Huh. You and I had pretty much the same thought, and posted it at pretty much the same time. Great minds . . .

Maybe dividends would be slightly more fitting imo because there's a bigger choice involved in giving the cash back to the people or not and because as you mentioned, as compared to the government with taxes, WTC does profit from the cash it receives from us. In the finance world people will often complain incessantly about companies not paying a dividend and even more so when they cut back or stop paying a dividend, which I should add is usually a sign of hard times and/or restructuring.

Edit: Spelling.

Edit: I should add for clarity that the distinction lies in the fact that taxes are collected to be redistributed to the benefit of the taxpayers and in theory should cease to exist if no benefit is returned while dividends are optional and buying a stake in a company i.e. giving it your money doesn't guarantee getting something in return in the form of a dividend of some sort.

another way of looking at it might be stock versus mutual insurance companies. a mutual is a cooperative. no profits. an administrative fee, but, no profits. a stock company does have the right to earn a profit.

both exist, both thrive, or they don't, pretty much equally. the mutual doesn't have the profit motive, and that's good and bad.

to me, the issue with ironman is whether they take too much profit, whether they return an appropriate amount for "paying claims."

where i'm going to fall afoul of some readers is that i just don't think it's ironman's responsibility to support the pros. rather, to support the registrants. that's its job. my question is whether no money at lake placid supports the registrants and stakeholders of that race. it's a big gamble. ironman isn't taking money away from its series, rather it's redistributing it, and i think in this case ironman might be thinking too much about the welfare of its pros and not enough about the welfare of its races that are getting their money stripped.

i actually am in support of ironman's decision to throttle back the money at some races, to the point where i and therealstarky are at odds. i don't think low money at IMLP is bad, if there's high money somewhere else, and if that high money is at a race that deserves it. what concerns me is no money at placid. not because of the hardship to the pros, but because of the eventual effect on the race itself.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Personally I don't think every local 10K needs a prize purse and every triathlon does not need a prize purse or pro field. But at some magnitude of running race you kind of need a prize purse and pro field to round out the package to the "constituents", they being the citizen racer. That threshold is where an event crosses the line from "organized group exercise with results" to "a show". The former is your local low key event. We have one every weekend where I live (could be a tri, running, race, XC ski race or cycling race). But we only have so many "show" events per year across sports and they all have a pro field and prize purse of sorts.

My view is that WTC is not in the business of "organized group exercise sessions with results". Their races are more in the "show" category. Their events are those that people wrap an entire year of planning , travel and vacation around....so yes, like you, I think their "show events" would be better with a small prize field and token pro race (ex: Louisville this weekend) than none at all.

We have a new WTC event locally with no pro field at Muskoka. I hope the event sells out without pros. IMLP has its ironman legacy to lean on and has already sold out. Muskoka without a pro field is a bit better than Bahrain without a pro field, because Muskoka has some legacy as an event location including hosting ITU World's. But still, it MAY be a harder sell. Let's see what the market says. Perhaps you and I are both wrong on this one though, and WTC is able to redistribute its prize purses and concentrate its pro field at premium offering races, while only offering its Mdot, logo, race production and Kona qual slots at other races that still sell out.

I think we're basically on the same page. I agree with your cautious views on WTC's pro prize purse changes, although I would suggest the motive for the changes has nothing to do with pro well-being and more to do with WTC looking to create more saleable names that it can use to squeeze profits out of its goodwill. There is more value to Ironman in having O'Donnell, Kienle, Carfrae and Joyce all race each other two or three times a year than in having the 60th, 75th and 120th pro out there winning prize money. May as well be unpaid age groupers. Which is who they will now have winning most of their races.

I think the risk to the sport of cutting off prize money at some of the unheralded races is that you do cut off a route for the non-ITU long course pro to develop. I'm thinking of the Heather Wuerteles and Rachel Joyces of the world who did not come up through ITU and then spring off into long course. I think what this means is that WTC is basically going to allow ITU to be its development channel. Then the few stars that make the jump will feed long course and WTC won't have to pay to develop in-house stars. The Dochertys and Frodenos will come over with a following to start with. Whether that will be good or bad for participants is hard to say.

Warriors provide protection. I am not quite sure what it is that pros provide for the triathlon community?

Warriors provide protection. I am not quite sure what it is that pros provide for the triathlon community?//

Same thing really, protection from all your age group egos. Just imagine what this sport would be like with runaway AG egos, chaos…..

Not really sure what this is intended to mean. It was a pretty simple question.

And answered, pretty simply.

Then I don't think the protection is worth a whole lot. Maybe a couple thousand per race?

