Have you watched a Bob Babbitt interview before?

Don't expect anything earth shattering. Bob is a great guy but he is a terrible journalist. He never asks hard/leading questions or follow up questions when someone softballs something up there for him.

And Messick wouldn't accept an interview if he didn't already know what he's going to be asked.

---

blog

I agree with you re. his style and that it's insane to expect these questions from him, but I don't think that makes him a terrible journalist. Or even a journalist for that matter. He's just a "TV" host that has a very specific approach. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

I thought bob owned part of ironman university.

So I doubt he will ever ask messick a real question.

Messick is a scum bag.

---

I doubt Bob would ask those questions, but they are very important ones nonetheless! I don't see why he couldn't ask those questions though, they are fair game.

Professional prize money has stagnated and even decreased for many years now (without counting inflation which makes it even worse). It is especially annoying for us PRO's considering that Ironman is a very profitable business and they only give back around 3% of their revenue to PRO's! Compare that to NBA (45%), NFL (50%), PGA (75%) and ATP Tennis (75%) and you can see that triathletes are getting straight f*****.

Ironman charges very high entry fees for you AGE GROUP athletes, and has a pretty bad refund/ cancellation policy. They use those enormous entry fees for nothing really, just to have the highest revenue possible, which I understand is the goal of a business, but PRO's are worth much more than 3% of their business! Going back in history, the Iron War, the legends of the sport, past and present, contribute enormously to Ironman's popularity and awareness in the world which is huge for their business. An increase in prize money would help professionals live from the sport, show that they're less greedy, and legitimize the whole process for anyone in triathlon.

It is especially annoying for us PRO's considering that Ironman is a very profitable business and they only give back around 3% of their revenue to PRO's! //

You really think so?? I mean the Chinese paid almost a billion dollars for this company, I doubt that there is any profit after servicing that debt. And it may take a decade for the actual value of the company to catch up with the purchase price(if it ever does), just like the last buyer had to wait for the bigger sucker to get out of their hole. Not sure there are any more bigger suckers out there though, who can swallow a whale??


Anyway Messick does not own ironman, and he answers to folks that are very pissed off now that they know they got hornswoggled into a really bad deal. As long as you all show up and race for less and less prize money, they will think it is ok to cut it. You willing to take a stand yet? Of course not, where you gonna go, and unless you can get most of your peers to do the same, it will be business as usual, until you are racing for 1985 money in 2020...

So why then do pros continue to race with WTC when far greater race companies have come in before, offered great purses and many pros still would choose WTC.

If the pros really left or dropped racing WTC so much and went to Challenge (had the chance with REV 3), etc. would WTC still survive? I think so.

WTC doesn't value pros because they do not need to value pros.

Until Kona doesn't stay what it is right now nothing will change.

Unfortunately many pros stick with WTC because they want to do Kona, thus keeping WTC and Ironman relevant and desirable for everyone.

Yet another pro triathlete who doesn't understand how the world works. Stick to what you're good at - swim, bike and run.

You are a total a-hole. A pro comes on this forum and makes a cohesive and cogent case for more money for pros, and you invoke the typical capitalist BS to dismiss him. You should suck it and go back behind the rock you crawled out from.

Hi Rudy, I have not rolled up the totals this year, but a few years ago WTC gave out more in Ironman prize money than the Tour De France gave out over 21 stages. Not saying that the ASO should not give out more money to pro riders, but I think that's a better comparison point than the NFL. People pay to go watch the NFL. Only age group triathletes "pay" to go watch pros in the sense that we buy box seats to the pro race that happens while we race. But we're not there just to kind of get a glimpse of you, Lionel, Frodo etc. We're there to exercise with a time clock and the pro race is a benefit that comes with the package....so that's probably why WTC can give you 3% of the gate vs pro team sports giving away 45%+ because at the team sport events, the fans are there for nothing else other than watching the pros....the age groupers who pay to be in the tri stadium, we're doing a whole lot of other things with our entry fee....let's say we are doing 15 other things other than watching the pros, then one fifteenth of 45% is down at 3%. I think this is the problem of being a pro athlete in a participation sport.

You disagree with my tone. Fair enough. But this really made me laugh.

Weak

So what are you good at? Please inform us why you chose to respond to his comments in that manner.

Unfortunately many pros stick with WTC because they want to do Kona, thus keeping WTC and Ironman relevant and desirable for everyone.

--------

It was an company that was a major sponsor for Rev3 events that gave more sponsor bonuses to pros for WTC events and no sponsor kickback from the very events it was one of the leading sponsors for....something about that makes no sense to me, but that's where pros are.

