USAT. Into the valley

Once again, ST has exposed the workings of a huge problem in our sport. We see the RDs & publishers telling USAT what they see as the proper role for a governing body. Nearly all of the restrictions are self-serving, as expected in the business world. The RDs have done a perfect job of convincing the previous Boards and EDs of USAT that the governing body cannot exist without the membership stream generated by the RDs. Have the RDs manipulated and abused USAT over the years. Certainly, with a “business” justification. When your Board is dominated by RDs and publishers, it’s a no-brainer.

But, by some strange quirk, USAT hired a different type of ED. Skip, apparently, took one look and said how are we supposed to make improvements to the farm and feed the children. Since he had no subservient history and obviously was not interested in RD’s “ED of the Year Award”, we see a light at the top of the hole we’ve been in.

California law be damned, the complaints of your critics are a confirmation that you are on the right path. Put some guts in USAT. The membership has waited a long time for something like this.

interesting, but what exactly are you referring to?

ST has a very complete article on “When Commerce and Governments Collide”. Check the opening page, below the new article on “One Ironman”.

i would venture a guess that this is one of those flowing water plans…in that it will initially take the path of least resistance and then potentially carve out a new niche, along with maybe leaving some landlocked ponds here and there to wither away.

the eventual path may or may not develop into some joint ventures. it may also lead to some rather contentious back and forths.

its the american way.

business people who survive do this all day long.

Empfield is quite accurate in his assessment as to what is occurring within USA Triathlon. The result of the ongoing effort to assume pieces of the pie (i.e. magazine publishing, race online registration, and so on) by USAT flies into the face of current successful entrepreneurial offerings within the industry. To have an organization with a monopoly position assume these responsibilities will in the long term erode the health of the sport. USAT’s executive and board are on a course to totally alienate leaders throughout the industry of the sport, and is that really the function of a strong governmental entity?

i’m not placing value on the right or wrong…only the fact that the process of weeding out who is what has been going on forever and should be absolutely no surprise.

USAT can try all it wants to surpass or circumvent the activities of private enterprise. the process will be enlightening for all and may truly end up with USAT getting badly bruised in the process. not the first time such a thing has happened.

on the contrary…if USAT can develop a better business model for some of the areas in question…someone who should know a lot more just got their legs knocked out from under them by not using the tools at their disposal.

i think the idea of a monopoly here is overrated.

The monopoly aspect is significant if you want everyone to play on a level field. USAT does not have certain obligations associated with the payment of taxes; and it can use a membership base which is indentured due to its sanctioning process and the need for race directors to have insurance. Private enterprise does not have those advantages and must struggle to achieve market share. This really isn’t about business; it is about government (vis a vis USAT) interfering with the sport’s industry business and having an unfair advantage while doing so.

not to belabor the point…but a governmental entity such as USAT only gets away with what it is allowed to.

in this case…if the generals of private industry don’t know how to step up to the plate and defend their territory…maybe the related USAT move was a well timed move.

again…not a case of right and wrong…but another period of time where some of the players are testing the waters…maybe with ulterior motives.

stuff happens.

Those “private enterprise” gals and guys are the ones who have been using USAT as a tool for personal/business growth. USAT was not allowed to have a purpose other than as a support for RDs. And, in the membership’s eyes, there was no clear purpose because USAT was one step removed from it’s members. Other than a mailing list, which can be purchased, what advantage does an NGB have in the marketplace?

I don’t know how they did it but I applaud Skip and the Board in their efforts to provide visible, quality service to its membership. I will support them, be it noble experiment or model of the future.

With respect to the magazine, they definitely needed to do something to improve what they have been sending out. That thing is a joke and worth about 1 minute of skimming through before it was sent to the garbage can. Then again, Triathlete and Inside Tri are generally only worth about 5 minutes of skimming through!

“Those “private enterprise” gals and guys are the ones who have been using USAT as a tool for personal/business growth.”

without taking sides, i’ll play devil’s advocate on this. you make your statement above in a context of this being a bad thing. what is wrong with private enterprise using USAT as a “tool for personal/business growth”? in the article i wrote, skip used this same analogy, but with a different emphasis. he said that he intends to provide private industry a “toolbox” and i think that’s an appropriate posture.

one might reasonably view USAT as an industry organization. what do you, as a member, want USAT to do? i think you want your federation to provide fair, safe, cheap, plentiful events, and to provide a stable environment for those events to continue year after year. you want the events to exhibit some sense of uniformity of rules and expectations when you arrive at the race scene. in the case of each of these elements, your federation is executing your wishes through the RD. in other words, the RD wants the same thing you want, he wants his races to be cheap, safe, fair, and so forth, and these commercial ventures look to USAT to provide them with the tools to make that happen.

the only thing USAT wants that is often at cross purposes with the RD is, USAT wants more races instead of fewer. competition is good, everyone agrees, except the recipient of competition.

so USAT’s rightful goal, one might argue, is to be a service organization for the RD, that is, any and every RD. he’s there to be “used” by the RD. when i go out to breakfast i’m simply “using” the restaurant for food. one might think that a base motive except, of course, that this is precisely what the restaurant intends for itself, to be “used” for food.

“Other than a mailing list, which can be purchased, what advantage does an NGB have in the marketplace.”

let us say i want to set up a rival federation. i’m going to host my own national championships, i’m going to host my own world championship qualifiers. when i announce this, how long do you think it’s going to take before i get a nasty letter from USAT’s attorney, with the law on USAT’s side?

when WTC decided to non-sanction with USAT, what is the first thing that happened? USAT went to the ITU and basically had IM china shut down. IM japan is very possibly the next. should active.com start offering insurance to triathlon organizers, USAT’s next step is to go to the USOC and have war declared on active.com, by asking the USOC to urge other sports to offer their own online registration services, and to set up such an engine for this.

this is a fairly evenly contested battle. and it should be. both sides need the other. but both sides ought to let the other have enough elbow room to make a decent living. the current fracas is over just where that line ought to be drawn.

