caffeinatedtri wrote:

the pros need to get together and ...

That's the hard part.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/.../features/union.html

---

---

In the immortal words of the late great Todd Jacobs (a pro's pro), "Pro triathletes are like a box of rats fighting over one Cheeto. "

The more things change...

-bobo

---

"What's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded."

I really wish there was a like button for that quote

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

Let me play devils advovate....Does the WTC even need pros?
What would a boycott accomplish except from saving the WTC from having to hand out prize money. Not having a pro field at IMLP and other races would have zero impact on revenues ..aka..paid participants. You think Joe 'bucket list' Shmo or Johnny 'I train 30 hours a week to beat everyone and pad my ego' AGer aren't going to register because pros won't be racing?? Not likely

I enjoyed following TRS's awareness campaign this past weekend in LP. Thought it creative and quite entertaining but thats about it. Doubt it will change anything. WTC know they dont need a pro field at the races to be profitable but will likely keep tossing them a bone.
In major sport leagues paying customers are shelling out big bucks to watch the top athletes in the given sport . Player strikes(boycotts?) usually are effective because owners are losing money and people wont pay to watch replacement hacks. Ironman is unique. The paying customers are the ones on the 'playing field'. Keep them happy by offering a great race experience -which WTC apparently does-and many will keep coming back for more ....regardless of an absent pro field or not




.

Yes without the pros there is no NBC show. Without the show there is no more IM dream of the one and done person. That hits at their bottom line. You're not getting network coverage of an amateur race in Hawaii for a fringe sport.

They need them or they would not be trying so hard to prevent from doing other races like challenge and rev.. The kpr system is a way to prevent them from having Time to race other races..yet they refuse to pay them a living wage.. Most of them
I agree them getting together would be tough but it would be worth it.

I actually disagree with this. I don't think you are able to sustain 3000 participants without the pro's. You are right that people are still going to want to race but people are going to want to race more when there are pro's in attendance. I would be shocked if a financial analysis concluded that not having a pro field is just as profitable as having one.

If all pro's stopped racing WTC and switched to rev/challenge/or something else I think you would see the money start flowing differently. Maybe not a ton at the beginning but definitely in the long-term.

The sports most similar to triathlon are pure running or cycling. There are plenty of mass participant events in both which have no pro field. E.g. last year in the UK I ran the Edinburgh marathon which had ~8000 marathon runners and ~30,000 participants overall in a weekend that included half-marathon, 10k, 5k, kid's races, etc. As far as I know there were no pros involved, certainly not anybody I'd heard of or who was making big money. Then I did the Ride London 100 mile sportive, which had 16,000 riders and included a scattering of celebrities but nobody was paid. There was a separate pro race in the afternoon but it didn't attract any big name riders and nobody I knew bothered to watch it. I don't see any reason why triathlon is different - people enter these kind of events as a personal challenge, not because of the pros. The only way triathlon is ever going to pay big money to the pros is if (like cycling and running) large numbers of people actually start turning up to watch them.

I think it's kind of cool that you can go to a triathlon and see the pros, but if they weren't there it wouldn't stop me from entering. I enter plenty of races where there are no pros, and enjoy them just as much.

The WTC wants professionals - they just don't care who they are. I agree that there needs to be a pro race for the NBC coverage, but do 95% of viewers care if that pro is FVL, Macca or some 8:45 finishing pro? The WTC will do a great job of packaging and marketing. That's what they do.

They need pro racers, but on their terms.

If you were right and their influence is nill, then sponsers are wasting a ton of money on pros.

I don't think the impact would be immediate, but there is a significant trickle down effect of a lot of people wanting to ride/wear what the pros ride/wear. That elevation of status is important. If that group of respected individuals said "mdot is overpriced", it wouldn't be stretch for quite a few people to rethink their entry fees.




How many of the riders in your Ride London example were wearing a team jersey? What about Oakley's because rider X wears them and he's cool? The further toward the front of any big ride you get, the more everyone dresses like their favorite rider. That is influence.

You're missing the point, the "large number" of triathlon fans of pros - are the ones showing up to races.