Pros stick with IM/WTC because it has the industry following and yes that's mainly because of Kona.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

 As long as you all show up and race for less and less prize money, they will think it is ok to cut it. You willing to take a stand yet? Of course not, where you gonna go, and unless you can get most of your peers to do the same, it will be business as usual,

--------

It's been analyzed and studied by people far smarter than me, that in almost all "athletic union stoppages" the actual people that take a stand rarely ever see the actual benefits from it, it's the next generation of athletes that see the real benefit from the stand. It's even worse when your talking independent contractors in a weak ass money sport like triathlon....So you can suggest they take a stand for more money, but in reality they are only eating into their own profit to help the next guy coming up have it better. That's a hard ask when your an athlete in a very time sensitive career. Father time is undefeated so far.....this aint an 30 year accounting career. This can be a 3/5/10 year "career".

ETA: Look at Frodo, he's been in IM for what 4-5 years and I'm already hearing talks of retiring. Some have the great life like NZ'er cant think of his name whos plugging along at what 45+ years old..Cam Brown? or something like that. It's even harder when you have no real union to back you and.

In reality it's not even fighting WTC. The reason all these big industry sports are successful and powerful is because they are needed. Pros I certainly think are needed, but more as a "business" expense need for WTC..not as a sole reason like the NFL needs to players, etc. So the pros could do a 2 year work stoppage in Kona until they get better money, and it's only going to improve a degree. It's not going to be earth shattering, thus is it worth it for an LC pro to miss 1 out 7 chances in his life for marginal gains. The pros have "no hand" essentially. I certainly think they are needed to showcase as the big cog in this IM wheel, but they are only a cog in that WTC has 5 other cogs that make it all work. And that's no fault of the pros. That's simply the reality when your sport has almost zero revenue from media appeal. ESPN or Fox or FX isnt battling in board rooms to get them on their media stations. That's where the big money and the need for player unions really comes in handy.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I think we are off topic here but keep in mind that IRONMAN isn't necessarily profitable.
3.2.0
Wanda overpaid dearly for this sinking ship; Providence Equities paid $85M and seven years later Wanda paid $650M for it. And last year they adsorbed Competitor Group/ Rock 'n' Roll which was a mercy purchase (debt relief buyout).
And also keep in mind that it wasn't long ago that Competitor Group cut their entire Pro prize field and purses only to back pedal and offer travel compensation once they got hammered by a PR nightmare.
WTC/Wanda/IM only cares about collecting your money to make up for the stupid price the Chinese paid for them. So giving money out to Pros is the least of their concerns. And don;t think Amazon is paying much for this one and done title partnership that will deliver them no sales of their crap protein.

I'm unsure how you could Unionize an individual athlete sport where the athletes have to go in front of sponsorhip boards and sell themselves. Prize money is nothing unless you win the big one, you have to get sponsors to feed yourself. If you win the big one, that sponsorship is even greater for your bottom line.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I'm not sure your average AGer wandering around with an Mdot tattoo on their calf even knows who Dave Scott or Mark Allen are; they just want the bragging rights and that tattoo for their social media.

---

29 years and counting

What is the average lifespan of sponsors as the title sponsor in Kona now? What about course sponsors?

In the last 10 years we've had Ford, Amazon, GoPro, IcyHot, wasn't wheaties one for a year?

No you couldn't, that's why I used "" around "athletic union strike" because in tri there is no union whereas in the major money sports there are, and when you break union lines you honestly would have hell to pay (you are essentially black marked).


Sports with unions only have unions because both sides are needed. NFL and their media partners needs the players or there is no product. Same for MLB same for hockey, etc etc....and there is huge incentive for an union- media money. That's the only reason why any sport makes money- media rights.

So in that aspect, especially in LC racing- the pros have "no hand". They are needed to a small degree but they are also only needed to a small degree, so they are dispensable in terms of giving them "shit" pay.


Now I think there can be a market for ITU/DL style media broadcasts. I think there could be a French Grand Prix style in the U.S. if the sport continues to grow. The only drawback I see is that ITU triathlon is far too international and thus traveling back and forth from the U.S. to Europe 4 times or 5 times in a summer is going to be hell on the athlete and create bad product (But if the product really did get media backing, they would likely have more incentive to stay in U.S. and race the U.S. series even more than the WTS events....could do just enough to keep strong points standings). I sat there and watched MLT this past weekend and I spoke with 2 very highly international elite coaches who think MLT is good for atleast 5 years to showcase their product. In just the 1 year from May of 2017 to Oct 2018, I've seen a tremendous growth in the racing and the caliber of athlete. So that's the *only* avenue I ever see in making it in triathlon. And with sports being 24/7 these days, content is always on the docket, so new channels like ESPN + could be a great media partner for something like that.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I would disagree with this. I think those two are very well known and recognizable to anyone doing IM and emulate the spirit of why they originally signed up (the tattoo comes later). I would think the average AGer would not know/cares who Bob Babbitt is or this topic at hand about prizes, or what pro races what event.