Dan says it much more eloquently than I ever could but if USAT doesn’t do what RD’s are asking and Active.com does offer insurance (they have been looking into it for a couple of years now) and RD’s find other ways of getting insurance without having to run their races as USAT says to, and RD’s walk en masse - goodbye USAT.

RD’s are the only reason USAT exists and with the RD’s come the participants. If RD’s start saying you don’t need to join USAT to do our races, why would people sign up>

If Skip is doing such a great job, how did the Nationals end up in KC again?? These are completely incompendent individuals who should be banned from the sport.

What do you have against KC? Big deal, it’s going to be hot and humid. So is Kona and people will do almost anything to race there.

These are completely incompendent individuals who should be banned from the sport.

No point banning Skip Gilbert - he is not even a triathlete. This has been my concern with him from day one. He’s not interested in the sport, he is interested in the business.

Cam

Hmmmm. Maybe I missed something. How is a race series “providing a tool box”. There may be a contradiction here that I overlooked.

My request to my NGB is that they provide a safe, well-regulated, inexpensive, regionally diverse series of triathlons for my use. If the NGB finds that it is not able to do this because certain RDs are not honoring their contracts by not providing safe course control, compromising the officiating, inaccessible medical care, inadequate aid stations, etc., then I expect the NGB to seek alternatives.

So, my suspicion is that this is an outcome of years of frustration. I certainly wouldn’t ask anyone if this true is because examples would be expected. But, the RDs who take what they want from the “toolbox” and thumb their noses at the rest may be the ones driving this solution. Sanctioning is not “take what you need”. This is the only thing that makes sense. But, I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to admit it.

If you want it done right, do it yourself. But, as Dennis Miller says, I don’t know, I could be wrong.

Slowman, what’s your point?

It seems you are saying that the USAT is doing stuff that you think is better left to the private sector. That is your opinion, but I am not seeing any problem because all you cite are limited, and opinions that are likely biased in one way or another. I assume USAT changes are being done via a plan that supports the goals of USAT (to provide membership benefits and support the sport, right?) Where is the problem, other than a disagreement with their tactics? Is it a really bad plan? Or is it just one that is different.

Seems most everyone thinks USAT should change, so now they are…

Communciation vehicles, databases & ranking, race support such as registration and tool kits all seem to be perfectly suited to USAT’s mission.

What is the benchmark from other NGB’s? We talk about USAT in a vacuum but do not see what else is happening in the world of similar organizations. “Privatization” is a huge trend and it seems reasonable that the privitization of insurance policies would be economically attractive on a narrow basis (coming from Active) while USAT relies on insurance revenue to support broader benefits. It seems reasonable that USAT would try to protect one revenue stream that supports a broader benefit (databases and rule making for example) than Active would if they took over insurance (which I am sure is somewhere in the Active business plan). At the same time, I would like to see Active.com get some real competition as their % commission is not fitting with the transaction costs…

What are the revenue streams for USAT in terms of percentage? I haven’t seen a financial breakdown, but I am sure that most the changes are economically motivated, either to protect their place in the world, or to extend it. No value judgement there, but maybe the USAT plan does make sense…I assume it does to the people who are on the board and I assume it is a plan, not a bunch of ideas to enrich the director or the board.

So you are seriously claiming that a private entity will serve triathlon better?

You gotta be kidding…

At least the RDs on the board (that were voted on by you, the member) had some sort of moral obligation to serve the people who voted them on. The CEOs and CFOs tha run WTC or other commercial entities have no moral or ethical guidelines or responsibilities they have to serve.

And don’t come on to me with “customer satisfaction”. We all know where we are on that issue nowadays.

And who said that a private enterprise is run in a democratic way that allows its “members” to have any influence on their decisions (except voting with your wallet?).

All I can say: Buyer beware!

The pendulum can swing wide the other way…

I live in England, so I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But since I am an USA citizen and plan on returning to the states in 3-4 years, I’ll offer my opinion anyway

Seems like 90% of the population on this forum are always asking: What does USAT do for me?

Well, for starters, it looks like they plan on publishing a quarterly magazine to inform their membership of what is going on. I have a hard time seeing how this threatens Inside Tri or Triathlete. Look what happened to AmericanTri

Then, they plan on offering a registration engine. Believe it or not, most triathlons are not in the Ironman family and could probably use something that is cheap and easy to use for people to sign up for their triathlons. Again - how many times have people on this forum complained about the fees charged by active.com. Now somebody is trying to do something about it (gee . . . almost like they were listening).

Setting up their own races. This one is harder, but it is hard for me to believe they will try to set up races in areas that already have other offerings.

I can’t remember what else they are proposing. Oh, well. Flame away.

To clarify…they (USAT) are not at this time setting up their own races – with the exception of the international distance nationals. For the grand prix series they are selecting an existing race in each of the 10 regions (in most cases nominated by the volunteer regional board of directors and reviewed on-site by national staff,) for each distance. This is a chance to elevate the experience and offer age-groupers championship quality races, largely created and run by independent RD’s. Each race will have its own regional flavor but the quality standard will be assured. In most cases they were prior or current USAT regional championships. It appears to meet the purpose of promoting and expanding the availability of quality triathlons for the age-group athlete. USAT (as an entity) gets no apparent financial return for creating the Grand Prix series.