Somewhat furthering the playing of devil's advocate, does WTC really even care about the NBC show? It's one hour televised a few weeks after the actual event. The format and approach to it hasn't changed in years. I don't know how their contract works with NBC (do they pay or does NBC pay them?). Could they just put together the same type of show in-house and post it on Ironman.com? It would probably get just as many eyeballs and be cheaper. It also seems that many folks enjoy the age grouper special interest stories as much as the pro story anyway. There are a few of us that like the pro race, but we are in the minority when you look at the global viewing audience. For the average viewer who happens to stumble across it, they have little to no appreciation of the difference between going sub 8 hours and finishing in 11 hours or 16 hours and 59 minutes. It just sounds like a damn long day of exercise. But, throw in the cancer story or the celebrity sighting and you might pique their interest.

When it comes down to it, as long as paying customers are focused on being able to say they are an Ironman, the WTC doesn't need the pros. I'm convinced that the WTC is convinced of this. If you look at IMLP by itself, it sells out and there aren't any "brand name" pros even there - Ironman(tm) is the brand everyone cares about. People race Ironman for themselves. People still want to qualify for Kona because saying you're a Kona Qualifier is prestigious enough in itself.

After Rev3 dropped the pro prize purses, WTC gained even more leverage, as I believe that leaves them and Challenge as the only big long-course series that pay the pros (somebody can probably come up with others?). We'll see how Rev3 does - as long as they continue to do well or even grow (and I hope they do), that could demonstrate that a series doesn't need the pro field - something the WTC will probably be watching closely.

That's just my odd little perspective on it all. I don't mean to sound down on the pros or anything, but I think their best chances to make a living at this are in draft-legal short-course racing. You can race more often in a given year, if anything - these long-course races take too much of a toll on the body.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

really? so all those spectators were there to watch the professional field? dont think so. How many age groupers know who was in the pro field? how many spectators could name more than 1-2 pros at LP? If the pro field was so important to sign ups then why would people sign up and sell out a race 12 months in advance before ever knowing which pros will race? ya know my buddy pointed out that you walk around seeing people wearing shirts or jerseys with manning's name on it, or Ortiz or Labron. i cant recall anyone wearing apparel with rinnys name on it, or mccormack, etc. i just dont see how spectators or particpants really care or more importantly spend money on goods or services based on what pros they see. Yeah pro equipment or apparel sponsership provides some benefits (mostly awareness and maybe some trial) but i have yet to see what the ROI is of those sponserships specifically. Im not sure Kuotas bike sales skyrocketed after Stadlers high profile coverage on NBC or that travel to Dubai increased tenfold with coverage of the Tri Dubai team years ago (and that team had high profile triathletes like alexander, deboom, lessing, etc).

No way they move the recap to online and get anywhere close to same viewers. With nbc atleast you can get accidental viewers not so much with online recap show in dec.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

We all know that except for the highest tier pro's, triathlon is a brutally tough way to make a living. For that reason alone, I would like to see them paid more. However, I can't help but agree that apart from Kona the pro's do not add value to the races. If there were no pro's we would just look at the top age group finishers instead, marvel "Wow" at their times compared to our own, and then move on with our business. In other words, the top pro's add nothing more than the fastest age groupers. Take away the pro's and there will still be a front runner. Sadly, I must conclude that the current prize money structure is sufficient compensation in this market for what the pro's bring to the table.

Agreed, which begs the question, "how much value does WTC see in the accidental viewers?" They'll have the engaged fans who would find it on NBC or on IM.com or YouTube regardless and, of course, the accidentals. Will exposing them to more chocolate milk commercials increase the value of the show/advertising opportunity enough to outweigh the costs? How many of the accidental viewers are inspired to do an Ironman and become paying customers?

