New York Times article on Competitor Group backlash

I changed the title of this thread to better explain what it's about. The original title of this thread was, "Competitor Group backlash".

Personally, I thought the NY Times article was poorly written. It starts with the title.

The New York Times article is entitled, "Races End Fees to Top Runners, Drawing Outcry".

What an awful title. It should have been something like "Hedge fund pulls support for professional runners, draws outcry." I mean the title says "Fees" - what the hell does that mean? it says "races" which is a generic term and were talking about a specific firm.

When I wrote for papers, I had no say on the title of the article but the editor probably did a poor job of selecting one because in reading the article it's all over the place.

I guess it's complicated because you can talk about whether people like appearance fees or not and get totally sidetracked. Like Barnow, I don't like appearance fees in theory and would rather see prize money, but that's irrelevant, it's about the total amount of money they are spending to support pros.

But really they should have written an article about how many of your mom and pop race is now run by hedge funds focused on profit. Others are run by non-profits and the divide between that.

So many people in the comments section think, "Oh this is good. Entry fees will go down." False. Hedge funds are driving the escalting fees. It's also going to profit, not the sport.

Good to see people taking note. Front page of the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/sports/a-race-organizer-goes-in-a-different-direction-ending-appearance-fees.html?hp&_r=0

How is the Competitor Group a hedge fund?

Mush wrote:

"This is NOT a hero-driven sport. I couldn't name a single "Champion" road-runner except the guy from Kenya. Oh wait... they're all from Kenya."

This comment saddened me

This is the truth. Having a Kenyan winner doesn't create heroes for Americans. What is the justification for continuing to pay for a winner from Kenya or Ethiopia? Wonder how they'd feel if the winner was American. I'd rather see the money going towards supporting American runners.

That's what I've been saying all along. Reserved spots for Real Americans. And I mean that in the NCAA too.

No to lawi lalalang, Cheserek, German (!) Fernandez taking money for scholarships from our citizens! And reserve money for Real Americans in road races!

the truth comes out wrote:

This is the truth. Having a Kenyan winner doesn't create heroes for Americans. What is the justification for continuing to pay for a winner from Kenya or Ethiopia? Wonder how they'd feel if the winner was American. I'd rather see the money going towards supporting American runners.

Makes you wonder why there's such a big deal being made about this pitcher from Panama.

Mush wrote:

"Good. Why should my entry fee be higher just so the winner of the race can get a cash prize? Who cares who wins? None of us are running to win as much as we are running for our health, recreation and to better our times. This is NOT a hero-driven sport. I couldn't name a single "Champion" road-runner except the guy from Kenya. Oh wait... they're all from Kenya."

This comment saddened me

Lol, if that comment is from a New Yorker I wonder how they feel about paying tax money for Yankee Stadium?

Rojo:

The reason appearance fees exist is that they force people to show up. Did you see the prize money that was on the line at the Great North Run? First place got all of £500. But did you not think that both the men's and women's races were excellent?

Remember deriding meets that had Coe and Ovett running separate 1500m and mile races? They don't want to lose, but if you pay them enough, you make it worth risking the loss and we're left with a great matchup (as we were at the Great North Run).

Can you imagine a league like the Premier League or NFL that paid only prize money and had no guaranteed earnings? You wouldn't be able to schedule a match.

It is true, 90% of people who enter RnR races (or any other big city Marathons for that matter) don't care who wins neither do they know their names.

During the NYCM, about a million people are along the road but most are their to support their loved ones, not for the elites. I have been watching the NYC Marathon and Half Marathon for many years now. It is always the same: anonymous clapping, then "GO KARA", "GO RYAN" then anonymous clapping again followed by ecstatic cheering when their loved ones come.

So from a business perspective, it makes sense for NYRR (or competitor) or whomever to pay high appearance fees for popular runners (Hall, Kara, Shalane, Meb, Rupp, Ritz), but athletes like Mutai, Makau, Kipsang etc. bring nothing to the table for those 95%.

NYRR already pays a lot more money for Hall or Meb than for your average 2:09 Kenyan. How's that fair?

Mush wrote:

"Good. Why should my entry fee be higher just so the winner of the race can get a cash prize? Who cares who wins? None of us are running to win as much as we are running for our health, recreation and to better our times. This is NOT a hero-driven sport. I couldn't name a single "Champion" road-runner except the guy from Kenya. Oh wait... they're all from Kenya."

This comment saddened me

What a close minded statement.

How much is an extra dollar or two out of that guy's pocket really going to affect him?

It's not for the people on the side of the course or the mass participants. It's for coverage in the NY Times and for their (now) national and international television coverage. They're putting on a world class product.