I would love it if I could just do what I love all day long and get paid lots of money for it. I know many people who would love the same thing. But this is akin to complaining that your English or Philosophy degree isn't providing you with a decent income. Of course it isn't. If you had done any research you would know that those degrees, while they may be interesting to you, don't command a reasonable salary.

The pros knew the salary coming in. I understand them trying to improve their earnings as anyone in their position would do. But they arguably bring no value to races. WTC races sell out quickly and would continue to sell out quickly even if pros were totally absent. Maybe a couple slowtwitch-types would be upset, but who cares. Becoming a full-time pro and complaining about earnings is like buying a lottery ticket and complaining you only won $2 instead of the big prize. Or quitting school to focus on basketball. Big potential upside, but an extremely low chance of achieving it.

Do these races because you enjoy them. Lots of us make sacrifices, like choosing a well-paying career that prevents us from training for our hobby like a full-time pro would. Because I assume pros really love doing triathlons, I'm sure they get a huge quality of life/satisfaction boost from being a pro and training full time. That is, until their later years when they may be plagued with bad knees, no health insurance, and dwindling savings while trying to start some sort of coaching program to make money. Coaching programs to former pro triathletes are like car dealerships to former pro football players.

That said, I do legitimately feel sorry for the pros. Even the big winners don't do as well a traditionally well-paid profession and only a very select few are able to consistently do well for a short time and then build a brand around themselves that keeps revenues coming even after they're no longer able to compete at their level (i.e. Macca).

Regarding the "warrior" metaphor, it's really not the same. Farmers clearly benefited from protection, which was necessary to survive. I went to the actual frontpage and read the article the quote came from to get some context. Basically, it just states that it allows some people to be faster so the rest of us mortals know where we stand with respect to those faster people. It doesn't seem well thought out (and cites a thoroughly debunked popular fiction book). When I'm 50th overall at an IM or HIM, I compare myself to the other amateurs. Not to the pros. I don't care even a little how any pro outside the top 3 did, and I only care about those top few pros fleetingly as kind of a "oh, neat I guess" moment. I am 100x more impressed with the 1st OA amateur going 9:04 than I am by the 1st OA (who is a pro) going 8:04. It's slightly interesting to see people go under 8 hours at IMs, but not worth any kind of money to see.

There's just really no value to the vast majority of us in larger prize purses (or, any prize purses). Just to the pros themselves obviously. And of course to the people creating the issue and writing articles about it to generate more controversy where there was none to drive more page clicks and ad revenue (i.e. to the people selling the picks and shovels, as the metaphor goes).

"But they arguably bring no value to races. WTC races sell out quickly and would continue to sell out quickly even if pros were totally absent."

i hear this made by some inside the ironman company. and that's pretty scary. it's naive in the extreme, and ignores history.

using your same logic, you could get rid of the course marshals at an ironman race and the races would still sell out. you could cut the porta potties by half and the races would still sell out. but for how long? at some point your brand will begin to erode and then you'll be in real trouble, because an eroding brand is a big ship to turn.

"Regarding the "warrior" metaphor, it's really not the same."

the point was not "warrior", the point was specialization. both the warrior and the farmer are specialists, and you'll never see the best in farming, or in fighting, unless a society of warrior/farmers decides to segregate themselves into one or the other. our sport's history shows us that we're no different than every other sport. a half-dozen years ago 4 of the 6 largest participant triathlons in the U.S. are no longer here anymore. they're just gone. there are two things they did not have: men; and prize money. they clearly did not need men, because the danskin series grew to its size precisely because it lacked men.

there were 2 things wrong with that series. first, the races were not run as a business, rather as a marketing vehicle for the parent company. second, it reached that point where it needed to take the next step, mature, provide all the segmentation of performers and performances, figureheads, leaders, and it did not do that.

danskin is a cautionary tale. if we did not have dave scott, mark allen and the rest, triathlon would have been a blip. we're not in danger of becoming a blip again because the money is not going away. but each discrete race that charges $700 for an entry, plus a very hefty site fee, yet tries to danskin its way to success, might go the same way as danskin.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

A lot of people, including myself, enjoy following along and watching the careers of pros. It might not be a great spectator sport, but there is still something about professional triathlon that clearly a lot of amateur triathletes enjoy reading about, watching races when they can, following their favorite pros on twitter, seeing what their training is like, having the opportunity to talk to them at races, etc etc.

And these people that enjoy following the pros are often times the same people who are ambassadors in the sport on an amateur level. The people who participate in triathlon clubs, group rides, social events, make the community fun to be a part of, and indirectly influence people from all walks of life to want to do a triathlon. They are the indirect guerilla marketers that drive race entries and sell products.