I have no idea how much any of this aspect of it costs or how much money is to be made. That's the big cost-benefit question. The lines between TV and Internet as separate marketing media, their costs, and their perceived values continue to blur.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

exactly " . . .the current prize money structure is sufficient compensation in this market for what the pro's bring to the table. "

if you want a raise you need to highlite what value you bring, what you would like to add if you were to be compenstaed further or what would decrease if you were to leave. They only argument i've heard so far is basicaly we deserve it becasue we work hard, the event is longer than other events that pay more, etc .. .thats not a compelling reason for anyone to compensate you for those reasons. Find something that convinces WTC rather than whining about how much YOU think you deserve more

the other thing to consder is pros have chosen this for themselves. this wasnt forced on them, this wasn't their only option for employment (there are pros that have walked away from lucrative investment banking positions or consulting jobs unlike a poor, uneducated minority that only gets offered min wage work) nor was their a bait and switch in that they were told they would make millions and that changed to mere thousands. So for me to chose this life to pursue glory and kona and then complain about it . .i just . .really .this was a freewill decision you made for yourself. i could easily walk downtown in my city and find dozens that would jump at the chance for these "high quality" problems and trade places. Its hard for me to find empathy here.

You're smoking crack right???

95% of the people who watch the Ironman on TV could not tell the difference between Craig Alexander and Craig Agegrouper. Half the Kona broadcast are "Biggest Loser", Disabled Army Vet, or similar interest stories.

WTC could easily do the SAME broadcast, no pros and just highlight the front of the AG men's and women's race and have the EXACT SAME PRODUCT.

The whole IRONMAN Dream started well before the big prize purse, and there would probably be MORE interest making it "man vs self" rise above the odds than a "Pro race"

as i look at this photo of the 7th place finisher (from herberts interview on the main page) . .its interesting how few spectators there are in the oval at the finish. If pros brought so much to the table and encouraged such spectator engagement why is it that i can count less than 30 people in the stands? Does this make a compelling argument to WTC?

at midnight when there are no pros and all the 16-17 hour Age groupera finish these stands ar packed. kind of makes you wonder what spectors care about, a pro or the emotion of an age grouper crossing the line at the final moments. if you were a sponser when would you rather have promotion or pay for exposure? ..in front of 30 people at the pro finish or closer to midnight when a few hundred more will see your message. why would WTC pay more? give them back value and they will pay but you have to find that reason.

.

Without pro's would Kona even have the "wc" feel it has now? Aka all the sponsors showing up, the "world championship" feel, the media circus, etc. Would the overall qualify/feel of a big event be lost? I would think so.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Your 95% who could not tell the difference in a pro from an ag'er would not even have that opportunity without the pro race, it would not be on tv to begin with. You better check your pipe.

The bigger question... Are there TOO many pros. How many men are competing for the Kona Spots? How many women?

WTC needs to cut total prize money by 30 - 50%, cut out purses at 50% of the races, increase the purses at the remaining races and have a tighter field race head to head more.

And yes, there is a far better model out there for the pros than currently exists, one that creates more interest, more personality, higher viewership and even more sponsor money, input and probably even TV coverage. I have already discussed with Charlie, for it to really work probably would need Felix on board as well, and best of all, would take a serious bite out of the WTC

Or... if the WTC were to adopt the model, would for sure change the face of the sport. Now if Messick wants to pony up, has the potential to seriously increase annual revenues from the TV / streaming coverage

Really? In 1980 when Wide World of Sports really launched all of this, how many Pro triathletes were there?

WTC could still package the race the same way... the best AG triathletes of the world competing to be WORLD CHAMPION on the historic course...

The Kona broadcast is the biggest marketing fail for "professional" triathlon and why nobody gives a shit.
It is apparent that either NBC or WTC, or both, don't believe the professional race is enticing enough.
As supposedly the premier event in long course triathlon, the coverage should be 100% focused on the professionals.

Why are they not selling the pros?
Interviews, statistics, bios, rivalries, background clips from qualifying events... there's more than enough material to fill a 90min broadcast interspersed with bits of actual racing.
Instead we get more victim/survivor age group stories.

Here's a fun exercise... go to ironman.com.
Try to find information about the professional athletes racing the Ironman circuit. About all you get is the KPR.
Now go to triathlon.org and click the Athletes tab. BAM.

There's a lesson here for Challenge... I wonder if they see it.

