I would like to hear how people feel about the one day fee levied against non-USAT members when signing up for a USAT sanctioned duathlon or triathlon. I’m told this fee covers insurance costs and USAT overhead for non-members in the event. I have also heard that this fee could be a disincentive for athletes entering a sanctioned event, particularly for “first-timers”. Does USAT sanctioning positively or negatively influence particiapation in and event?
CT
The one day fee is for insurance and if an event is sanctioned participatants can get credit with points for ranking. I realize the ranking is important to some annual members only the vast majority probably could care less about the rankings. Some events go without insurance which is not wise especially now a days. The insurance not only covers atheletes but the race orginazation and officials. Unfortunantly my experience with the participants ins is lousy. In 1997 I did a race and suffered at the hands of another athelete and ended up costing me in excess of 3k which included my bike. When I called usat to help with payments(medical) I essentially was laughed at. I hope this has been corrected. But I think the minimal one day fee is not unreasonable, if you do a uscf race you are required to perchace a one day membership and you are not eligible for awards if they involve money.
My 0.02
mike
Just become a member. Three races in a year and it pays for itself…and besides, who only does three races in a year? Once you are a member, you get a quartlerly newsletter, a nice decal, and discounts at a few stores.
----->Trent
I personally am a member. The original question that led to this was “What leads a Race Director to sanction an event or not?” Some of the feedback that I received was that some Race Directors as well as athletes object to the fee. I was curious to see how many people really felt strongly about the fee.
CT
This is one case in which history can provide some insight. In 1987, Tri-Fed (the original name for USAT) instituted mandatory membership for the first time and set the fees at $15 for an annual and $3 for a one-day. By the end of that year, USAT had gone from 300 to 33,000 annual members.
One year later, however, there was (in response to an insurance crisis) a huge rise in the fee Tri-Fed had to pay for its overall insurance program. A few of us then on the executive board argued for a proportionate increase in the license fees to $30 and $6. Unfortunately, we were in the minority and the fees were set at $28 and $12. Why the huge hike in the one-day? The reasoning, according to the majority, was that “it will force everyone to purchase annual licenses and we’ll make more money”.
Didn’t work quite like that. Whether it discouraged participation by one-timers and/or potential newbies or not, race directors BELIEVED that it did. And because they believed it was affecting their business, they started going elsewhere for insurance. The decline in sanctions and membership was pronounced, and by 1993, there were just over 11,000 annual members and Tri-Fed was nearing bankruptcy.
Seeing the light, the ngb’s board made an abrupt policy shift for 1994, reducing the fees to $25 for an annual and $5 for a one-day. And lo and behold, the growth of the sport, and of the ngb, turned around as well.
Are we witnessing our ngb’s very own Groundhog Day? The jury is still out, of course, but the early signs I read are ominous (for USAT, that is). In fact, the federation’s policy on the one-day license fee is actually at the heart of the recently-filed lawsuit to contest last year’s election. Several of the plaintiffs, not to mention their financial backers, are important race directors. These people previously tried signaling their unhappiness over the fee structure to the board . . . and were ignored. They tried to elect some of their own to the board this year . . . and believe that the election may well have been stolen from them. The entire current board either comes from one of three States (FL, TX, CA) or was elected by avid campaigns in those same places . . . which leads to a pronounced feeling of alienation in the other 47. Some sort of escalation in action should not have been a surprise.
Hey Lew,
What does the average triathlete really get for being a member?
Last year each annual member received a $25 Sports Basement certificate. This year you get a $25 SB certificate but only if you spend $75 or more.
Last year you got a United bike voucher. This year you do not even thou they are available thru other sports federations.
Last year the annual membership fee was $30. This year the same but we no longer have the above benefits.
At the end of 2002 USAT had almost $1,500,000 of cash and investments. Why not lower the fee back to $25 or give us back the above benefits.
Last year I joined since I was planning to fly to Hawaii and the bike voucher was worth joining for. Even getting the $25 Sports basement certificate made it worth joining for alone.
Why should anyone join except that they have to pay the day rate otherwise?
In a way USAT is kind of holding triathletes hostage by requiring the athlete to pay a fee to do a USAT race then they get all the race directors to make their races USAT sanctioned to get a resonable insurance plan. And the insurance plan is paid for by the athletes.
If anyone is considering joining USAT you should at least wait till just before your first USAT sanctioned race since the license expires 12 months later. There is no reason to join earlier since they have taken all the benefits away that makes it attractive to join earlier.
