T100 Triathlon World Tour (PTO 2024)

Triathlon Forum
261

. . . PTN reported that there are 11 wild card slots up for grabs with 3 for the men and 8 for the women.
. . . there will be no race during their season that has everyone present
have laid out their plans, . . . will be very interested in the wild cards because no doubt those folks will help make the race a little more interesting. And no matter who shows up for their first commitment, there will be a series leader with some narrative going forward to the next stop… . . 8 of 20 women missing in the first race is for me still a significant number. Obviously, I know that that the athletes are contracted to race a minimum of 5 races plus the grand final so there are bound to be missing athletes in the start lists. But that weakens the appeal of the series if the PTO wants to attract a new audience. If the T100 races are the gold standard events in the sport, why then are contracted athletes skipping some of the events?

On the narrative, let’s go back to the women’s race. Say Annie Haug wins Miami. The narrative can be that she won because Ash Gentle didn’t race and we’ll have to wait until Singapore to see. So my guess is that won’t stop unless we get to see the highest ranked athletes racing consistently together which the PTO promised.I calculated upthread that the design (number of regular races and contracted number required to race) means an average of 4 missing per regular season race (7 of them): my revision is an average of 5.3 :slight_smile: Eight not racing Miami is above average, but on the plus side it does mean that those athletes giving it a miss will be racing one another (and four fifths of the others) in nearly every race.
Gentle made this point in a quality set of answers in Kelly’s pod interview which I thoroughly recommend (first 58 minutes): https://podcasts.apple.com/...on-hour/id1595443343
The other deduction I make is that there will be no wild cards available (unless injuries) in Dubai for any non-contracted last chance saloon drinkers. Plenty for the women at Ibiza and a veritable feast for non-IM men in Las Vegas.

All 20+20 will race the Grand Final (on the coast of the Arabian peninsula) together with any athletes who have accumulated points from (guessing) at least two wildcard racing opportunities (I cannot see who those WPros could be, even short course, maybe Waugh if she doesn’t get GBR selection).
You ask: “Why then are contracted athletes skipping some of the events?”
(WPRO) Some have Olympic fish to fry (K, D, S). Sodaro and Watkinson have IMNZ. But for the other 3 (LCB, Gentle and one other) because they are super sensibly taking a season long view of the racing and want to put in a solid foundation and use the extra 5 weeks before Singapore to do so. The T100 Series World Championships will be decided on an athlete’s best 4 scores (with the GF offering a ~50% bonus). So it makes complete sense to ‘make sure’ (to the extent possible by racing schedule design) that you’re still fully fit in November.

262

I keep mentioning this is basically Wtcs 2.0 and in that series you can “miss” races. There’s not that type of narrative when X top person misses.
There is a narrative when what half a group misses a race well not that as the “weakest” field ever but at the same time it imo doesn’t necessarily hurt the overall product. Again athletes are going to miss races. Now do I think you want your very 1st event to be this “watered down” with no shows? No I don’t.

But I think this is a little bit of egg on PTO’s face for sorta waiting so long to announce the series. They have to kinda eat it right now. But do I think it’s going to have a big negative impact? No, it will really only impact the athletes who miss because they lose the chance to offset and that will only create more “season long” drama narrative in final GF; this happens almost yearly at WTCS with 10 scenarios of how the top athletes can win it. So athletes missing races will actually add more “drama” to the season narrative and the GF than if it didn’t.

I also think your going to eventually find out if this truly is around 3-5 years this is going to turn into an “speciality” distance just like itu has become and that you are going to have to be a special talent/personality to think you can just take the contract + “meh” race results while racing a bunch of other “a” events and think you’ll be successful. Eventually I can totally see 3 levels of racing- IM / T100-70.3 / itu and there will be very little cross over top results. Especially if itu moves to sprint distance beginning in LA ‘28.

263

If the T100 races are the gold standard events in the sport, why then are contracted athletes skipping some of the events? //

Because they understand the dynamic of the sport in its current setting. So they have offered up some flexibility to athletes that are doing the olympic games, going for Kona or Nice, or some other big event like Roth. In their wisdom they are not forcing the pros to only do their series, which is a good move for now and the future. That is why their athletes will be skipping some of their events, it is for the athletes and the fans. We get to see the most of the best in all of the venues and the 3 really big series, I see that as a win, not negatively as you do.

In which of my posts have I exhibited a hidden agenda towards the PTO?

All of them… Perhaps it is just how you are, or how you write, but it always seems like you are complaining, and the first race has not even happened as of yet…

264

I’m not so sure about this narrative that the PTO has only helped the 20 or so contracted athletes.