Really? In 1980 when Wide World of Sports really launched all of this, how many Pro triathletes were there?

WTC could still package the race the same way... the best AG triathletes of the world competing to be WORLD CHAMPION on the histori//

When the race was first aired, it was no more than a man in a barrel falling off niagara falls. It was not a sport, but a crazy thing that a few people did. Without the pros and eventual money, there would be no broadcast now, i can guarantee that. How many AG races do you see on TV today, yesterday, tomorrow?

You are preaching to the choir. So many people get lost in the weeds and are too close out...

Step back, look at the TV coverage and you see half of it is really human interest stories.

Keep that coverage, and replace the "race" story of "Craig Alexander" with Joe AGer versus Jack Wanna be and the product is EXACTLY the same. Some of the "Industry" sponsors may not be as keen for branding, but when you have 'Ford' or 'Subaru' as the main sponsor, all they care about is how many eyes are watching.

Hell... 95% of the TV audience would have no idea they were watching a FOP AGer versus a Pro

This is the world of reality tv where more people are famous for being famous and when the likes of Kim Kardashian rule the airwaves....

Hell... You want ratings... Go back to the Battle of the Network stars format... Have the Kardasian Family go up against the full cast of the Bachelor in a 1 hour sprint triathlon with silly contests in between and you could put that in an 8PM time slot and get 4x the ratings of the {cough} Pros.

LOL... You are making my point... How many PRO TRIATHLETE races do you see on TV today, yesterday or tomorrow.

I see more local coverage of High School sports than PRO triathlon.

How much coverage of IMLP was there on the national news?

I can tell you in Boston, I saw NO MENTION... Though did see the bench clearing brawl between the Nevada minor league baseball teams.

LOL... You are making my point... How many PRO TRIATHLETE races do you see on TV today, yesterday or tomorrow. //

Thats easy, 100% of all triathlons on TV are pro races. I watch about one or two new ones every week or so..Not sure how i made your point..

I've done dozens of races, only two had a pro field. And in those two races, I paid no attention to the pro field other than watching the swim start. Not having pro's at a race doesn't bother me at all. I don't pay attention to what pro triathletes are wearing, racing, etc.

But I CAN talk to you for hours about the pro cycling transfer market, who won the latest races, what gear they're using. I have riders and teams I cheer for when I watch the races. I can say none of that about the pro triathletes. Maybe only Jordan and Brandon who spend their time building their brand on these boards. Other than that, I couldn't care less for the pro's. I race triathlon for me, not them.

Here's the real kicker, I consider myself an active triathlete. 80% of those that I see at races are new or infrequent participants. They have no sense of the triathlon community outside of their local area races. What value do the pro's bring to that 80%? That 80% doesn't even know they exist.

>No way they move the recap to online and get anywhere close to same viewers. With nbc atleast you can get accidental viewers not so much with online recap show in dec.

You might be correct now. But times are changing. Many young people don't even have conventional TV anymore. Online streaming media is taking over. Monty claims to watch several triathlons per week on TV. But he's way old. I have no idea what he's talking about. ITU on some Euro channel?

I think there's a space here for someone to make a compelling media format to market pro triathlon. A compressed-time format that creates a narrative out of half and full IM pro races. Super low production costs, etc. Available like the week after the race, comprised of GoPro and a few moto cameras, along with narrative by knowledgeable people.

I've done dozens of races, only two had a pro field. And in those two races, I paid no attention to the pro field other than watching the swim start.//

So i guess you never watch triathlon on TV or the internet? You follow bike racing because it is only a pro race on TV. If they had the local cat 3 race on tv, you would give two shits about it. Now maybe you are just not a fan of the sport, that is entirely ok, but I'm guessing you have watched some on the tube and enjoyed it..

No you will not have the same coverage. It's a compelling show because you have two parts to it. The pro race and a few AG sob stories with a celebrity or two. It's the contrast of professional to housewife that keeps people watching.
And no just tossing fast AG people in is not gonna cut it. When they interview the pros before the race it says "professional triathlete" below their name. Interviewing Sam Gyde and saying "firefighter" just doesn't have the same awe factor. (Sorry Sam, just using you as an example.)