There are unions in that instance because the athlete's involved are employed by the clubs through contracts and collectively bargained rights.

There are no unions in triathlon because there are no employers. Everyone is an independent contractor. This distinction matters.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Sure and the unions have power. WTC could "employee" the pros and it wouldn't matter. Well it would matter in that they could then unionize and go after "working conditions" but then that wouldn't affect their pay. So because there is no real money being changed hands, etc there isn't much need for it from either side. WTC has no incentive to employee the pros, the pros have no real "bargaining" chips.

ETA: But this is missing the point, because whether it's an union strike or the tri pros independently agree to "strike", those that go on strike don't always see the direct benefits of said strike. Some may, but what if this is your last year likely? Do you do it for the "betterment" of the pros, when no one before you acted that way on your behalf?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

If you're a professional triathlete, you don't want WTC to be your employer. It means they dictate your race schedule, limit potential sponsorships, etc. As you mention, you might then be able to negotiate some other terms under collective bargaining, but the bad outweighs the good.

You need something else beyond "I'm fast, please give me dollars." And to the person above - I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if Mark Allen were to walk around the expo at IMLou this weekend that he might get recognized fewer than 10 times. To most individual athletes, the race that matters is their own. There's ways to market professionals well beyond just the results because results, on their own, fade unless you leave a massive legacy behind. There's better / deeper stories that will resonate with people and generate greater interest. (E.g., a massive boon to triathlon would be a Lionel win on the men's side, or one of the mom's winning on the women's side.)

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Super League seems interesting, Major League Triathlon also...there was an event in Tempe but I was in Waco that weekend so I have no idea what kind of crowds it drew. But I'm unsure you could sell tickets at a high price for a triathlon.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Yes and so my greater point was that whether it's an "union" strike or just all what 80 Kona pros "independently" deciding to strike, those guys on strike aren't always going to see the direct benefit of it. Oh sure some of them will, but some of them on the fringe of their career, what incentive is it to stike? For the "betterment" of the sport, yet no one before them looked after them. So when your in a sport with pretty much zero money, you ain't getting the group to bond together and make a decision- ESPECIALLY this kind of decision that most assuredly will affect careers.

So in a sport like triathlon they are in a might big pinch, and so as monty said everyone knows they cant/wont ever strike. I think they did what once in the mid 80's, and bravo to them for doing that (monty probaly knows the details I believe it had somehting to do with Kona vs Nice as being the 2 big super power races).


And the only reason why unions have something more than "i'm fast give me dollars" is because of media....that's the only reason why sports make the big bucks....TV/media paying the sport/players to broadcast your events.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Well then Ironman broadcast rights must be in the tank if they're on Facebook live.

Overall sports sponsorship rights and broadcast rights revenues are due for a course correction downward. Since that is what determines salaries of athletes...that will probably get a correction too.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

It's not going to be the on site crowds that sell imo. I was there in Charlotte MLT 2017 and Charlotte MLT 2018. 2017 I swear to god had 10 people at that race that werent related to an athlete. 10 just random fans, every other person was there was associated as an parent/significant other/coach/friend. 2018 had a large crowd, but I honestly say that the reason why it had more draw was because one of the local colleges (Queen's Uni in Charlotte) has like 40 team members and all those said parents of those 40 athletes came in and "supported" the race. So it had a much stronger crowd presence, but it was still relatively ehh, but the online presence really kicked up a notch.

MLT did a smart thing by bringing in Barrie Shepley to announce this years races, and while likely not making all htat much money, this is likely a great "giving back" opportunity for him. Really good commentary from him and support this year.

The FB live video drew 561k viewers (it looks like the previous 3 race had around 160k viewers), I believe for the final championship that included Vincent Luis. MLT is a super smaller scale than SL, but SL is backed by a Russian billionare, MLT is backed by a regular joe (Daniel Cassidy). MLT is going to have a much harder hill to climb, but imo is doing it. Just in the year I've seen better racing and more sponsors on board. SL and MLT invest in the athletes with both good prize money, and travel stipends.

So you ask, why does MLT or SL give back to the athletes so much that WTC doesnt? Because they need the pros. WTC doesnt need the pros like those race organizations do. And that's why I think short course has the best opportunity to make it long term as a "race organization" and pro money maker.