They’ve put the top athletes into a new series which leaves more of the money from all of the other races to be shared around the non PTO contracted athletes as there will be fewer top athletes racing IM and 70.3

Added to that there is now the Ironman series bonus.

It’s a win for everyone.

We have no idea yet how this works out yet.

But PTO was a pro triathlon organization ( union) at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop, now they are a front pack invitation only for the top 25 men and women.

and without Ironman adding prize money the goal they said out to create would be much worse now.

Like why is Ironman adding money even??? if they pulled all there pro events and left the sport with PTO paying the bills and saying good luck covering the long course pro field without an intake in capital the pro sport side of long distance triathlon would be done.

You say fewer athletes will race Ironman here are some names of the fewer top type athletes that are going to race Ironman

Blummenfelt
gustav
lange
laidlow
magnus
kanute
sanders
skipper
hanson
wild
and others

these guys are the top racers right now already, no? West, long and a few others have yet to move towards a goal of ironman distance anyways.

For pros it is pay day like never before of course, take that money ASAP, for races it will be hit and miss like always but more misses due to too many events to cover in one season. And we will have the but x wasn’t there or x wasn’t 100% like in 70.3 worlds. were we never did that before ?

265

I’m not so sure about this narrative that the PTO has only helped the 20 or so contracted athletes. They’ve put the top athletes into a new series which leaves more of the money from all of the other races to be shared around the non PTO contracted athletes as there will be fewer top athletes racing IM and 70.3
Added to that there is now the Ironman series bonus. It’s a win for everyone.We have no idea yet how this works out yet.
But PTO was a pro triathlon organization ( union) at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop, now they are a front pack invitation only for the top 25 men and women.
and without Ironman adding prize money the goal they set out to create would be much worse now.
You say fewer athletes will race Ironman here are some names of the fewer top type athletes that are going to race Ironman The PTO laying on the T100 Series has effectively extracted the top 16+16 from most of the IM and 70.3 races, with the exception of an IM plus Nice/Kona for some, and a 70.3 and Taupo, for some.
This means that for all IM races athletes NOT contracted to T100 will finish higher in the prize list; or just ‘IN’ the prize list (suspect Texas will be the one exception). So a ranked #18+ pro will reap excellent rewards through the season. Go through a selection of the higher level IMs and 70.3s from last year and see how the results would’ve turned out without the top athletes there.
In addition, as @ CreativeInkling says, there is now the IM Series bonus ($1.7M).
https://www.ironman.com/pro-athletes-race-series
Effectively, that could be ascribed as an extra $70k for every 70.3 in the series and an extra $150k for every IM in the series (prize purse split 50/50 M/W).
The top #21-40 who are IM capable will, I presume, choose IM Series races: the prize purses are already bigger and there’s a share of the Series bonus to win win. In addition the majority in the #18 - #30 cohort will get at least one T100 wildcard which will be an assured $4k (and rather more with a good result).
@TT says:*“without Ironman adding prize money the goal they set out to create would be much worse now!” *But they have, so what’s your point?
This leaves ALL the other IMs and 70.3s and Challenge/Clash and Roth for those ranked #41 up. And these races have the same prize purse as last year.
@TT says: “PTO . . . at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop.” Is this the case? I don’t recall those words: perhaps your interpretation?
As for ‘a launching pad’, far too many athletes (especially in one country) are given an elite (pro) licence - their competitive aspirations are laudable but mostly deluded into thinking a pro licence means there’ll be prize money hanging on trees. ‘Younger’ athletes just have to beat the old worn out ones to access that ‘wealth’. Their ‘launching pad’ is the amateur ranks: use its length wisely.

Who is losing out?
Challenge Roth, I’m afraid (I think all the other Challenge/Clash races will be fine: and there won’t be the top 30 there scooping up the cash so this will “spread the wealth deeper” and offer “a launching pad” for newer pros.)The non-IM capable #20-#40 athletes who will likely just get $5k from the IM Series bonus pool.
But anyway, as I hope I’ve elaborated, there’s more wealth to share and it will be shared far more deeply (ie down the ranking order) than in previous years. Hurrah!

266

But anyway, as I hope I’ve elaborated, there’s more wealth to share and it will be shared far more deeply (ie down the ranking order) than in previous years. Hurrah!//

As per your usual, very well thought out synopsis, thanks for tangling with the negative nellies here. I have lost patience with them for now. This is going to be the greatest season ever for pros, 3 big series and the Olympic Games all in one year!! If you can’t make money this year, then you are an age grouper…

267

A few thoughts. I think we have to get over what the initial PTO stood for. Mainly for one big reason- We are a niche sport, no one is going to be able to support “pro tri” with how it is now. So whehter it was #201 being screwed, #101 or #31- someone is getting screwed over. BUT PTO has put more towards pro development than probaly any other organization in the history of the sport for specifically pro’s. Now here’s the really really cool thing about IM. IM is self supported through it’s AG ranks. It doesn’t need to do pro tri anymore than it has for decades, yet for whatever reason they decided to create a better pro product. Major kudos and for them it’s atlest self sustainable because they aren’t reliant on a billioniare to fund it etc, they have basically said “lets do it”. Now we all think it was sorta to go heads up against PTO and we all sorta nerviously think all that good vibes will erode away if PTO goes away and then IM “pulls” it’s big money spending.