Even though a lot of racers might be one-and-done types, those are not the people that keep the triathlon community alive. It's the people who stay in the sport for a long time. And these are the people who enjoy watching pros.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
my strava

100% agree on everything above.

I disagree with the bold. As a bop/mop age grouper the highlighted contributes to the overall race experience for me and I will guess 95% of the other participants. Having pros at the race means absolutely nothing to me and contributes zero to the race event/experience.

I agree with what was posted above by greatland regarding my decision to attend a particular race based on the pros attending. More impressed by what others in my age group are able to do then a professional.

I wouldn't look at it as a tax paid to the pros but rather as a tax paid to the sport. It lifts the entire sport when there are outstanding pros doing amazing things in the sport. Much like it elevates the sport when it is in the Olympics.

I may disagree with how much focus USAT puts on the Olympics but I still think there needs to be some focus. Pros and Olympic athletes are a good thing, it separates us from Warrior Dashes and Mud Runs.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Dan, can you give details on why you thought WTS San Diego failed? The ITU guys agreed to a 3 year deal but left after 2. Supposedly they were asking the city for 1 million dollars and/or couldnt land a big enough sponsor. I am still disappointed at the loss of this race here, it is the perfect venue in the birth place of triathlon. I feel this is on par with the NHL moving teams out of canada down south... and in turn NHL viewership has dropped big time.

"Dan, can you give details on why you thought WTS San Diego failed?"

are you asking what my evidence is that it was a financial failure? or are you stipulating that it was a financial failure and you're wondering why i think the race didn't do better?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't neccessarily agree with all points in your post (what slowman said about Danskin is my cautionary note to WTC too), I do agree that pro triathletes know full well, like a philosophy major that doing what you love may not result in a great paycheque. That is known to anyone with a brain coming in. Heck, I studied engineering, even though I wanted to do Physical Education because I knew I could make a lot more $$$ with my brain than my body. Lots of people the world over pass over what is more fun, with what makes more $$$ so they can get $$$ and do what is fun for a hobby. So on that note, I agree....you can have money or you can have time, but it is hard to have both. Most pro triathletes have chosen more free time and quality of life for less $$$. That's their choice. The reality is that being a pro triathlete does not offer that much value to society so it gets paid less than a doctor, an entertainer, a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter etc. Each of these trades has a value that people will open their wallet for. Aside from the top tier of triathletes, who can loosely slot in at the very bottom end of the "entertainer category". Crowie will never entertain people like Messi, although his 8:04 in Kona is entertaining in an inspiring way to many triathletes and so sponsors who sell stuff to people like us will pay him something for those somewhat entertaining heroics. The guy going 8:40 at Kona does not provide a utilitarian role in society like a carpenter, and does not fall into the entertainer category, so they are in this category that essentially gets no pay. Tough predicament but along the lines of "the market has spoken, a sprint triathlon is worth $19K", the market also speaks and an 8:40 at Kona has no value to society, inside and outside the triathlon world. Its really a tough bind if you are one of the guys fast enough to be way sub 9, but not close to 8:0x!.

both, I did stipulate my findings but you may know more.

I don't think we're at odds. I'm not opposed to shifting dollars around in order to create championship caliber events. Every single event doesn't have to have a purse, in my opinion. I just think the ones without a purse will suck. Read this. I quoted you. http://www.therealstarky.com/...ace-in-louisville-ky

---

Website
Contact me for Huub and Falco Discounts

I would a bit disagree with that . Given the fact that obesity is costing Goverments bilions and bilions .... Its the world class pros the local pros etc that inspire amateures, the amateurs inspire their kids so the whole chain inspires young kids to train. While people might not be as inclined to open their wallet for this, the more people do sport the better it is and I think we can see it in the uk where with Wellington and the brownlees ther is acatually Triathletes that are(were) close to be household names the sport is getting very popular. and race organizers profit from wellington and the brownlees.
It might be more coveted but the benefit for socity is defo there.
and lets not forget Wellington wanted to quit the sport before she won hawaii as she struggled with money, Craig Alexander falls in a similar category ...
So some of the biggest people in the sport where almost forced to give up , and this is not good for a sport for sponsors race organizers and the Industry as whole.

But I totally agree price money is not the only issue and for a top tier pro prize money should be more like a Bonus to their earings. but for the development pro price money is massively important

Ditto that, when I entered my first Ironman race in Austria (admittedly new to, and somewhat ignorant of, the sport) I researched feedback from amateurs on what it was like to race there, and what it was like as a holiday destination for the kids, and was probably only vaguely aware that any pros would be competing. I did however take interest in the fact that I would be able to grab a drink, ride on closed roads, have the assistance of volunteers and take a dump if I needed to. They were important factors to me. So I don't think that is the same at all.