ETA: The key imo for onsite viewers is to create an "party" atmosphere with tons of beer trucks, tons of food and free viewing of the race. Maybe "VIP" gets you something but dont charge to be on site, but make your money from the party style atmosphere, etc.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I'd take that bet. WTC obviously realizes that Allen and Scott bring $ to WTC because you see them at the finish line of Kona every year wearing IM branded stuff. I saw them at the finish line of 70.3 Worlds this year and I assume WTC is paying them to be there and at the AWA banquet in Kona this week.

I bet WTC invited all former pro winners to Kona this year for the 40th anniversary and paid for their lodging and maybe their travel expenses. I see that DeBoom, Molina and Baker are in town and they don't normally attend every year.

Take them away from Kona and 70.3 Worlds (where the tri geekdom is higher) and I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm pretty positive I wouldn't be.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

The tri geek quotient at every WTC IM in the U.S. is high enough that 10 participants would recognize Mark Allen. A WTC 70.3 in the U.S. might be a different story.

Natascha Badmann was a mom when she won in Kona, so that has already been done. Granted, the kid was 13 when she won for the first time.

I'm still doubtful. Sorry.

And you're missing the point in re: why a mom winning now would be more important than it has been in the past. Hint: it has an awful lot to do with a WTC initiative.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

What iniative is that? That if a preggo mom can train, so can you?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You don't think a massive marketing campaign would come out with Women For Tri if say, Kessler or Carfrae wins? Which will finally prick the bubble on this whole "toughest endurance race on the planet" marketing and move long-course triathlon into a "hey, yes, you too can do this" position?

Because I know which of those leads to more race entries, product sales, and overall health of the sport...and it's not the way we've always done it.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

No I dont think that does anything good or bad. I dont think a mom winning Kona moves the market for the VERY reason you keep saying no one knows about Mark Allen. Couch potatoes dont know the difference between Ryf and Rennie....even if IM can now market that "hey preggo mom is the fastest" in the world now and so it's going to create a revolution in the fitness industry.



I mean of course WTC would market it, I just think if you dont think WTC has already pricked that whole "anyone can do IM" we havent been following the same sport the last 15 or so years.


ETA: The health of the sport has really nothing to do with what WTC can do to enhance it imo. Granted IM is the lifeblood of the sport/industry but they imo can't do anytihng to "improve" it, in fact de-emphasisying it likely would create far better overall triathlon health than greater emphasis on the female sector to turn to IM triathlon. Because what I see is that newbies don't focus on the "correct" pathways, they fixate on the quickest path to getting to an IM, at the expense of their own development be damned...and that comes from the "I just want to finish" mindset and thus they want to quickest path possible to doing IM.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I got it. I predicted, i.e. guessed, in another recent thread that in 10 years women would outnumber men in short-course tri fields.

You should have used other triathletes to make your point. If Mark or Dave walked into the expo of ANY Ironman anywhere they would be mobbed by adoring admirers within minutes. I think you would see this if they walked into most marathon expos as well. If you had used Patrick Lange, Faris Al Sultan, or Frederick Van Lierde maybe would have agreed with you. Dave and Mark? Nope: wrong.

---

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com

I really don't think they've even begun to scratch the surface of what they could do with their initiatives between the Foundation, Women For Tri, Time to Tri, and now with Rock n Roll being under the event portfolio. We've got miles to go there.

And yes, a professional female mom (preferably from the US or Canada) will wind up doing a much broader media tour than, say, a Ryf or a Lange win. Personality helps. Stories help. You know this.

WTC is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They know that the health of smaller events directly impacts their registrations at larger ones down the road.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

WTC is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They know that the health of smaller events directly impacts their registrations at larger ones down the road.

----------

Do they?

ETA: Or as a big business they are far more centered on their race organization and profit there, do they have that "long term" viewpoint? Idk, I'm not sure how to decide that either way......I just know that WTC is out for WTC events first and foremost at the expense of other local organization/events for most of their races. And I'm not saying that is a bad move for WTC, because they after all are a huge business that needs to make a ton of money to be profitable, so I would think they are doing what is best for them.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You missed out on some really healthy dialogue out at TBI this year and the direction WTC is trying to take - particularly with smaller race productions that play in the sprint/Olympic sandbox.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

The other race companies coming in the sport have not offered prizes higher than WTC, and the bonuses from sponsors have always been heavily linked to WTC races so it's hard for a PRO to switch. Challenge doesn't offer very good prize money (apart for the Championship race in Samorin and Roth), and I plan to race in the Championship for that reason.
To talk about the impact of Pro's, I am convinced Age Group participation would be much lower without a pro field. For example, a few years ago, Rev3 Quassy lost 20% of entries the couple years they didn't have a PRO field, and the very year Pro's came back, participation was on a strong rise. I believe it would be the same for Ironman, but I don't have any specific numbers on hand.