268

I’m assuming the bike course will be altered as well? The famous steps on the run course…in or out? This is their biggest pull as an “iconic” venue.Could do a lollipop with loops in in the park, but hopefully they just leave the course alone and forget about the nebulous 100K distance (I doubt that will be the case)A flagship event hosted at the famous Escape from Alcatraz triathlon. For sure it will be 100k - I surmise they might make it out towards the outer part of the bike and run course - which seems to be more fun anyways - to keep the Saturday traffic out of anything downtown? Swim at like…China Beach or something? Maybe not - I really wish they would release courses, just like everyone else does lolhttps://protriathletes.org/media-releases/pto-strikes-deal-with-img-to-put-san-francisco-on-new-t100-tour/
“the San Francisco T100, the 100km race (2km swim, 80km bike, 18km run) will be set in the stunning San Francisco Bay area and feature the world’s top 20 female and top 20 male professionals, who will start in time-honored fashion by plunging into the icy water adjacent to Alcatraz Island.”
I have suggested upthread that you could get a very decent and spectator/broadcast friendly 16km bike loop (x5 for 80km) to the Legion of Honor hill and turn there.
Baker Beach is in reach for one of the laps: maybe 12km and then a 6km loop out to the tunnel and back (ish).
The Presidio will be an antidote to the pancake parcours of Miami and London, and maybe a taster of the Grand Final’s bike course.
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/137257466

269

I’m not so sure about this narrative that the PTO has only helped the 20 or so contracted athletes. They’ve put the top athletes into a new series which leaves more of the money from all of the other races to be shared around the non PTO contracted athletes as there will be fewer top athletes racing IM and 70.3
Added to that there is now the Ironman series bonus. It’s a win for everyone.We have no idea yet how this works out yet.
But PTO was a pro triathlon organization ( union) at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop, now they are a front pack invitation only for the top 25 men and women.
and without Ironman adding prize money the goal they set out to create would be much worse now.
You say fewer athletes will race Ironman here are some names of the fewer top type athletes that are going to race Ironman The PTO laying on the T100 Series has effectively extracted the top 16+16 from most of the IM and 70.3 races, with the exception of an IM plus Nice/Kona for some, and a 70.3 and Taupo, for some.
This means that for all IM races athletes NOT contracted to T100 will finish higher in the prize list; or just ‘IN’ the prize list (suspect Texas will be the one exception). So a ranked #18+ pro will reap excellent rewards through the season. Go through a selection of the higher level IMs and 70.3s from last year and see how the results would’ve turned out without the top athletes there.
In addition, as @ CreativeInkling says, there is now the IM Series bonus ($1.7M).
https://www.ironman.com/...athletes-race-series
Effectively, that could be ascribed as an extra $70k for every 70.3 in the series and an extra $150k for every IM in the series (prize purse split 50/50 M/W).
The top #21-40 who are IM capable will, I presume, choose IM Series races: the prize purses are already bigger and there’s a share of the Series bonus to win win. In addition the majority in the #18 - #30 cohort will get at least one T100 wildcard which will be an assured $4k (and rather more with a good result).
@TT says:*“without Ironman adding prize money the goal they set out to create would be much worse now!” *But they have, so what’s your point?
This leaves ALL the other IMs and 70.3s and Challenge/Clash and Roth for those ranked #41 up. And these races have the same prize purse as last year.
@TT says: “PTO . . . at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop.” Is this the case? I don’t recall those words: perhaps your interpretation?
As for ‘a launching pad’, far too many athletes (especially in one country) are given an elite (pro) licence - their competitive aspirations are laudable but mostly deluded into thinking a pro licence means there’ll be prize money hanging on trees. ‘Younger’ athletes just have to beat the old worn out ones to access that ‘wealth’. Their ‘launching pad’ is the amateur ranks: use its length wisely.

Who is losing out?
Challenge Roth, I’m afraid (I think all the other Challenge/Clash races will be fine: and there won’t be the top 30 there scooping up the cash so this will “spread the wealth deeper” and offer “a launching pad” for newer pros.)The non-IM capable #20-#40 athletes who will likely just get $5k from the IM Series bonus pool.
But anyway, as I hope I’ve elaborated, there’s more wealth to share and it will be shared far more deeply (ie down the ranking order) than in previous years. Hurrah!