Willy in Pacifica
As Lew says, the one day license fee is a hot topic, and may very well be critical to the continued growth of the sport. I do many races a year, so financially, it makes far more sense to me to get an annual membership. I had always assumed that the majority of triathletes were annual members and did lots of races every year. I was surprised to find out that there are usually many more first timers, or people who only do a couple races a year. Looking at the results from one race, where they had both a sprint and Olympic distance race, I was surprised that there were many more people in the sprint race. I guess there aren’t as many hardcore racers as I thought, and obviously, race directors need to go after all the newbies out there. To do that, they need to lower the bar for participation, rising costs hurts that. Also, remember, RD’s don’t get that money, that is money that they have to charge, collect, and then send to USAT. One day license fees are a huge source of income for USAT. So in their (the current board) minds, raising the fee raises revenue for USAT. Of course, that thinking could very well be short-sighted because fewer people may participate because of the increased cost.
As Lew as pointed out before, USAT exists (supposedly) to promote and grow the sport of triathlon. They do that by enabling race directors. USAT’s “customers” are the race directors and not it’s members. The main benefit of USAT to it’s members, is the existence of (more) races.
Eric has it right. Just to check, however, let’s do some defining. IMHO, a “triathlete” is someone who races in triathlons. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but definitely sometime in the future (and probably in the past as well). But if you don’t race in triathlons, you are not really a “triathlete” - you are a cross-trainer.
If you accept that definition, then having triathlons to compete in is actually the condition precedent to having the sport in the first place. So, when Willy asks in Peggy Lee fashion: “Is that (insurance) all they do?”, the answer is “O.K. . . . and your point is?”
Let’s say you are a swimmer who lives in Ludington, Michigan, and there is only one pool for you to swim in during the winter - the local rec. center. They charge you $5 for a daily pass, or $125 for an annual - and the pool, and locker room with a few mediocre showers, is all they provide. Do you question their legitimacy or the fact that they don’t provide free transportation to and from the facility? No, you are thankful that you have a place to swim at all . . . and your thanks is made more genuine because you know that you could not afford to build your own.
Take this test. Call a sampling of triathlon organizers in your area. Ask them if they could stage their race without USAT insurance. You’d find some who already do, a few more that could . . . but my bet is that the majority sanction, and they do it because without that insurance program, there would be no race.
Does that mean USAT has them all by the short hairs? That’s what a majority on the BOD must think, because that’s the only rationale I can see for the precipitous rise in one-day fees. But history teaches that if a virtual monopoly acts like one, someone else will come along to fill the vacumn. Can you say Apple Computer and Bill Gates?
I appreciate the great feedback. Let assume for the moment that USAT is fulfilling the function of promoting the sport of triathlon and duathlon in the U.S. This benefits all triathletes, USAT members or not. That mission is facilitated by the collection of annual and one day membership fees. Those fees not only go toward providing insurace for events but also for covering organizational overhead and keeping the organization going financially.
On the other hand one camp would say that affordable insurace is available elsewhere. Race entry fees could be uniform for all competitors and lower than what a non-member would pay once the $9 fee is added. You could also contend that USAT does not add any other value to the event. They don’t provide officials or other oversight that might guarantee that a sanctioned race is safer or of a higher quality than a non-sanctioned event. Does USAT add other value, particualry on the international level, to justify its existence and support from RDs and triathletes?
CT (aka Devil’s Advocate)
Does USAT have value beyond its insurance program? Sure. Is it doing all it should be doing? Not even close. We’ll talk about some of the former in this post.
World Championships. Did you know that triathlon & duathlon are the only sports where the age group athletes in the same world championship as the elite athletes? For the top 20% or so of the country’s age group athletes, qualifying for and competing at worlds is a big deal - and it is USAT’s participation in the international governing body (ITU) that makes that possible.
Sanctioning standards. USAT’s sanctioning process isn’t perfect, but it does set organizational and safety standards, and makes a good faith effort to ensure that sanctioned races live up to those standards. It sets, for example, a standard for the minimum number of lifeguards to be present on a swim course (1 for each 50 athletes). It sets standards for course design, making sure obvious course flaws (like a bike course that crosses itself) are eliminated. And so on.
Competitive Rules. USAT has written the Rules of Competition for the sport, which goes to both safety and fairness. Are they perfect? Nope. But the competition committee has proven itself willing to listen and make adjustments where appropriate.
National Championship. The creation of the USAT International Distance National Championship (beginning with Hilton Head in 1985) has been the single most important factor in knitting this sport together as a truly national sport. Prior to that, it was a largely local sport that was practiced in most areas of the nation. Now, age group athletes perform to a national audience (of other age group athletes - the mainstream media remains largely indifferent).
Rankings. A sort of value-added feature to the national championship theme. Can’t get to nationals? Go to the rankings and get one view of how you might compare to those that did.
Elite Program. Using almost entirely funds furnished by USOC, USAT has created an elite team that is likely to win a couple of medals in Athens. How does that help the ordinary athlete? By providing the ultimate in positive exposure for the sport. Just the other day, a poster from north of the border reminded us that Simon Whitfield is a Canadian national hero, while Peter Reid is virtually known outside the sport. And late last Fall, there was a full-page story in USA Today on the sport and the U.S. women’s team in the lead-up to the Games.