Did Grete Waitz bring nothing to the table?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

It's for coverage in the NY Times and for their (now) national and international television coverage. They're putting on a world class product.

Did Grete Waitz bring nothing to the table?

Do you think NY Times sells more newspapers because they report about the race? Or do you think (like I do) that they sell because they list every single finisher in the Monday issue, so every finisher wants to buy the "NYTimes with their names in it"?

Grete Waitz brought a lot to the table. As did Uta Pippig who at the time of competition, was not a US citizen. But those athletes were highly marketable. They could give interviews in clear English and they weren't shy or anxious about it (I saw the Kipsang interview in Berlin ... OMG).

Haile is another example, great charisma, and that's one of the reason he gets high appearance fees. Bekele however, forget about it.

NYCRunner wrote:

Do you think NY Times sells more newspapers because they report about the race?

Not any more than they do when the Times covers the Yankees when they're in the postseason.

But people still see the paper or the website and then they see ING (or TCS starting next year). That's what they're spending all that money on.

NYCRunner wrote:

Grete Waitz brought a lot to the table. As did Uta Pippig who at the time of competition, was not a US citizen. But those athletes were highly marketable. They could give interviews in clear English and they weren't shy or anxious about it (I saw the Kipsang interview in Berlin ... OMG).

Haile is another example, great charisma, and that's one of the reason he gets high appearance fees. Bekele however, forget about it.

No argument there. They're paid because they're good, but more personality would garner more money.

NYCRunner wrote:

Grete Waitz brought a lot to the table. As did Uta Pippig who at the time of competition, was not a US citizen.

Well, Uta was terribly attractive and could bust out in a smile that would melt your loins. Members of the media are always going to want someone whose picture at the top will stop people from scanning to another page, and that's worth money to a race director.

It is tough to compare a team sport with Track & Field or Road Running. Best to try to compare it to individual sports like tennis, golf or even NASCAR.Instead of large appearance fees, how about it be put into the prize purse? Making it go deeper than it currently does. Give them a standard fee, and make them place well in the race. As an extreme example, what if the one of those 1980s 1500 where Ovett and Coe were at put 90% of the monies used on bringing them in was put into the purse and had a 100,000 (or more) winning prize? I bet both of them would have run.In regards to the article, I felt it leaned in favor of the PE side. Maybe mention how they use volunteers for a for-profit venture?

Left Said Fred wrote:

Rojo:

The reason appearance fees exist is that they force people to show up. Did you see the prize money that was on the line at the Great North Run? First place got all of £500. But did you not think that both the men's and women's races were excellent?

Remember deriding meets that had Coe and Ovett running separate 1500m and mile races? They don't want to lose, but if you pay them enough, you make it worth risking the loss and we're left with a great matchup (as we were at the Great North Run).

Can you imagine a league like the Premier League or NFL that paid only prize money and had no guaranteed earnings? You wouldn't be able to schedule a match.

The issue with prize purse vs appearance fee is that races probably get much more value out of appearance fees.

If the money just goes into prizes then it will mostly likely just go to anonymous foreign runners who show up, take their money and leave. If they even speak adequate English (often not the case), they won't do press, appear at schools, expos, etc. and can't or won't connect with most of the other runners or the public. There's just not much value to the race in having some nomadic C-level Kenyans and Ethiopians winning prize money. That's less true if you can get top names, people like Wes Korir who make an effort with the public, etc., but that usually only applies to top level races.

But with appearance fees, they go to runners that the race knows it will get some value from because part of the deal can be that they talk in schools, do easy runs with regular runners, sign autographs, etc., and they can be Americans or at least runners that the race management thinks will connect better with the public and back-of-the-pack runners.

For anyone who may know, how are the Kenyan front runners viewed in Japan? Big races there are won by foreigners yet viewing races as a spectator sport is still very popular.

Where you spend your money wrote:

The issue with prize purse vs appearance fee is that races probably get much more value out of appearance fees.

If the money just goes into prizes then it will mostly likely just go to anonymous foreign runners who show up, take their money and leave...

The race could choose to have it go to Americans. Why they continue letting it be a free for all is beyond me. Races won by Americans get more attention.

charmin wrote:The race could choose to have it go to Americans. Why they continue letting it be a free for all is beyond me. Races won by Americans get more attention.

Which is what the USATF road championships are all about. They have US championships at all sorts of distances (1 mile, 5k, 10k, 12k, 15k, 10 mile, 20k, 25k, marathon, 50k, 100k) as a way of supporting American distance runners because you have to be an American to win.

Other races have American-only prize money but I think saying you have to be an American to win an open race may look too blatantly protectionistic.