In another thread, people are talking about the prize money for amateurs a the new Syracuse 70.3. This race will be in my backyard and while it will bring more attention to triathlon to the area, I’d much rather see a Rev3 bring pros to this area of New York, since they pay their pros appropriately and give their participants a better experience than the WTC.
Gift certificates and prizes for amateurs is great, but with the amount of money the WTC brings in annually, the amount they pay pros lacks what I see as giving back to the sport. I see them taking and taking, building brand recognition and increasing the demand for their races, but are they giving back enough? Do they realize the marketing power available behind well paid professional athletes in the endurance athletic world? Pros winning any other IM other than Hawaii are not celebrated as much as they could be. More money brings more depth to the race and eliminates such things as amateurs beating pros. There’s something wrong when an athlete can earn more at Olympic distance racing than they can at 70.3 and IM racing.
I’ve heard others cite “the bottom line” is all WTC cares about and that’s all that matters. The Boston Marathon, in the late 80’s and 90’s and early 2000’s focused solely on the bottom line - amateur entries that is, and they fell from grace in the running community and in the past year have upped their offerings to pros and put the Boston marathon back on the map for marathon spectators. Will IM follow in Boston’s footsteps? If not, just as London, Chicago, Berlin, New York took over as the most important marathons, in triathlon, IM is opening the door to Rev3 and the folks that put on Roth.
The IM races all fill basically a year before any “pros” commit … so it obviously doesn’t matter much to AG competitors and IM is clearly the most prestigious series of races. Most AGers don’t want their entry feels spent to pay “pros”. What would be wrong with “pros” going to their sponsors and asking them to contribute money for a pro purse and IM could distribute that for them at races … that would reflect the real market value of being a triathlon professional and be market driven. I do think there are pros that can drive sponsor dollars and are well respected by us all. THe problem is the entitlement pro title that even most AGers laugh at … AGers shouldn’t have to provide work welfare payments to pros that really aren’t supportable by the open market.
Dave
WTC is probably watching Rev3 closely. I suspect if Rev3 takes off and is successful, we will see a change in the prize money model for Ironman. If Rev3 does not pan out, we probably won’t see a change.
Same deal as Tri101. It flopped - so no need to change.
This same argument can be used for Boston Marathon, which doesn’t need a pro field to sell out. So why then have they upped the stakes bringing on big name pros and hashing out a lot more money this past year? You’re missing something about markets and business, a pretty key component actually.
The other aspect to promoting a high level of pro athlete activity at a race is the prestige it brings to the race. Marathoning went through its boom on the heels of Frank Shorter taking gold at the '72 Olympics and silver at the '74 Olympics, Alberto Salazar and Bill Rodgers. When Africans started dominating, the US marathon boom was over. The big marathons still filled up, but just look at the top 100 times at Boston in '78-'85 compared to today - there were more people, everyday people, training and racing at a higher level and that fueled the running economy.
When Ironman becomes a sport that any blow Joe can survive, it will loose its luster. It’s good to look back at other sport booms to see why they have faded and what can be done about it - look at US Mountain Bike Racing for that matter, its membership numbers have risen and fallen in line with the success and promotion of US pro mountain bikers.
Successful business give back to the community that supports them.
You’re missing something about markets and business, a pretty key component actually.
That might be YOUR interpretation, but that doesn’t make it factual. Just because a handful of races paid out more to some pros doesn’t mean much of anything … we’ll see if it continues and how it changes anything else … Tri 101 has already been mentioned.
Dave
I think prize money is directly related to the media/sponsorship coverage and since IMs are no way a media highlight nor do you see massive sponsorship deals, I am not surprised by the minimal prize amounts.
if it is a mass start, they should pay to overall finish position. No difference between pro and age group then, so if the age grouper beat pro, age grouper should get the money.
paying 1st in the age group is not needed. Better spend the money on paying deeper in the overall finish positions.
If age groupers have a different race (different start time), then there should be no money for age groupers.
Back when ironman north america started ironman florida and usa they had top 10 prizes for age groupers like nimble wheels etc.
They used to give timex watches to the top 5 in each age group as well I believe and in Hawaii I think they still do.
My thinking that it’s really up to the race director and his/her decision if they want to pursue a significant prize list or not.
I’ve been to several races, and the amount of support the pro’s receives varies from race to race. Some race directors go all out, providing a lot of things to the pro’s, plus a large prize purse. Other directors feel that the hand holding of pro’s are not a priority for their event.
Even within the WTC organization of races, the pro purse and other courtesies vary from RD to RD. I don’t think WTC has any rules or obligations that requires their franchised races to provide a standard prize purse.
Ultimately, I think that deciding to become a pro and make a living off of race winnings is not feasible except for maybe 10 athletes in the world. I think what is really important for the Good/Bad of the sport is keeping the amount of people involved in the sport (pro/amateur) up. As long as there is a healthy population of people willing to be involved in triathlon, that is what is good.
I agree with you - more money for the big races - people like to watch people duke it out for a bunch of cash - they lose interest. When I happen to have non-triathletes over and a triathlon is on TV - they always ask me what they will win - if they win the race - I say “nothing much” - they lose interest.
Compare that with the ITU race earlier this year for $200K - that was in interesting story and an amazing race!! These guys were fighting for cash - not kudos on slowtwitch. Bring on the money and the interest will follow. Yeah races sell out - but if I was a sponsor - it wouldnt just be about who is at the races - it would be about the people that are not at the races but following the race in front of their TV’s or on the internet. Interest follows the money. Do you think people follow poker because its interesting to watch!! They follow it because the stakes are high. Raise the stakes for the pro’s and you will get more and more folks willing to go in to the game and duke it out, which in turn makes it more interesting. Very very very few real pro’s out there in triathlon right now thats for sure - not enough money to go around.
I wonder what the total prize purses of all triathlons in the world in 2009. I suspect that it totals less than $5M - divide that amongst all the pro’s - just crumbs!! Thankfully running races still give out decent cash prizes and cool awards.
There’s something wrong when an athlete can earn more at Olympic distance racing than they can at 70.3 and IM racing.
What, exactly, is wrong with that? Are you saying that going longer is automatically better and worthy of more respect and money? Is there something wrong with Bekele making more money than Miyazato? I mean, they're both World Champions and Miyazato ran 10x as far as Bekele.
Prize money is a business decision, not a feel-good decision. Each race (or race org) needs to make that decision based on their finances as well as what can be raised through sponsors. Similarly, sponsors decide how much to contribute to a race based on the potential roi. Until the pros start doing something that causes more money to flow into the sponsors and/or races, they haven’t earned any more prize money, regardless of how far or how fast they’re going.
As far as “giving back” to the sport, running free beginner/youth clinics and running loss leading low cost beginner sprint races would “give back” far more than throwing a few extra grand at pros.
This is a “do it” sport, not a “watch it” sport.
Don’t waste the money on a pro field. With the exception of a few kool-aid drinkers on this website, no one really cares or knows anything about pro triathlon racers. Don’t waste money on age group cash awards either.
Instead, I would prefer they spend money on producing more races in more locations. Also, maybe spend money improving the safety of the bike courses by working with race venue communities and local authorities.