Yes, but speaking as someone who will chase a slot for a US 70.3, I will roll with the punches and still be showing up with an entry fee. This won’t dissuade my cohort.
I honestly don’t think it’s any of that, I just think it’s some logistical issues they are working through. There are many US locations that already host a 70.3 which could be moved to an early September date and still have good weather. So they have a lot of options, they just need the community to buy in to either a date change or having two events in one year.
By default when you move your WC around, “lackluster location” kinda is irrelevant in that your always going to have a difference of opinion on what is or isn’t lackluster. It’s why when X location, Y region of world makes the majority of the race, and when it’s n A location, B region makes the majority of the race. So they will always get the location right and wrong at the same time basically depending on who you ask around the world. I don’t know that there is enough 70.3 chasers to sorta justify worrying about the location being “worthy” or not.
A location like StG getting out of the race production business seems very interesting. I know about 4 years ago, the area had a DL race that they pulled out of very late in the process (and pissed a lot of people off, and that location/RD got blacklisted). But I’m surprised just in a general endurance sense, that area seems to be a hub of outdoorsy shit.
Any WC location they pick will fill out the needed/required 5.5k+ 2 day athlete requirement. That’s from Nice France to Timbuktu, they have too many 70.3 athletes world wide that will always be able to fill out the race regardless of the location. And I think the 70.3 WC “chasers” are marginally small at best, that general registration numbers at any 70.3 basically world wide will fill (for that region; again US region I don’t think 3k is a realistic number any longer, while Europe can fill that type of number) regardless of where the WC is designated that year.
I hope its not because its a boring, flat course (that has sucked into some terrible weather its first couple years) but I wouldn’t be shocked if it were at Jones Beach on Long Island. They’re adding a pro race this year and the race has performed well, very close to NYC for international appeal. I imagine permits, etc. are a headache on Long Island and wouldn’t be surprised for it to drag out longer.
Long Island which you might as well call NYC from the tourist perspective is a location I think that would have a lot of appeal, even if the actual course is a bit meh.
In any case, they have to sell worlds slots in July to an unknown race (time of year) and unknown location to take our money with no guarantee that they can hold it (thus my thread title in the event they actually don’t contract a location between now and Sep 2027 to hold the thing). At that point, they can offer deferral to 2028, or a credit spending wallet to any race, or money back.
Should they not have a location secured by July 4 before the qual races, a simple legal contract when we buy a 2027 slot would be something as simple as,
“you are purchasing this slot at your own risk as we have not yet secured a location and date for 2027. Should we not secure a location, your options will be a one time deferral to Nice 2028, a credit wallet to spend at other Ironmans globally, or upon your request a full refund”
Right now we don’t have any idea what we are racing for (as of 28 May 2026), However, there may be clarity by July 4, 2026 with an annouced location and dates.
@Lurker4 on the question of leadership, to a degree I support your point. CEOs are paid to made imperfect decisions in complicated times. In that vein, I think Andrew Messick did a balanced job navigating the company and sport through and out of the pandemic. Taking decisions you piss off stakeholders all the time, but not taking decisions, I think you generally alienate more parties. At the end of the day Scott DeRoux has until July 4 to come up with some clarity.
Ya, even if they have to rename and existing 70.3 event into 70.3 worlds they can do that. They might have to sacrifice on 2 days in that scenario, but it might not be the end of the world to have a cycle where slots get very scarce.
If they got stuck w 1 day im guessing they could easily still get ~3500 for that race. Cut out expenses from day 2 closures and you’re not necessarily losing your ass on a situation like that.
Well they have not yet closed on an annoucement which means they have nothing today..It is a possibility that they never actually secure a venue per their current format that started pre pandemic. Then they could just rename another event as worlds and go back to one day format with half the slots.
But right now they have nothing so if they enter July in that scenario minimally they will have to announce the what if options including what happens with the fees if they don’t have anything at all in 2027 just because if you have an unbuilt product and you sell a promise usually you offer consumers options if you fail to build it.
Also part of the reason for the question is that minimally AI platforms.cant seem to find any town council minutes globally that discuss Ironman 70.3. Worlds approvals. But an AI search would need to be smart enough to go over every set of minutes from every town on earth or minimally from every town that hosts at Ironman today. That’s probably an analysis that uses a 100MW windfarm blowing for a week straight to power the GPUs and memories pulling that off so maybe my subscriptions won’t get me that level of Internet scouring and synthesis.
It just feels like Ironman will go into July without that ability to offer something definitive that athletes can plan around so it will have to sell entries with what if scenarios (and that is fine if the what ifs are clearly articulated)