I want one of two things to happen-

1) Pros at WTC events should start making more money

2) Price of WTC entry fees needs to go back down (or at least level off)

Not because the two are so closely linked stats, but because it bugs me that racing IMLP is now at $725, and the product has not changed (in any way I am aware of). If WTC thinks their pro field justifies a price increase for any reason, the pros deserve some improved compensation. If they do not... Then why the f*** has the entry fee gone up so much?!

Admittedly, I don't know everything that goes into making a race. If anybody has better knowledge of why the price has jumped over the years I'd love to know.

---

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun

Economics 101: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

---

---

Brian Shea
http://www.PersonalBestNutrition.com
Open-Water/Masters Swimming at the Jersey Shore:
Monmouth County NJ Ocean Swim/Masters Workouts

Yes, there are too many pros. The pro field is watered down with 2nd and 3rd tier guys. The top guys in the world are the ones who I would like to see competing for all the loot
You see the 'watered down' argument in the major league sports whenever expansion is discussed. You can only have so many teams in the NFL, NHL etc before we are paying to watch minor leaguers and thats what we see at many IMs now. A couple top guns and then the rest...2nd/3rd tier Pros who are essentially real fast AGers but with more time to train

I'd be interested to see a different scenario .....
1. ZERO pro purses at any IMs but Kona points
2. Top 20 qualifiers show up to the big dance in October to compete for ohh??..a 7 million dollar purse? split between womens and men
3. Everyone -particularly top 9 - making it to the Dance takes home a nice paycheck for a year of hard work...
Winner 700
2nd 500
3rd 400
4th 350
5th 300
6th 250
7th 200
8th 150
9th 100

~ 1 million divided among remaining 11 pros... ??



.

725/700 = 3.5% increase. That's fairly in line with inflation.

Supply has gone up with more races to choose from, is demand really outdoing it? It isn't selling out like it used to, so perhaps a different price would be more appropriate.

---

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/


Just a quick google search, but looks like the entry fee is a bit higher. Also just responded to a supply and demand comment above, not sure the demand is keeping up (still not sold out), so I'm curious what the tipping point would be to bring it back to an instant sellout. Hope this isn't WTCs way of slowly stepping away from Placid.

---

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun

Nope. Not buying it. You are over estimating the value to the general public and again, most people watching the Kona coverage have NO vested interest in it, have no idea who the athletes are... It is not like someone watching baseball for a pitcher, or football for a QB...

You could have that same interview at the beginning and say "Juan Valencia - Ironman Lake Placid Champ" and it will have the same weight as "Pro triathlete"

You are too close to this... You know who the pros are, you have more ties to races, etc. The majority of the people watching the broadcast are watching it because of the IMAGE from Wide World of Sports

Now may affect how YOU perceive the broadcast, you interview people like Juan Valencia, Antonio Colom, or Samuel Murphy and it will have as much meaning to the average viewer as Sebastian Kienle, Kyle Buckingham, Cameron Brown...

Heck, play pick the Pro with Cyril Viennot, Kyle Buckingham, Sebastian Kienle, Antonio Colom, Juan Valencia, and Gilian Oriet, and to the average public probably the number one answer would be Juan Valencia...

And hell.... for some of these guys, there is probably equally compelling stories about going up against other AGers in and out at different venues, being so close to winning and bonking or having to overcome something stupid.

And yup... I am saying that to the 350 Million people in the US who don't do triathlons, they have no clue whether you have Juan Valencia - IM LP winner and Cameron Brown "pro" triathlete. Those people will also be more interested in seeing the Gordon Ramsey, Ward Hines, Kim Kardashian,or the flavor celeb of the month

There are two major errors made when discussing this topic:

1. The difference between a pro athlete and a celebrity. We've gotten used to the celebrity athlete (aka Tiger Woods), those are the ones making big plays, with lots of name recognition and lots of sponsorship potential. Athletes that can become celebrities get lots of money, the rest of them make shit (probably still more than pro triathletes). What I've noticed is that very few if any pro triathletes are able to get themselves into celebrity status, even within the triathlon community. It's fine to blame some of that on WTC, but most of it is the athlete's fault for not promoting their brand.

