Let's keep in mind that, for all intents and purposes, that we're really in Year 2 of the start-up era.

So they probably have a much longer runway with cash. And they announced another round of funding prior to the Collins Cup this year.

Their production model on the race side will also likely mean that they will incur less cost versus, say, IM.

---

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

Are they charging to stream/watch the races? I’d imagine this is the best way for revenue.

---

USAT Level II- Ironman U Certified Coach

Yes how is that working out for world triathlon. Everyone knows ironman, but not world tri. Free streaming with sponsor ads work best

All I know is they better get with FB live or Youtube live. I tried the app and it was not a good fit for me to be able to watch it.

---

Ryan
http://www.SetThePaceTriathlon.com
http://www.TriathlonTrainingDaddy.com
I got plans - https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...dotcom#trainingplans

for sure the business model is not sound. I also thing the format is questionable. the Collins cup does nothing for me. I think people want to see everyone racing together.

I think the whole thing looks a bit wonky when athletes say that they are training through an event to focus on kona. Automatically makes the pto circuit second rate.

I think to really make it work they need to get the distance right. and sadly that does mean it has to match or be more than IM. otherwise the average punter will just say isn't an IM harder.

they also need to nail the location. the spots they have chosen are really second rate compared to kona.

they really need big sponsorship. it looks second rate when an event is on but it's not sponsored. doesn't look legit.

and it should be the number 1 race. best athletes. all racing together. and all boycotting kona

then people would pay more attention

It is second rate to Kona right now for a good portion of the athletes. But yeah, having Collin Chartier say that in his post race interview really doesn't help them. They should tell their member athletes to avoid statements like that, at least during the broadcast.

I think they're on the right track though to becoming the main event and just need a little more time and continued momentum. It's unreasonable to expect it in the first/second year. Just keeping pumping prize money in and the smart decision for athletes will be to prioritize it.

I would actually go the other direction on race distance. It is too much like a 70.3 with a slightly shortened bike and run. My friend's reaction to the Canadian Open was, "oh, why is it a shortened course?" They always pump it up as a middle ground for the long course and short course athletes to duke it out, but it is a long course race. If they went to Ironman distance or longer it would be boring to watch, just like Ironman is.

I think 1.5x Olympic distance would be a great middle ground. 2.25km swim (~1.4 miles), 60km bike (~37.3 miles), 15km run (~9.3 miles). That would be the most compelling to watch for me. A true middle ground where you have no idea what you're going to see happen when the long course and short course athletes compete against each other. It would also be shorter which would help watch-ability. However PTO is clearly a long course triathlon organization so maybe just stick to 70.3 distance to not confuse casual fans while still having something somewhat watchable.

I think fans of professional triathlon are mostly influenced by what the athletes say on social media. If we see more athletes gearing their seasons around these races (and all the best showing up), then the interest and attention from fans will come.

WT makes ~$6.5+ million dollars. a year from their subscription fees. The host cites have to pay $250k per race for live TV production.


WT is doing just fine. Everyone may know IM, but no one watches those races. It's kinda an unfair comparison as WT is a made for tv product. IM isn't. PTO with it's course designs is going the way of WT, not IM.

---

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

Thanks - some good discussion. I agree with many points - especially the PTO more against WT (I would add Superleague as well) for viewers eyes.

The athletes apparently ‘own’ 50%’ of the commercial entity (Wikipedia - I have no other conflicting source). Surely as an owner, the financial position and statements must be shared? I would have thought these would have been ‘leaked’ by now by an athlete.

what is the business model?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

a. The PTO is "owned by athletes" and their goal is to promote the sport to broader audience, build development path for athletes, increase compensation for pros, etc.
b. They have done a great job raising funds (at least for now)