Rudy, to be frank, to associate the decline in Rev3 participation with the professional field is really misguided at best. Decline in Rev3 participation started before the pullback in professional prize purses, and was on the rebound after nixing the pro field. It also shows a lack of understanding in the financials of the situation - a $75,000 prize purse requires a significant increase in athlete participation well beyond 20% in order to offset the cost. Numbers alone don't matter. Profitable numbers matter.

Bluntly: have you ever negotiated with one of your sponsors to see if they would pay sponsor bonuses at non-WTC events? Because I've seen it happen, and I've seen some big companies decide "you know what, if it's important to the athlete, then it's important to us." But it requires you to do the work.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Bluntly: have you ever negotiated with one of your sponsors to see if they would pay sponsor bonuses at non-WTC events? Because I've seen it happen, and I've seen some big companies decide "you know what, if it's important to the athlete, then it's important to us." But it requires you to do the work.

-----

I've seen it happen the opposite. Athletes who were sponsored by one of Rev 3's biggest sponsors were told it wouldn't give sponsor bonuses to events that said sponsor sponsored- would only go with WTC races. If that's not weird, I dont know what it, but that's what they told the athletes.

Now maybe they didn't "negotiate" back enough, but I just find something about that is very odd.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I saw that, too. But I also saw some other things happen with other brands that had originally insisted they would only pay WTC bonus, and wound up deciding to pay bonus at Rev3 events. Some argued slightly more convincingly than others...

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

So if the answer is they didnt try "hard enough" fair enough. I just find it very weird that my sponsor sponsors a race, and if i choose to do said race, they won't consider that a bonus worthy event- kinda makes you wonder why in the hell the sponsor was sponsoring the race.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I think if you haven't at least tried to negotiate or counter-offer the original proposal, you haven't tried hard enough.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

I was just wondering what the atmosphere was. The reality is that you need either a paying customer or a sponsor that fronts a bunch of cash.

I was interested in going to the Tempe event, because hey go see some pros. But I was in Waco that weekend and there was like no press about it.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

The atmosphere was so so was again made up mostly of Queens Uni parents/athletes.

I don’t think your ever going to get tri “paying customers” on site cus they’ll just skip that area of venue and go where it’s free. I’ve seen it happen at itu worlds all the time.

What they must absolutely do imo:
-make sure online splits are part of broadcast and/or live tracker site.
-engage local community.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Festival with beer trucks and food vendors is probably the way forward...beer is where the money will be made of course.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

This is it. The race on the calendar that generates the most excitement is Kona.

ITU, MLT, SLT races are for triathlon wonks.
For every other triathlete, the race that matters most is Kona.
Hell, I don't even do much triathlon anymore, but I like to watch Kona.

Until a bigger race comes along to replace Kona, WTC can fuck over the pros as much as they damn well please.

Ironman needs a Tiger Woods.... a Wayne Gretzky....
Someone needs to capitalize on the opportunity to captivate the masses to be interested in the sport.
On Saturday (< 48 hours from now), there's an 8 hour major event happening, and if you polled 100 Americans today whether they know (1) what Ironman is, (2) where the big race is, and (3) when that big race is taking place, I think less than a handful would be able to answer the 3rd part.

From my perspective, the trick is to get revenue from "new" revenue sources (apart from the athlete participants) by building a fan base. I believe that people respect athletics. I believe that these athletes are quite possibly the most talented athletes in the world (any / all sports). I believe that the sport doesn't capitalize on their comparative talent.

At 9pm this Saturday night (EST), there's a highly skilled group of athletes that will be in the final stages of the biggest race in our sport. Yet, we'll probably be watching the ALCS baseball game (Houston vs Boston) or a college football game. We likely won't be wearing a "Lionel Sanders" uniform or hat (or any of our favorite athletes we chime in about within this forum) as we live stream it with 100s or our friends at the local bar / pub / home. We will likely be watching it on our iPhones by ourselves as 'we' watch them do what they do. The athletes need to figure out how to sell themselves (merchandise their brand image) to make themselves household names. I'd love for them to get the revenue they deserve.

You can only market yourself so much when your in a niche sport. ETA: You don't become household names on FB live feeds, or IM tracker feeds. You become household names when your on ESPN or Fox the 2 broadcasts that you mention for the baseball/and football. Until then your stuck playing for peanuts, unfortunately. And the only way to breakout of the niche sport will have nothing to do with Ironman...that's the truth in the matter.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

There are countless reasons why this would never happen, one being that an IM is a 8hr to 17hr activity, and beyond boring to watch live let alone on TV. It will never capture anything above fringe

Sorry, but that's a fantasy, I've been paying attention to Kona on race day for more than 20 years now and this is the best coverage of the event that there's every been. I'm certainly going to enjoy it for the next couple of days. It may continue to improve as more people around the world starting doing tris and video technology improves, but it will never be more than a niche pro sport.