To really drive this point home, Lance was an athlete celebrity, and as soon as he mentioned triathlon the media took notice. There would have been bigger prizes to follow as events fought to get Lance racing against the best pros.

2. The difference between a pay check, and a prize. Do all pros that show up deserve money? Do all pros that finish deserve the same amount? As soon as we set up a tiered system based on where they place we are eventually going to have to pay someone zero. At IMLP is was 7th, but there is no correct number. Could be 10th or 20th, but then you're going to have to spread the wealth. Does someone that goes under 8 hours deserve proportionately more than someone that takes 11:30? The point here is that at least in my opinion the salary for these guys should come from sponsorship. Prizes are just that, a bonus for success.

Sorry for the spelling.

Most people were wearing club jerseys or just standard brand gear actually. Besides, I never said that pros didn't help sell gear, I said I don't believe they sell races. If I was buying a bike, does what the pros ride have any influence on my decision? Yes, a fairly minor one, but at the very least knowing that a successful pro rides it gives it some additional credibility over a bike that no pro rides. Does the presence of pros make any difference to which events I enter? None whatsoever.

That is contradictory and basically false.

If a pro riding a bike gives credibility, then they have some form of influence. A pro can influence what people wear/buy and where they race (and if you think they don't, by all means take a look at all the people kissing up to MaccaX and hashtagging the shoes, bikes, sunglasses, food and races) then that same pro coming out and saying "Mdot is a greedy company, they overcharge their participants, underpay their winners and pad their bank account" would be influential as well.

It's clearly not false, since there are plenty of large cycling, running and multisport events with no pro fields that have absolutely no problem selling all their places.

It's not contradictory either. The livelihood of pros is dependent on them being fast. Pros have way more time, motivation and resources at their disposal than I do to figure out what the fastest bike/wetsuit/shoes/nutrition/etc is (for them of course). The top pros have at least some choice in what sponsors to go with. Clearly the money on the table from a sponsor is a big factor as well, but it's reasonable to assume that there is at least some correlation between what the top pros are racing with and what the best products on the market are. Race choice is completely different. A pro chooses to race based on the prize money on offer, sponsor influence, strength of competition, whether the course suits them and how it fits with their training schedule. None of those things matter a jot to me, so they have no influence on where I race.

If WTC decided not to offer any pro prize money at certain races, then it's possible that those races would sell out more slowly if some competitors were only planning on entering so that they could hashtag Macca's shoes. On the other hand, if they used the money saved on pros to reduce the entry cost to age groupers then who knows...

You don't understand Ironmanomics yet. Let me enlighten you...

Lets say you have two races... Ironman Mont Tremblant and Ironman Lake Placid...

You make Ironman Mont Tremblant a P-3000 race with a $150K purse... same race points... a little more cash Slight bump in the middle and the end and you pay out 10 deep, or boost 1st $5K each so winner does better.

You take the AG slots at IMMT and you reduce them... more on this in a bit.

You take IMLP... Cut the purse. ZERO. NADA... ZILCH. You leave some points, less than a P-1500... Maybe make it a P-750 race... pro wants points, it is there. But... You add 25 - 30 more Kona Slots. Lets face it... You add more Kona slots.... Pros.... What pros... I may get to kona finishing 6th... Sign me up...

OR... Since AG points are coming for Roll Down.... Both IMMT and IMLP have WIN and IN for Kona, but you give 50% more points for IMLP since it doesn't have any pros.

The fan boys who care about the hype will go to IMMT because of the atmosphere and the heavy weight of pros... IMLP will sell out in minutes because the glut or better chance of getting Kona.

IMMT becomes a premium race, charges a little more, has nicer swag and is more about the pros and IMLP is meat and potatoes, but those on the Kona-Kool-aid will salivate at extra slots.

Without the pros, they can reallocate a lot of the resources, increase the entries, etc., and wind up having a slightly smaller field at IMMT a larger at IMLP and make MORE money in the process.

Ironmanomics... It aint that tough...

