London prize money is absurd

And yet....it's total crap compared to other sports.

The money was shit. KK got a total of 40k for his time bonus and place. I don't know what his guaranteed appearance fee was (100k???) But his performance money was nothing.

Perhaps an investigation into this absurd prize money?

P&C. You would really enjoy curling.

Where are you seeing a list of prize money?

A guy in the know explained the whole way London is set up almost as a charity that has to spend all the money it takes in. Apparently, the applications are way over the limit, as for most big marathons. All the rejected applicants get a letter saying they didn't get in and a $5 watch. They are told to either keep the watch or , mail it back and the entry fee of like $100 or pounds is returned. They make 100,000's of dollars on this alone, most keep the watch. The set up is with all the sposor money and entry fees they have to spend it all. As far as running goes it appears as a bottomless pit but

Every week the PGA golf tour winner gets close to $1million. There is no way the winner at Boston for example deserves less! Its once a year, publicized around the world etc. For the companies sponsoring i.e. Manulife that owns John Hancock, it is less than a drop in the bucket with profits of over $2billion. THe exposure is huge. The big sponsors got it easy. Forumla 1 racing costs $2.8 billion per year and has no mass participation appeal! I would say to have a big chunk of the best in the world in a sport practised in so many countries that London money isn't absurd at all. Its once a year. A top marathoner only runs two a year. Not a lot of guys and women can make their living marathoning.

Mandingo got it, you didn't.

You can go here and do the math beginning at page 49: http://www.london-marathon.co.uk/site/media_centre/pdf/media_pack/the%202006%20races.pdf

an angry mob of joggers or just an ugly pig?

Nearly right Mandingo....

Apart from the 3000 odd who qualify for London either through the Championship (men sub 2:45, women 3:15) or Good for Age Schemes the majority of the entries are split through two routes.

-- The Ballot (approx 15,000 places) said to be overscribed about 4 to 1 (but many of these subsequently pick up charity plaes)

Ballot entries cost ~£25 $40? and if entering through the ballot you have a choice "should your entry not be successful".

- have the cheque returned to you

- donate the cheque to charity (The London Marathon Charitable Trust which supports sports development in the UK) and go into a second ballot draw for a few more places. Of course most people now are so desparate to get in they bequeath their fee in order to get a go in the second dip, rather than have to raise four figure for a charity route into the race.

-- Golden Bonds (approx 15,000 places)

This is the real money spinner for the marathon. About 15,000 places a year are sold to charities for about £250 ($400) a piece. These are then given out by the charities for runners who then pledge to raise a minimum - typically £1000 ($1600). Obviously this is where London has such a head start over other marathons in terms of generating income - and according to those who work for charities / the marathon the price paid by the charities is way below what the market would support.

So I guess the entry fees income would be along the lines of:

£1.125m -- £45,000 x £25 from Ballot entries (assuming 3/4 beqeuath)

£3.75m --- £15,000 x £250 from gold bond entries

£0.075m -- £3,000 x £25 from time qualified UK entries

£0.25m -- £5,000 x £50 (big guess as to price) for international entries

Giving a total from entry fees alone of £5.2 million. $8m

Obviously these are based on alot of guesswork but would probably be right to within + or - 50%.

That's before a penny of sponsors money.

Compare that to Boston. 23,000 entries at $75 each (based on what I can find online) = $1.7 - add a bit more for the international entries and call it $2m. A quarter of London's income. And much less TV coverage worldwide probably means less sponsors income (although I could be wrong).

londoner, go to Company House, you can get the financials for the London Marathon and the Charitable Trust. What they take in in entry fees goes to the charity. Elites are paid for by Flora, et al.

To be fair to Boston, the sponsoring companies have very different aims and company profiles. John Hancock needs to spend its money very differently to achieve those aims.

On the subject of the television, the new development of the interactive coverage is excellent. My father taped the BBCi coverage of the men's race on one telly and the women's on the other. Brilliant coverage.

Sorry Nobby, I wasn't implying anything impropper was happening with the entry fees, simply trying to show how and why London can and do pay the top prize money and appearance fees, and yet still have money left over to support lots of different sports in London, and athletics across the UK.

When I read the title for this thread, I thought you were going to comment on how small London's purse is compared to Chicago and New York which are both much larger. That's right, folks. New York pays the most.

The London men's champion only earns $55,000 for place, vs. $100,000 for New York (and Boston) and $125,000 for Chicago. Chicago and New York also have significant time bonuses (Boston doesn't), here are the total payouts according to the Association of Road Running Statisticians from 2005 (2006 in parentheses):

New York: $872,500

Chicago: $863,750

London: $614,000 ($820,500 in 2006)

Boston: $525,000 ($549,600 in 2006)

Berlin: $300,410

Vanny