I witness college students now riding e-scooters and e-skateboards around campus instead of walking or riding a bicycle. Tonight when I was leaving the college rec center after swimming I saw an advertisement for a new intramural competition - e-sports. That certainly doesn't give me hope that some day they will spend their free time watching more triathlon that adults do now.

Maybe if was 1990. It's 2018. There's an entire generation that's effectively tuning out of classic network cable sports, and glued to their phone apps (for better or worse). Better to chase the future than chase history.

But even then, I think triathlon would be wasting energy in an inferiority complex comparison with the MLB or NFL. There's nothing wrong with being a niche sport. There are plenty of niche sports doing great, with well-compensated pros and a steady, engaged fan base. Just don't be a crappy niche sport.

It's an sport especially at the IM distance has zero, repeat zero media appeal for the masses. So it's not going to be on outdated network broadcasts or your 2018 younger generation app friendly phone connections. It's most important event is turned into a for profit infomercial every year.....they win emmy's not for the racing but for the cute cutting edge music and "stories"...that's how LC racing is marketed.

It's as I said, the only opportunity triathlon will ever have is at the short course variety.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

IDK, I'm a roadie, but see triathletes 'grammin constantly, with followers. Several recent popular threads here are basically based on cross-posted social media. And Facebook's analytics are top notch. They see something. Though your grim get-off-my-lawn negativity may be right. Thanks WTC I'd stuck between being a race promoter and a resort vacation promoter for the affluent with catered walk-jogs. That's a tough line to straddle

if your baseline is instagram and youtube threshold analytics, I think we are on complete different wavelengths on what constitutes successful mass media generated sports.

But that's cool.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

That hurts my feelings.

The presence or otherwise of a Pro field does not affect my entering an event. That's from someone who will be glued to the Kona coverage tomorrow night. I enter events based on the course and/or the atmosphere.

---

29 years and counting

That post says more about him, than you Andrew :)

My post above about not being influenced by Pro fields would appear to play in WTC's favour. However, I have abstained from WTC events for over 3 years now, through a combination of 'been there done that' and the perceived cost/benefit. I hope tomorrow runs smoothly for you.

---

29 years and counting

That's kind of my point.... Right now, there's only so much money to give the pro's. My entry fee as an amateur is not an entry fee to fund the pro purse. My entry fee is to fund my experience and the support I receive from the race. (I have no desire to pay their income by signing up for my race.)

To generate higher purses, the sport (and/or the athletes) should figure out how to drive additional revenue and become household names. It always surprises me that the Tour de France has so much appeal and many of those riders are household names and the race is known by 'everybody' while Triathlon hasn't been able to crack that nut and figure out how to market themselves to the masses. Maybe it's a European thing?

I think there's potential for a character athlete from IM to figure out how to reach the masses. He / She would need a support team and figure out how to get the sport to be well known.... and if not the sport, at least self promote themselves to be well known.

I want them to figure it out and be paid more. I'd buy a 'Lionel Sanders' t-shirt right now if there was one to buy and I'd probably wear it tomorrow while following the race.

You should write a book about the gut wrenching experience of being the CEO of a company with a mentally deluded customer base. And maybe the lovely experience of meeting the expectations of Private Equity month after month and year after year. You sir have a charmed life! :-)

---

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com

Well, let's just say in a IM you need 10 hours wall to wall media coverage, no network is going to give you a 10hr wide window unless you come with a major broadcast sponsor whom is paying for the air time...then you'll get an ad split which hopefully nets you back some of the sponsor money that went to the network. Can't do that for every IM. For 70.3 probably 5 hours straight of coverage. You may be able to break that down significantly with all of the major networks as they have multiple platforms.

As I said previously...the reason why xFit is on CBS is not because they're getting money, but because they are able to buy the air time because CBS Sports won't be getting into any bidding wars for content, the revenue from rights they purchase is nowhere near what ESPN fronts. Now...this is where some of things may change with the NCAA programs. ESPN will broadcast anything your college has for free on ESPN+ if you have an ESPN server on campus...and most D1 schools do.

So if you wanted 10 hrs of broadcast coverage by NBC...you'd have to look at their cycling coverage. 100% on sports gold, some on NBCSN and little if any on the peacock. For the WCs you can definitely get a coverage split with them of something like: 1hr at the start, 4hrs on the Olympic Channel, 3 hrs on NBCSN, and the final hour on NBC again with 100% on NBC Sports Gold. I think for the rest of the content it would be on NBC Sports Gold instead of Facebook live...but would you pay $60/year for that via OTT? That's what I pay for Rugby. But I get: Aviva Premiership, Champions/Challenge Cup, 6 Nations, and the RWC.