Unless things have changed, WTC has paid for the production costs and own all production/storylines/etc end to end (logical given how it turns out) - which, for a production of this site is quite substantial compared to the costs for a typical stadium event of equal or longer broadcast length. But it hasn't historically been clear if NBC is paying for or charging for the actual airtime slot. It is clear that WTC does a portion of the ad slot arrangements, with some also left to local affiliates and the remaining to NBC.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

???? IM was on Wide World of Sports long before there was the concept of a "pro" triathlete.

Likewise, without pros, there is still going to be a winner. Do you think the average person watching Kona on TV would blink if the winner was an 8:55 AGer instead of a 8:20 pro?

This whole IMLP thing just underscores why WTC doesn't pay pros 7 deep, the 7th place pro could not even beat the AGers

"Pro" triathletes are "pros" in name only, most of them don't perform at a high level and the IMLP 7th place prize money thing is so bush league it is hard not to feel bad for how delusional these "pros" are about their abilities and what they contribute to the sport.

The reason pro golfers, tennis players, marathoners, footballers, etc. make bank is that they add value and nobody would pay attention to these sports without them. It is not some vast conspiracy going on in IM. The AGers paying $600 entry fees are getting hosed as badly as the pros not getting much prize money. IM is youth soccer for adults, continuing to compare the general financial black hole (WTC aside) that is IM to other sports is ludicrous.

Wide world of Sports was a long long time ago. And that's been covered before. Collegiate sports and Olympics aside, what sporting events are on a network that feature just amateurs?

And anyone comparing IM pros to any of the big sports is ridiculous. Completely different worlds.

Just because Wide World of Sports was a long time ago does not mean that now no one would watch Kona on TV without the pros. Take a look at the broadcast and tell me what % of the coverage is dedicated to the pros as opposed to everyone else. The pros are mostly irrelevant to 80% of the people who watch the IM broadcast. Without name recognition and people having no concept of what a good winning time is, the broadcast would be just as popular if Joe Bonness won Kona instead of some euro dude no one knows.

Little league world series. NCAA football. NCAA basketball. Jeopardy. Many Olympic sports (swimmers are making their money off endorsements, not FINA purses. Triathletes should observe something here. If you really add value, sponsors will pay you lots of money, prize money is an afterthought. No, there is not a conspiracy, sponsors just don't derive a lot of value from triathletes).

The whole point of complaining that IM prize money is too low is based on comparing it to big sports. If not for this ridiculous comparison, what was the point of this thread? IM prize money is exactly what it deserves to be, despite incessant whining and delusions by the narcissists who compete in IM and think anyone else cares about it as much as they like watching monster trucks, pro fishing derbys and lumberjack games. Yes, that is the actual objective popularity level of IM triathlon and that is probably being generous.

That would be a complete showstopper ;-) And I don't fight fires anymore either (or at least not literally)...
People want heroes and drama. I am not a hero and fortunately my life has very little drama (apart from the occasional little statement)
Sam
samgyde.com

Just because Wide World of Sports was a long time ago does not mean that now no one would watch Kona on TV without the pros. Take a look at the broadcast and tell me what % of the coverage is dedicated to the pros as opposed to everyone else. The pros are mostly irrelevant to 80% of the people who watch the IM broadcast.

I haven't read all the comments, but it appears that many of you are not making much sense.

Of course having the top triathletes in the world competing in the Ironman World Championships is extremely important. Else you don't have an event. You can have an amateur race, or a race that features mediocre pros, but it isn't going to be a World Championship (even if they call it that) and it isn't going to garner near the attention and $$$ it does now.

Of course they don't care if some mediocre pros are upset about the prize money. They don't need *them*... at all. So long as they can entice the Best athletes in the world who have a shot at winning, all is good.

To force the issue of higher prizes for the mediocre pros, the *Top* Pros would need to organize and boycott. *They* are the ones the WTC cares about and you can be damn sure they care a lot.

But... the best athletes are highly unlikely to organize and fight for pros farther down the ranks, especially since it would mean jeopardizing their own sponsorships and careers. So here we are...