught. In regards to education, people have shied away from it because of sports. No longer has the major focus of the populace been on academics but on physical accomplishments.
I think another reason for moving away from natural talent in education is that it is more widely available to the general population now than in ancient Greece. Sports are only played by an elite few at the highest level. This makes them more like what the Sophists described royalty to be. Their status as higher ability athletes entitles them, in a way, to more recognition for their abilities.
I’m not sure if Isocrates says that the Sophists don’t have natural talent. He’s more concerned that the Sophists may be teaching people WITHOUT natural talent. Why would this worry Isocrates?