yeah, why can't tri pros earn money like golf pros? outrage.

is golf really more exciting on TV?


edit: there is sarcasm in this post.

I Agree. Too bad another race series cant/wont create a series world championship of their own and create some competition to draw the top talent. Wtc is a corporation leveraging their ownership of IMHawaii for their own good. They dont give a care about developing the sport at the elite end. They just want more and more participants paying their insane race fees to check "finish an ironman(r)" and/or "race"' kona off their bucket list. Run an actual legitimate race series where professionals can actually make a living (aside from the top 8 in the world)? No need/desire/use for that in WTCs eyes. Theyre just leveraging the crap out of the luster of the "Ironman" and its working. I dont see anything on the horizon that would indicate a change to this.

Really? Gold may not be more exciting BUT WAY MORE people watch an play gold than Tri. If the triathletes competing aren't happy with the prize money then stop doing it! It's been said many times; triathlon is a HORRIBLE spectator sport. Spectators = Exposure (tv etc) = $$$ their profit is mostly from events and merch I'm sure not money that pros are primarily responsible for bringing in.

Hypothetical; If WTC stopped pro prize money like Rev3 would the sport dissolve away and not exist?

---

"Base training is bull shit" - desertdude

Far more people are willing to watch golf, and ads. I know that's hard for people here to accept. The world doesn't owe pro athletes big money; it comes from fat television contracts. IM pros will be paid big money when the major broadcast networks are bargaining for the rights to IMLOU. Until then, ST will be filled with whining threads like this.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Check into how much the USTA earns versus US open tennis purse.
The USTA earns billions. Also the USTA earns $210 million just from the US open tourney.

More out of whack than Kona, but I agree Kona should be higher.

Its clear by your argument that you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. You also don't understand dividends and what they just did.

You might want to brush up on your business acumen before you throw out those numbers in outrage.

When you state, revenues, I'm assuming you mean top line gross revenue. Obviously you have to factor in the costs of putting on each and every race during the year. Don't forget about SG&A costs such as marketing, finance salaries, other back office operations etc.

I'm not saying they can't afford to increase the prize purse at Kona but what I'm trying to get at is: comparing the prize purse to gross revenue is really not all that meaningful.

methinks people have missed your sarcasm. try pink next time I guess...

Revenue is not profit. Without knowing their costs we have no way of knowing if they are profitable or not. It's possible that they are running at a loss. For example, Amazon had revenue of $20 Billion in the first quarter, but only had a net income of $108 million.

I agree that taking $240 million out as a loan to pay themselves a dividend might be questionable.

x2.

---

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

This +1

The $240 MM dividend through levering up is on page one of the private equity play-book. The guys that run WTC had very little to do with it--Providence, their PE owner drove that. From my perspective, Providence has been killing it with the WTC--growing it 7-fold and greatly strengthening their leadership team. The dividend recap is a natural move for them and is one of the ways they make money for all the LPs who invested with them with the expectation they would enhance the value of businesses and return much of that value to the investors....

The OP may have an issue with the WTC being run like a business but I personally find capitalism to be a pretty powerful economic construct and am thankful for the prosperity that it has helped drive in our country....

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I think they "make" about 25 to 30 million in profit. Obviously you do not understand the difference between revenues and net profit. Look it up. It is possible they lose money, but that is not the case now and they make just about what most companies shoot for 10% to 20%. And that is a really good company, some like grocery stores make 1% to 2%.

FWIW, the PGA tour spent a long time building awareness and building a brand. The sport was and still is relevant to baby boomers. The country-club set is a very desirable demographic to market to. That said, it is now on the decline along with the sport of golf. It hasn't shown up in the television contracts or the purses for PGA tour events.... yet.... but it will. IIRC, the PGA tour sells air rights to tournaments five years at a time and that rolls again in '15. To be a title sponsor the minimum period has been either seven or eight years and a lot of those roll in '15-'18. I'm friends with a gentleman that sits on the board of CVS. He told me that the PGA tour approached them to be the title sponsor of a tournament for something like $15mil/year. He said that, internally, they valued that package at $4mil/year. Also, look at what PGA tour pros get in sponsorship money. Circa '02-'04, if you had your tour card you were guaranteed $1mil/year in sponsor contracts. I know a couple guys with conditional status (somewhere between 125 and 160 on the money list) who just get free equipment. I'm friendly with one tour pro... who will remain unnamed... who has stayed between 30th and 80th on the money list since getting his card ~12years ago. He's a staple name. He used to make $3-4mil/year now he barely clears $1mil.

tl;dr: the rise and decline of a sport takes a long time. Purses at events like Kona will rise in time but I think you'll see individual pros like Carfrae and Jorgensen start bringing in big bucks in sponsor contracts first.