I question the path they chose to be yet another race organizer, competing with IM, ITU, SL; this is an extremely expensive endeavor with high likelihood of running out of money and fading. Don't see how they can ever get to profitability.
Why not partner with established race organizers, focus on the promotion/content/visibility/channels and spend the money helping young athletes, increasing pay, etc.
Maybe less trivial to figure out the financial model (i.e. if they can increase pay viewing by 50%, how much do they get paid), but if they will burn through all the money and disappear, might as well get as much of it into their goal (paying athletes and increasing visibility) rather than throwing a few more over the top events

if you read an interview with the PTO's CEO, published here last month, you might come away with a more concrete understanding of the business model. that business might work; it might not. but the business model is not what i would've thought, based on my limited vision. whether or not what they seek to do works out in the long term we'll see but i don't think we know enough yet to pass judgement.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Seems to be about using "hope" as the main course of action. Intent seems to be creating a "compelling" broadcast product that relies on live viewing and broadcast rights fees in the US and Europe.

But if we just look at Dallas from an expense perspective.

$2 Million in prize money + 1-2 Million in production costs. So 3-4 Million put the door immediately.

Cut costs by partnering with USAT to deliver the race, but they paid USAT to do that?

Then they got a host fee from Dallas Sports Commission.

I read the article and I asked the most direct and pointed questions. Some would say aggressive but I was trying to get real answers. Because I don't think there is a runway to being cost neutral, let alone revenue positive.

By becoming an event organizer, even under a licensing type model, there is an acknowledgement of that business model. The hope being you build a "festival atmosphere" where amateurs want to watch the pro race. But I've said it time and again, most triathletes are participants and not fans.

Super League and ITU also have to deliver amateur races to be sustainable.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

maybe you should get the most basic thing right ie the price money which is 1 million.

Was it not $1 Million per race? Because that was the number being parroted on by the broadcast.

Err...just found the table. For 40 racers it was 539k per race. But the comms folks definitely said $1M per race the whole time.

So correction above and that's 2-3 Million instead of 3-4 Million.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Dude owns a chunk of Strava and Outside.com - he has a loss leader in PTO and hopefully eventually wins on the other two fronts.

Personally I don’t think it will work, but 4.2 billion is a lot different than a billion. A thousand million dollar mistakes is a a lot. 4,200 is even more.

If he lost a quarter of a billion that would certainly be a bummer, but then he’s just worth 4 billion?

Not to mention he made it in venture capitalism and probably will continue to. Will he give up on PTO? I think so. But not for at least 5 years.

Lol

I ask great questions. The most amazing questions. Some even say the best. They do! I've been told, by many many people, I ask the best questions. You've never seen questions like the ones I ask. I guarantee you've never seen such beautiful questions. Really.

No, they don't. If anything, Super League has the most direct path to a made-for-TV product -- either via regular SLT or Arena Games. Smaller venues, easier to broadcast from.

And remember -- World Triathlon has the benefit of Olympic qualifying cycles and the money the NGBs bring chasing that.

Long-term I think the PTO has to make up its mind on the broadcast side and either go with "owning" their content distribution, or they need a more traditional broadcast partner -- especially to make in-roads in the North American market.

---

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

Good work!


Fair point if we want to get down to the nitty gritty of the risk that ITU dba World Triathlon forces onto event license holders. I would say thay ITU just licenses away everything.

But almost all of those events from WTCS (nee WTS) races to World Cup to Continental Cup races. The promoter, generally a national federation, gets saddled with a lot of expense and not a lot of inventory to sell as ITU takes most of the inventory in the license agreement. So the only way to make that up is in amateur racing.

You see this in Rugby with the World 7s series. Effectively the same model...except those are invitationals that don't lead to anywhere. Whereas the localized races for WTCS etc can lead to an amateur worlds slot. Which the ITU promotes and has a whole system of qualification for.

Super League, pre-covid, their arc was always to include amateur racing and promote amateur events that didn't have professional racing as "qualifiers" for the event that happened at a pro race. We had a qualifier in Tempe...and then COVID happened of course.

I'm not certain Arena games is really "made for TV at all but hey if you like watching that stuff, more power to you!

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.