I was asked as many to be part of the start of PTO as a pro triathlete they were trying to unionize again ironman, lots of info back 6-7 years ago about it. just several years ago this was the message to pro athletes and ranked athletes 40-100 were pushing PTO races even though they were not a part of it but finally got the hint.

I wrote several times there is more money now which is good and they should get it all while they can but again it’s just the top 20M/20 F getting the money it’s not trickling or developing especially without Ironman added as you said to the non- IM capable athletes # 20-40.

Roth will have guys in the top 40 likely magnus and Lange and a few others, sponsors want that race and Roth pays to attend. which is then by your logic unfair as that is a tier 3 event with tier 1 guys stealing their income???

It is going to be a great season and I look forward to it all but why can’t we discuss a tiering system now were for example if we break them into number PTO ranked #16 will me make less$$$ then Ironman ranked # 3 (that also won roth) and if so will some 10-20 seeds for pto go chase the tier 2 to claim championships??

270

But anyway, as I hope I’ve elaborated, there’s more wealth to share and it will be shared far more deeply (ie down the ranking order) than in previous years. Hurrah!I wrote several times there is more money now . . . but again it’s just the top 20M/20 F getting the money it’s not trickling or developing especially without Ironman added as you said to the non- IM capable athletes # 20-40.
It is going to be a great season and I look forward to it all but why can’t we discuss a tiering system now where for example if we break them into PTO ranked #16 will make less$$$ than Ironman ranked # 3 ( also won Roth) and if so will some 10-20 seeds for PTO go chase the tier 2 to claim championships??Not clear what your hypothesis is. Tempted to have a go at what I think it is, but to do so would be undone by a quagmire of assumptions. Here’s a go (I have left out any PTO EoY bonuses - that’s all gone a bit quiet but all athletes will be eligible to gain them).
Cohorts:
T100 and almost nothing else (six #12ths plus #12 T100 Series bonus gets circa $110k)T100 and 70.3WC (plus qualifier if not already) (T100 $100k plus £10k for #10th: $120k)T100 plus an IM qualifier/validation (option Roth if already KQ (eg Ditlev)) (T100 $100k plus $25k for NQ race plus #10th at Nice: $125k)Lange (?Roth, an IM and Kona) ($28k Roth (#1), $20k Texas (#2), $45k for Kona (#3), total $93k)IM Series plus a couple of other races, maybe including a T100 wildcard (Two IMs= $30k (for 2 x #3), 70.3WC (#8) plus qualifier(win)=$15k, #6 at Nice=$18k, IM Series bonus for #6 = $40k, T100 wildcard $4k - Total = $107k)70.3s and Challenges various plus Taupo - 8 races @ $3k average = $24k
https://www.trirating.com/challenge-roth-2023-analyzing-results/
Think you might reckon Moench is an example of an athlete who could be a (1) or if not T100 a (5). In practice I think that very few T100 contracted will race more than 2 IM Series races (Matthews has said she’ll set out to do so - wish her well) so the top 10 IM Series bonuses will be out of reach for them.
(6) might be athletes like Barnaby, Yeulen
I can see Horseau being a potential IM Series winner. If Matthews (staying healthy) can finish 5 races then that might be enough to beat Langridge, Reischmann and Norden.

271

Sorry can’t do all the math and guess right now but Magnus winning Roth 3 in a row would be a big accomplishment and not overlooked Lange and others get big sponsor pressure for that race and some others.

Freddie funk I believe just said ( I was vacuuming listening to the podcast) he gets more for a 70.3 worlds performance with bonuses than any other race this year .

Also you have remember how hard this sport is and it you chase too many rabbit you may catch less then you planned not everyone is blummenfelt or Knibb ,

272

@TT says: “PTO . . . at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop.” Is this the case? I don’t recall those words: perhaps your interpretation?
As for ‘a launching pad’, far too many athletes (especially in one country) are given an elite (pro) licence - their competitive aspirations are laudable but mostly deluded into thinking a pro licence means there’ll be prize money hanging on trees. ‘Younger’ athletes just have to beat the old worn out ones to access that ‘wealth’. Their ‘launching pad’ is the amateur ranks: use its length wisely.

Who is losing out?
Challenge Roth, I’m afraid (I think all the other Challenge/Clash races will be fine: and there won’t be the top 30 there scooping up the cash so this will “spread the wealth deeper” and offer “a launching pad” for newer pros.)The non-IM capable #20-#40 athletes who will likely just get $5k from the IM Series bonus pool.
But anyway, as I hope I’ve elaborated, there’s more wealth to share and it will be shared far more deeply (ie down the ranking order) than in previous years. Hurrah!