I'm guessing that there is a desire to watch triathlon, or there's desire for sponsors to have their names activated via a broadcast and that's why we've got FB Live events. Personally I hate FB Live and would rather this be on youtube live because you can just throw it up on the big screen if you have a roku/appletv without doing airplay.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

This is not in reply to any specific comment, just more generic comment to the whole thread:

Did you guys listen to the interview with Messick? He’s well spoken. He also states something that is very important to keep in mind on the topic of whether pro’s add value to the IM community and in the end, do pros bring $rev to Ironman. That’s the real question, BTW, if any company spends money on sponsorship, prize money, or advertising, they expect to get something out of it. Pros need to show they enhance the event, they bring more paying age groupers to the event, and that sponsors of the event sell more of their product by sponsoring the event or the pro. I believe Pros do add value...but let me continue on with the Messick statement:

Messick states their corporate purpose is to “deliver a race experience that people say “wow”, I want to do that”. “We are looking for ways to capture people’s imagination to do more” to…go bigger. He left off “go faster”, however, which I think is a key drive of most age groupers. Pro triathletes inspire age groupers to set and achieve PRs…and then set new ones because the Pro’s set a benchmark that is always better. Imagine a world of no pros…the bar would be set at ~9hrs for a 140.6 and some of the top AG’ers would achieve it…but knowing you are 1-8hrs slower than the pros gives all age groupers a lifetime of chasing PRs, because you’ve show them what is possible. Do you think all the amateur golfers out there watch golf on TV because it’s riveting and exciting?? No, they watch to see how to do it right, how to get better, and see what is possible and what they can aspire too with their own game!

Pros – how are you inspiring others to do more races, to become faster, to be like you? Are you someone who represents themselves “worthy” of being replicated?

BTW – A triathlon “union” of pro’s recently tried to form, but hasn’t received much support, because as stated earlier in this forum the current pros are barely getting by in a short career and it’s difficult to see immediate results by striking or holding out.

There are things though that are in your control. Individual sponsorship $ are down for triathletes…even from industry sponsors. But why would a company pay money to a pro to use their equipment if the pro would use the equipment anyway? There are many pros who don’t have a bike sponsor yet are out there promoting the bike in the race and in pictures of themselves on their bike with the bike name front and center all over the bike frame. If you aren’t being paid, are at least getting the product free, don’t advertise for it…cover it, paint over it! No wheel sponsor?? Why are you advertising for them? They have no reason to pay you if you are already promoting their product for free. Is Nike giving you $?, cover the swoosh on your shoes!

Are you helping AG’ers achieve their dreams…you have to educate and motivate. You don’t think you’d be recognized at a race? Is it because you show up right before the race (“cause you have your routine”) and don’t talk to anyone and then leave right after the race? Stick around, encourage them, cheer them on, give them advice… help the event organizer. Oh and one other thing…can event organizers count on the Pro’s showing up? Can they make a big deal promoting their race because you’re on their start list or are they worried that you might not show up, like the 20-40% of pros that sign up for a race but never show up and don’t even notify the organizer?!? If you commit to a race, show up and be part of the promotion that gets more age groupers to show up and test themselves on the same course as the Pros. Just because you have a runny nose doesn’t give you the right to bail on a commitment. Again, only do this if you expect to be treated and paid like a pro.

Back to Ironman, and whether they can afford to pay pro’s even though their parent company is in debt? Dalian Wanda did not pay even close to $1B for WTC as someone stated in this forum. They paid $650 million. A $350M delta can’t be called an exaggeration, it’s just plain wrong. Don’t think Dalian Wanda didn’t do its due diligence on profitability nor didn’t know how to value access to a key demographic that they wanted…they are an ENTERTAINMENT company that understands marketing and demographics (fit, driven, successful with high disposable income and willingness/ability to travel??). A year after buying WTC they bought a Hollywood studio for $3.5B. They bought AMC theatres as well, and while they definitely overextended themselves with debt financing, WTC generates cash and profits for them. An individual IM race brings in over $1M in age grouper race fees…you think IM has more than $300-$400K in expenses each race?? Multiple that by over 100 races per year…without even including sponsorship money, IM should be making around $50M a year in profit. Sold for $650M, that’s only 13 times earnings, certainly not cheap but certainly not considered expensive either (check the P/E ratio of any public company stock you own). IM participation is also up 10% this year, great to hear!