But now that I'm in to the sport I love watching the pros and wish they could all be paid a bit more. But our sport is a bit strange, isn't it? That the prize money comes from entry fees from folks also taking part in these same races. Doesn't really happen in many other sports. I've never paid to have a kickabout at Old Trafford, and yet the Manchester United first time are areally well paid. That is because people pay to WATCH, and the majority of that money isn't even from the folks in the stadium but the subscribers to the sports channels that pay the Premier League for the TV rights. And the advertising during those shows which create product awareness and encourage people to buy stuff. The problem with this sport is the same problem that ladies cricket faces in the UK - not that many people want to pay to watch it, however committed and talented the professionals are.

Or at least that is how it seems to me.

But I do wish they would pay them more money. Thankfully in the UK our top tier triathletes (for ITU racing, at least) are paid salaries, however meagre. And that is paid through membership fees to the sports' governing body, and through sports committee lottery funding and whatnot. Same with track cyclists. These guys then bolster their income through sponsorships and event prize purses, I guess. But it's a tough old life on the way up. It's athletes like Jessica Ennis who blow my mind, training to that level in an amateur sport where there isn't really any income until you reach the very pinnacle of your sport.

I agree about the value of top end pros and trickle down benefits to society. It was a pleasant surprise when some work colleagues and business associates in England actually knew Alistair Brownlee's London Olympic run split and was saying that it could be competitive with open runners over 10,000m. Clearly this was reported in the mainstream UK press and was a topic of chatter in the regular population who knows nothing about triathlon other than that he had to swim 1500 and bike 40K before his 10,000m race. They knew his name, they knew the distances, they knew the order of events and the outcome. But when you think about it, this falls into the category of Brownlee providing entertainment with his heroics. No one is talking about Harry Wiltshire for example. But guys like Harry pull in the next tier of age groupers who pull in more and so on. It is just that this trickle down effect is hard to quantify for a race director or sponsor who have to open their wallet for the larger good of growing the sport...easier to let someone else pay.

Close to home, I agree about the trickle down effect. Back in my time Pierre Harvey with a summer and winter Olympian in Canada. He was a road race cyclist and World Cup Winning XC skier. He also raced tris in the summer and was winning every race in Eastern Canada. I met him at my first tri race in 85, after he had raced the both Sarajevo Olympics (XC skiing) and LA Olympics (cycling domestique for Steve Bauer's silver). He actually spent 20 min talking me after the race about sport (I was 19 then and studying engineering and Pierre also an engineer). That day really got me hooked on both sports. I lost track of how many adults and kids I have pulled into both sports (including a Canadian Olympian who I had to beg to just try her first tri...), but that was what sparked things for a 19 year old. The top end Canadian tri pros had to live up to the elite bar that Pierre was setting for them, because he was coming out of two sports that were already professional. Professional triathlon was just really starting around here. Soon they were surpassing him, because even though he had pro tour caliber bike legs and was in the range of a 31 min 10K runner, he could barely break 20 minutes for 1000m swimming. Those were the early days of triathlon when you had pros from other sports, hoping in and setting a bar for multi sport guys. Same deal with John Howard in the US. I'm just using this ancient example to show how top end pros matter/ed. In he early days, they were guys from other sports.

Then we developed our own heros like Allan, PNF, Erin Baker, Scott, Molina etc. Molina literally put the entire USTS on the map himself. He basically raced his ass off every weekend all over the country from 1985-1988 and won. The USTS made big time triathlon racing possible for the average man. 1.5K swim 40K bike, 10k run, a race a weekend in every big city in the US, and Molina was the star that sucked everyone in. USTS racing was literally more prestigious than Ironman because Kona did not have prize money yet.

But in the end, the guys who really get paid are the very top end in the entertainer category. The guys who are cannon fodder further down the results, it is harder for them to make a living off prize money alone. Race directors and sponsors get value out of the stars....but the guys a few tiers down, the RD's need them there so the stars have someone that is someone recognizable to beat. That's really the only value they provide to the RD.

It's tough because I think we all recognize the trickle down effect from the top of the pyramid, to 2nd tier fast pros, to fast FOP age groupers, to lifestyle mid pack athletes to new blood. But no one wants to pay the second tier fast pros for being fast....however, further down the pyramid, people will pay them to coach, to assist in camps to run group workouts, to rub shoulders with the guy who was in the race to Hawi with Crowie and Kienle. So I think that until someone can break into the very top, they need to understand their place in the chain and access revenue opportunities that leverages that position outside prize money alone.