PTO continues to have its Athlete’s Union masquerade, although it is less prominent, they still push it. When it first actually got onto the scene as PTO and not PTU/Collins Cup Twitter Account (Aka Charles Adamo’s burner) they still pushed the message that they were “Athlete’s Association” and then effectively compelled all the pros to sign a “contract” and handover real estate on their race kits to the PTO. Well they did that, and the vast majority never got a dime for that.

They continued this masquerade when they created the bonus pool that only touched the top end of the sport, the rich got richer and money didn’t go to developing pros.

And I would push against every single person that they’ve helped professional athlete development since they are closing off this series to the upper echelon and then key names who aren’t ranked high enough to earn a contract on merit. Gomez Noya and Brownlee come to mind.

There are many other ways to spend money to develop athletes, and sorry if I’m repeating myself they’ve not added money ford development pros, they’ve only added money to the top.

So what have they done for “game development”? Serious question.

273

@TT says: “PTO . . . at first said the goal was to spread the wealth deeper and give a launching pad for younger athletes to stay in the sport longer to develop.” Is this the case? I don’t recall those words: perhaps your interpretation?
As for ‘a launching pad’, far too many athletes (especially in one country) are given an elite (pro) licence - their competitive aspirations are laudable but mostly deluded into thinking a pro licence means there’ll be prize money hanging on trees. ‘Younger’ athletes just have to beat the old worn out ones to access that ‘wealth’. Their ‘launching pad’ is the amateur ranks: use its length wisely./quote]

PTO continues to have its Athlete’s Union masquerade, although it is less prominent, they still push it. When it first actually got onto the scene as PTO and not PTU/Collins Cup Twitter Account (Aka Charles Adamo’s burner) they still pushed the message that they were “Athlete’s Association” and then effectively compelled all the pros to sign a “contract” and handover real estate on their race kits to the PTO. Well they did that, and the vast majority never got a dime for that.

They continued this masquerade when they created the bonus pool that only touched the top end of the sport, the rich got richer and money didn’t go to developing pros.

And I would push against every single person that they’ve helped professional athlete development since they are closing off this series to the upper echelon . . .

There are many other ways to spend money to develop athletes, and sorry if I’m repeating myself they’ve not added money ford development pros, they’ve only added money to the top.

So what have they done for “game development”? Serious question.“There are many other ways to spend money to develop athletes” Perhaps you could suggest some? Take a pro licence and get a $20k handout?
“Athlete’s (sic) Union masquerade” Perhaps you could help us with examples of evidence
of this, preferably not years old.
“effectively compelled all the pros to sign a ‘contract’” The athletes did this of their own volition. Compelled? Do you mean by saying: “there’s going to be a bonus pool; do you want to compete for it?” Note that PTO gratuitously paid out (was it >)$1M flat rate per capita across ?100 top professionals when racing was halted by SARS-COV-2 in spring 2020.
“real estate” All athletes could (and do) advertise the kudos of PTO membership by the logo on their trisuit. Athletes way off the pace continue to do this " Look, I’m a professional!": they don’t have to.
“the vast majority never got a dime” and “the bonus pool that only touched the top end of the sport” Well there are less than 300 proper professional (longer than standard distance) athletes in the world (being generous with my threshold for “professional” here: ‘elite’ maybe), so immediately (May 2020) that assessment is false. 2021 (and 2022?) the PTO EoY bonus pool stayed paying 100 iirc, So a sizable minority DID “get a dime”. I suggest providing support to the top 100 is reaching well below the “top end” into the middle of the pack. A fair few will never have won that amount of prize money in a year from IM/Challenge race results.
Dropping down to the EoY bonus pool paying down to top 50 last year increases the validity of your point. I guess with only so much money (NB now upped to $7M), if it’s spread too thinly it loses its desired effect. And PTO’s model has shifted as they try to meet their strategic aims.
“they helped professional athlete development” I have endeavoured to explain (see post above) how athletes choosing to take a professional licence benefit from the T100 tour indirectly three fold:
Top athletes no longer scooping IM and Challenge race podia money. (See estimates below) Next tier athletes no longer scooping minor race podia money (because they will concentrate on the IM Series races, if they they’re good enough and IM capable)The vision that there is reward if they develop to being seriously competitive elite athletes

Thorsten’s analysis (for 2023):
https://www.trirating.com/deep-dive-into-the-2023-triathlon-money-list/
IMs and 70.3s: $4.4M total
Challenge/Clash/other (non-drafting LC): $1.6M total

The T100 (20+20) athletes won (prize money and EoY PTO bonus) $3.7M. Of that about $750k for IMs, $350k for 70.3s and $200k for Challenge+. $2.4M from PTO.
This suggests that there’s >$3M of IM&70.3 prize money available next year for all non-T100 athletes to earn, to which should be added perhaps $800k of IM Series bonus money (some will be taken by T100 athletes who race Nice/Kona plus qualifier) plus most of the $1.6M Challenge et al prize money.