IM can and should continue to support pros but both need to work better together in communicating their value – BOTH are very needed and add value to the sport! If after watching any of the Kona coverage and social media this past week you don’t think IM is taking advantage of the pro line up and the battles that will be waged out on the course on both the men’s and women’s side, then you are crazy. It’s not the only thing they are talking about, there are some inspiring AG stories as well, but the pro class is feeding the hype!

They paid $650 million. A $350M delta can’t be called an exaggeration, //

And as I recall, they assumed the $250million or so note on the books too, do you know something different?? So I figured abbot 900 million, which is why I said almost a billion... And I dont know what the profit is now, but it was 20 to 25 million before, so how do those numbers plug into your calculator?

You are correct on the additional $250M in debt, I had forgotten about that...on the profitability if you say it was $25m 3 years ago and they stated profitability was growing 40% a year, then I think ~$50m/year profit is a reasonable assumption. 10% growth in participation supports that profitability growth because the variable cost of each additional athlete in an event is pretty low. Soooo...an 18 P/E is about average for a company...my whole point on this was to counter the argument that the debt burden was so high that it’s an excuse to reduce the pro purse - it’s not.

Your analogy to golf there is a huge stretch. Also, people buy tickets to watch Golf, they don't buy tickets to watch Triathlon.

Wanda Group also owns Atletico Madrid. They're in it. But the reality is we are a participation sport, budgets tightened because they're increasing their event expenditure via expansion. Probably the easy one to cut is prize purses. Do they need pros? I think so, but not because any of the millions of age groupers across the world think they're gonna make it.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

IM can and should continue to support pros but both need to work better together in communicating their value – BOTH are very needed and add value to the sport!

--------

I think the whole issue and it's entirely different in short course- because Super League and MLT pay every pro triathlete in their fields and/or cover expenses for said athletes...because they have very different marketability plans (i'm pretty sure French Grand Prix "teams" cover their athletes' expenses, especially at the top level). I still think the biggest issue is that both LC pros and IM have to market something that is basically super hard to market- 10 hour single day event. So I think what we will continue to see is key pros take advantage of IG fame or youtube popularity and become "rich" of that, while the majority of the other pros simply starve. So I def think there is "social media fame" for triathletes....look at the one girl who did the 50/50, she's a "fitness model", and while I think she's a pretty damn rock solid athlete, she by no means is world class in anything other than selfie taking. So that's going to be there for a handful of athletes. The question remains how does WTC + pros work together to create a much more marketable race. That's when the money really comes in. That's when the need for unionizing, that's when both sides are truly making it. I just dont think it can mainly because it's an niche ass participation sport that's hard on the eyes.


Cycling imo is boring as hell to watch, but damn if I'll sit there and watch every boring ass "flat" stage when I know the breakaway riders will get caught and the 3 sprinters will battle it out. Same for golf- watching golf is actually pretty damn boring as it's going to take 3-4 hours of my day, but hell if I didn't sit there for years and watch every final pairings on Sundays. I'm a sports "junkie", so I'll watch just about anything. I also was a cord cutter almost 5 years ago, and only have amazon prime as "membership" viewing (just realized I get NFL Thur night games...Eli Manning suuuuucks).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You are correct on the additional $250M in debt, I had forgotten about that..//

Only problem is, that 18 multiples are very high for companies in this category. And since it is all mixed in with other Wanda sports, we really dont know what is on their books or how much they really make. Other investment bankers can chime in, but I believe 10 and under is closer to what these kind of companies can command. 18 is the average for the entire S&P 500. I have heard things about the new owners being very pissed off about this purchase, of course it is their own fault for not doing their DD on this buy. It was cleverly packaged by another venture firm(that also paid too much and had to take out a huge loan to get their money back) that knows how to hide things, and puff things up, they should have caught that stuff. Like I said, it will take many years to grow into that purchase price, and that debt is just a drag on profits that makes it take even longer.


But I agree with you, pro prize purses are not the deal breakers here, but overall a lot of positions have been cut and people fired, so a hair cut to what appears to them to be a non essential, well it was bound to happen. They would be ill advised to go further in my opinion though, there would be no Kona show(television and all the $$ that come with those eyeballs) without the pros, and the race would slowly fade to just another event, making very little money...

In line with WTC not needing pros to sell out races...planning on going out and watching an hour or so of IMAZ 70.3 because I'm a junky and it's here. There are ZERO pros registered for IMAZ 70.3.

You talked about pros providing value and inspiration...well there are a lot of pros out there and there are none at one of the largest races in North America.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

IM 70.3 AZ doesn’t pay a pro purse = no pros
One of the flattest courses on the circuit = sellout for AG’ers because AG’ers want to set their PB/PR.

I'm just going by what you wrote in saying that pro athletes need to provide value to the races themselves.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.