I understand that you are talking prize money but keep in mind that pro's can earn extra from there sponsors based upon their finish place. Tinley talked some about this in one of his books. I agree that triathlon prize money is pathetic but I can also see prize money for some other sports being exorbitant.

Who is declining to race Kona because of insufficient prize money and what would he/ she add to the race?

Well played, sir.

Well played.

If your complaint is that the pros should get paid more, how about starting a crowd funding campaign? I would contribute to that.
If your complaint is that WTC should pay the pros more, I'm not sure how we can change things other than to shame WTC with a crowd funding campaign.

Q: How do you get a pro triathlete off your porch?
A: Pay for the pizza

/

---

Gary Mc
Did I mention I did Kona

Monty--this is a minor point but grocery stores (and other businesses such as distribution) have low sale's margins (profit/revenue) but have high asset turnover (revenue/assets). As such, return on assets (ROA) and (in most cases) return on equity (ROE) for top grocery companies are comparable to ROA/ROE for top companies with higher sales margins but lower asset turnover (higher asset intensity)....

For example, Tiffany's might have a 50% margin on it's revenue but it has the bling hanging around a long time and it has lots of expensive stores to showcase them. So it might have a ROS of 50% but S/A of just 0.4 for an ROA of 20% while WalMart might have a ROS of 5% but S/A of 4 for the same 20% ROA--different business models with similar bottom line results.

Capital markets, both public and private, tend to reward (over the long-run) companies on ROE (ROA) and not ROS. (Theoretically, they value companies on a discounted value of anticipated future cash flows (DCFNPV)--the discount rate taking into account the cost of capital and the perceived risk of the cash flows relative to a low risk asset such as T-bills)....

The above is not entirely accurate and far from complete but this is a Triathlon Forum so I didn't want to be any more boring than I am in these 3 short paragraphs...

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

+1. WTC has no reason to offer more prize money, because people are clambering to get into the race as is. Nobody pays more for a good or service (in this case, to get top competitors to participate and to fill all open slots) than they have to. And aside from whatever other motives the top pros have to participate in Kona (such as the pure satisfaction of winning the iconic race in the sport), one reason they all want to is that placing well there earns them more in the way of sponsor fees.

If the pros want more prize, they need to market themselves. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, PGA all market the individuals, on TV. They create a large fan base. That means a humongous TV contract. Which then translates into advertising dollars which all of this then flows down to the pros.

So unless the pros can figure a way to get the public to care, to follow them, they are getting what they should. Minimal. And that won't happen until it becomes TV friendly, and unlikely event. Contrast that with soccer. In Europe, it is the most popular sport. The TV rights are huge. Heck, I pay for it here in the U.S. The top players make north of $40 mill per year, plus endorsements. In the U.S. soccer is of a poor quality and struggles. The players are paid very low contracts. I recall the MLS average is $30k.

WTC doesn't make the bulk of it's money from broadcast rights. They are made from the Joe Schmo's (me, me, me) who are willing to pay their fees to take on the IM challenge. Why should they pay more to the pros UNLESS the pros can generate more revenue for them?

As a Joe Schmo, I don't follow the pros. I don't care about the pros. I don't care whether they make substantial money or merely subsist. They aren't a factor in my participation in the sport. If they want more, they need to be of more value.

I'd love to see a consolidating P&L on WTC. I've always wondered which races are the cash cows and which ones just get by. I've always wondered if Kona is a big money maker.

You know who's got two thumbs and doesn't care..... THIS GUY!

Exactly. Hell...one year I raced IMLP there were no pro men. It was when WTC was alternating between having pro male and female fields (remember that experiment?). I did not even know it until the next day when some one pointed it out to me. If Rev 3 has been diminshed by the lack of any pro purses, it would be news to me, since I have not seen any complaints. The pros seem like really nice people. Some a very inspirational. But I could not even tell you who one three triathlons in the last three years. Pros are marketing devices for wheel, clothing and bike manufacturers. Since I have never bought a product because it was endorsed by a pro, they have no value to me. The first results I look at when I go the results page are those in my age group. To be honest, the way times for some of the older athletes are improving, I find their performances far more compelling.

Think about this...Bill Rogers and Frank Shorter were amateurs. Weren't the Olympics MUCH more fun when amateurs competed?