274

“There are many other ways to spend money to develop athletes” Perhaps you could suggest some? Take a pro licence and get a $20k handout?
“Athlete’s (sic) Union masquerade” Perhaps you could help us with examples of evidence
of this, preferably not years old.
“effectively compelled all the pros to sign a ‘contract’” The athletes did this of their own volition. Compelled? Do you mean by saying: “there’s going to be a bonus pool; do you want to compete for it?” Note that PTO gratuitously paid out (was it >)$1M flat rate per capita across ?100 top professionals when racing was halted by SARS-COV-2 in spring 2020.
“real estate” All athletes could (and do) advertise the kudos of PTO membership by the logo on their trisuit. Athletes way off the pace continue to do this " Look, I’m a professional!": they don’t have to.
“the vast majority never got a dime” and “the bonus pool that only touched the top end of the sport” Well there are less than 300 proper professional (longer than standard distance) athletes in the world (being generous with my threshold for “professional” here: ‘elite’ maybe), so immediately (May 2020) that assessment is false. 2021 (and 2022?) the PTO EoY bonus pool stayed paying 100 iirc, So a sizable minority DID “get a dime”. I suggest providing support to the top 100 is reaching well below the “top end” into the middle of the pack. A fair few will never have won that amount of prize money in a year from IM/Challenge race results.
Dropping down to the EoY bonus pool paying down to top 50 last year increases the validity of your point. I guess with only so much money (NB now upped to $7M), if it’s spread too thinly it loses its desired effect. And PTO’s model has shifted as they try to meet their strategic aims.
“they helped professional athlete development” I have endeavoured to explain (see post above) how athletes choosing to take a professional licence benefit from the T100 tour indirectly three fold:
Top athletes no longer scooping IM and Challenge race podia money. (See estimates below) Next tier athletes no longer scooping minor race podia money (because they will concentrate on the IM Series races, if they they’re good enough and IM capable)The vision that there is reward if they develop to being seriously competitive elite athletes

Thorsten’s analysis (for 2023):
https://www.trirating.com/...riathlon-money-list/
IMs and 70.3s: $4.4M total
Challenge/Clash/other (non-drafting LC): $1.6M total

The T100 (20+20) athletes won (prize money and EoY PTO bonus) $3.7M. Of that about $750k for IMs, $350k for 70.3s and $200k for Challenge+. $2.4M from PTO.
This suggests that there’s >$3M of IM&70.3 prize money available next year for all non-T100 athletes to earn, to which should be added perhaps $800k of IM Series bonus money (some will be taken by T100 athletes who race Nice/Kona plus qualifier) plus most of the $1.6M Challenge et al prize money.

One thing I’ve been about this whole thing is consistent. So either you’ve not paid attention or are just willing to forgive the nonsense. When they first came out and launched which was pre-pandemic. They pushed the message of being a representative body for athletes and still were incredibly aggressive towards Ironman even though their “athlete board” chair was an Ironman Foundation ambassador and gladly took that money.

Is there more money in the ecosystem? I’d argue no. Sponsor money is drying up with a lot of brands sponsoring athletes less and less. First it was shoes, and now it’s bikes. Sponsorship is pretty concentrated and even then how much are athletes getting from “The Feed” is up for debate.

The top end is still getting paid if not PAID. But money has fallen out of the bottom. So you want the sport to grow? That means there needs to be money in the lower tier. Olympic Distance non-draft no longer exists for pros.

So, yeah Development pros needed the 20k handout during the pandemic. Instead the Frodeno’s of the world got 100k.

You could say that development of the professional game is not their responsibility and that it should fall on a federation and I’d argue against that. The mission of the federation is to grow the entire ecosystem. Not just professionals.

275

Raises hand- I’m forgiving them. I’m not going to beat them over the head every time for how they behaved in their infancy to get their foot in the door.

They are trying to make a professional series work that is imo doing it in a way that atleast is above reproach. This isn’t some island house “friends” only approach. They are at min trying to do it in as professional of a manner as they can. It may fail, but I think for the most part are doing best they can. They pivot off a bad idea quickly (Collins Cup) and they do have some hiccups. But I don’t think those hiccups are as bad as suggested by some.

276

“There are many other ways to spend money to develop athletes” Perhaps you could suggest some? Take a pro licence and get a $20k handout? One thing I’ve been about this whole thing is consistent. So either you’ve not paid attention or are just willing to forgive the nonsense. When they first came out and launched which was pre-pandemic. They pushed the message of being a representative body for athletes and still were incredibly aggressive towards Ironman . . . .
Is there more money in the ecosystem? I’d argue no. Sponsor money is drying up with a lot of brands sponsoring athletes less and less. First it was shoes, and now it’s bikes. Sponsorship is pretty concentrated and even then how much are athletes getting from “The Feed” is up for debate.
The top end is still getting paid if not PAID. But money has fallen out of the bottom. So you want the sport to grow? That means there needs to be money in the lower tier. Olympic Distance non-draft no longer exists for pros.
So, yeah Development pros needed the 20k handout during the pandemic. Instead the Frodeno’s of the world got 100k.
You could say that development of the professional game is not their responsibility and that it should fall on a federation and I’d argue against that. The mission of the federation is to grow the entire ecosystem. Not just professionals.“When they first came out”
You are consistent. You constantly reach back to the PTO of yesteryear and say they should’ve kept to their last decade objectives. We have moved on: recommend you do too.
“more money in the ecosystem? I’d argue no. Sponsor money is drying up”
The $7M invested in LC triathlon is hard cash. Its introduction (and NB $2M increase in 2024) and its catalytic effect on IM: getting them to stump up a completely ‘new money’ $1.7M can be added to that. I suggest you have no quantative insight into any reduction in partnership support but is the reduction anyway even remotely $8M? Perhaps you have an insight? Do share.
You reference an ‘ecosystem’. We are saddled with one where there is no ‘forced exit’ strategy (back to amateur status) for wannabe pros who, after giving it a go, don’t make it. After a couple of years and not making the top 200 (with 3 event scores): you’re not a ‘pro’. Not going sub-4 (sub 4:25 for WPro) or sub-8:15/9:30 at least once in a season . . .
Have scan of some of these: https://stats.protriathletes.org/rankings/men?nation=US
https://stats.protriathletes.org/...ings/women?nation=US
Other nations are available but it seems to me the USA licence handout is profligate and then sclerotic with an ineffective annual validation mechanism. Please disabuse me.
You “argue that” “development of the professional game is responsibility”
I think PTO would argue that that responsibility (to the extent it exists) is shared with others and by their organisation of athletes and the construction of a lucrative top tier forcing (effectively) the best athletes to race one another more than bi-annually and thus opening the next level of events to the second tier pros to win money, they (the PTO) have executed their part to full effect. Rising tides and floating boats (but including flotsam) and all that.
Responsibility? Have a read of Dan’s great ‘open letter’ to IRONMAN’s new CEO:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/Ownership_of_IRONMAN_is_More_Than_the_Legal_Status_8897.html

277

A healthy sport is not 200 professionals in long distance triathlon. A healthy sport is likely 500+ professional licenses in long distance triathlon. I don’t know the amount of professional licenses globally but I’m sure your snide comment to USAT’s granting of licenses is pretty dumb. Their barrier to entry is high enough, yet reasonable enough for people to still chase it without coming through the junior development system. Which is what you want.

Yes, I read Dan’s article. I haven’t seen one that clearly targets Michael Moritz, the backer of the PTO and lectures him or Renouf, or Kermode, or Adamo. If we’re going to hold people to account let’s do it.

The problem with your posit is that trickle down economics don’t work in individual sport. They work in team sports where you have minimum salaries, a salary floor, and a maximum salary and salary cap. So the journeyman who are healthy and the rookies still make decent coin and aren’t still working as plumbers or pool guys while needing to put in 40 hour days at the practice facility (see Beckham documentary)

Ironman’s mission is to its shareholders, just like PTO’s is to its shareholders, so they don’t really have a responsibility to the sport itself (although they should and the CEO of Ironman should consider himself a servant of the game). I can recognize that also see what the PTO has done and is doing is fleeting. Unless Michael is ready to throw 500M down the drain over 10 years (and he seems to be willing) it will be very hard to see this get anywhere and it probably won’t get anywhere if we’re being honest. And if he really is prepared to spend that coin, I want 20 minutes to pitch him the purchase of a rugby team for the bay area!

The top professionals will always get theirs, but if there isn’t something at the bottom or in the middle to be a carrot this sport will continue to collapse.

278

The funny thing about too many pro’s or not enough pro’s.

The only needs for actual pro’s who meet a federation standard is in ITU because of the actual safety aspect of the sport (ask Hunter Kemper about that) that they race and the limited nature of start lists.

Long course racing being a “pro” only means you get to start at the front of the field. There’s no real distinctness between an AG vs pro athlete with the setup of the sport on long course on race day…They all are racing the same damn race. But that’s now how ITU is, so in reality, the number of pros in long course is irrelevant really. LC is an open race at the end of the day, it’s just basically defining whether you win a medal or cash at the end of the day.

IE- Federations could be removed from the “pro qualification process” and simply give it to race organizations and give it to the top X athletes each year. Federations basically have no real need to “control” pro’s that aren’t actually doing federation support pathways (IE Olympic pathway or specific world champs). Here in the US, the LC world’s is a joke, all the pro’s go towards IM. So take out the federation need to grant LC pro’s license all together. There’s no real point in having a LC pro license. It doesn’t really do anything for you other than allow you to check the box for pro dvision instead of AG division. Federations have to instill qualfication for the draft legal pathway for more obvious reasons. So there really is no need for “professionals” in LC triathlon; not in the same light as what federations are giving licenses for DL events.

279

A healthy sport is not 200 professionals in long distance triathlon. A **healthy sport is likely 500+ **professional licenses in long distance triathlon. I don’t know the amount of professional licenses globally but I’m sure your snide comment to USAT’s granting of licenses is pretty dumb. Their barrier to entry is high enough, yet reasonable enough for people to still chase it without coming through the junior development system. Which is what you want.

The problem with your posit is that trickle down economics don’t work in individual sport.

The top professionals will always get theirs, but if there isn’t something at the bottom or in the middle to be a carrot this sport will continue to collapse.Thank you for your takes. I appreciate you plucked 500+ out of thin air but you may interested to hear that globally (on PTO data - which I have no more access to than you do, btw) there are over 800 male so-called professionals (long course) and over 400 women. To mirror your assessment: totally not healthy. Would not hundreds of these athletes get decent competition by racing in the amateur ranks as opposed to trailing in?
Why do you think my comment on USAT’s profligate licence awarding and lack of annual validation is “dumb”. Do you think USAT have it just right? Btw in doing a quick count up to estimate the global figure, Spain wins hands down (numbers not quality)! 152 male Spaniards have pro licences, eclipsing the USA’s meagre 109 (Ger 91, Fra 85, Aus 59 and the parsimonious Brits: 38).
The threshold for granting and maintaining a pro licence should be sensible, clearly expressed, and then validated annually or biennially. Getting some kind of commonality across national federations an attractive but likely unachievable bonus.
“junior development system” No idea what you that is. Maybe you are confused.
“trickle down economics don’t work in individual sport” What economic model would you suggest would work better for the long course sport and in particular to benefit “the bottom or the middle”? Hitting on the decent living the top 100 can make now and wanting it spread thinly (to 500!!!) seems a bit socialist to me.
This “sport will continue to collapse.” This seems an extraordinarily pessimistic assessment which I really don’t recognise.

280

A healthy sport is not 200 professionals in long distance triathlon. A **healthy sport is likely 500+ **professional licenses in long distance triathlon. I don’t know the amount of professional licenses globally but I’m sure your snide comment to USAT’s granting of licenses is pretty dumb. Their barrier to entry is high enough, yet reasonable enough for people to still chase it without coming through the junior development system. Which is what you want.

The problem with your posit is that trickle down economics don’t work in individual sport.

The top professionals will always get theirs, but if there isn’t something at the bottom or in the middle to be a carrot this sport will continue to collapse.Thank you for your takes. I appreciate you plucked 500+ out of thin air but you may interested to hear that globally (on PTO data - which I have no more access to than you do, btw) there are over 800 male so-called professionals (long course) and over 400 women. To mirror your assessment: totally not healthy. Would not hundreds of these athletes get decent competition by racing in the amateur ranks as opposed to trailing in?
Why do you think my comment on USAT’s profligate licence awarding and lack of annual validation is “dumb”. Do you think USAT have it just right? Btw in doing a quick count up to estimate the global figure, Spain wins hands down (numbers not quality)! 152 male Spaniards have pro licences, eclipsing the USA’s meagre 109 (Ger 91, Fra 85, Aus 59 and the parsimonious Brits: 38).
The threshold for granting and maintaining a pro licence should be sensible, clearly expressed, and then validated annually or biennially. Getting some kind of commonality across national federations an attractive but likely unachievable bonus.
“junior development system” No idea what you that is. Maybe you are confused.
“trickle down economics don’t work in individual sport” What economic model would you suggest would work better for the long course sport and in particular to benefit “the bottom or the middle”? Hitting on the decent living the top 100 can make now and wanting it spread thinly (to 500!!!) seems a bit socialist to me.
This “sport will continue to collapse.” This seems an extraordinarily pessimistic assessment which I really don’t recognise.

I think validation is a very serious requirement, want to keep your pro license? You have to race at least one professional race per season, maybe it should be two? Example, Colleen Quigly has a professional license, but she hasn’t raced professionally since earning that license.