“IRONMAN is full of greed,” wrote a race organizer to me when I surveyed this cohort for its views on triathlon's dominant brand. “I would love for it to disappear.”
This statement is illustrative. Ironman is exposed to a line of attack to which it is more vulnerable in a post-2016-election world. “Why in God's name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions?” asks Bernie Sanders. “I guess just for the fun of it.” Questioning motives or behavior based on the money trail is fair game, now more than ever.
Ironman was owned between 2008 and 2015 by a company whose only reason to exist is to return a financial reward to its shareholders. That company – Providence Equity Partners – had no interest (that I could divine) in the health of the triathlon ecosystem. This isn’t conjecture in a Bernie Sanders world; it’s a logical consequence.
Does this mean that behavior engaged in solely or primarily to increase wealth is inherently detractive or destructive? Of course not. Some would argue the opposite. But it is a data point in the discussion of ecosystems. When Ironman is a pioneer species in an otherwise barren landscape it has always been a benefit to the growth of that ecosystem.
Ironman was a pioneer species in the 1980s. And in the 1990s. It still is today in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. What is Ironman when it places a race in a climax communities, where triathlon is a more or less mature ecosystem, populated by existing races, clubs, coaches, retail stores? Is Ironman a boost to the community or a nutrient-sucking invader species, decreasing the net biomass in a region? Is it the only species holding the soil together in an environment that would be doing much worse if this species were absent?
More than 400 tri coaches, tri club managers, retail stores and race organizers responded to surveys I sent them about Ironman's effect on the North American triathlon ecosystem, good or bad. Here’s what one coach wrote to me: “Challenge Atlantic City struggled to fill up their event for the few years it existed. IRONMAN takes it over and establishes their own 70.3. The race sells out immediately.”
Indeed. If there is a region in North America that has benefited enormously from Ironman it is the Mid-Atlantic. Two years ago the longtime organization producing the most notable race in Maryland was on life support. Eagleman was threatened and Chesapeakeman struggled to hit 200. Ironman essentially (if not technically) executed an asset purchase. It kept and built the best properties and let others go. Ironman Maryland is a successful rise from would have been the ashes of Cheseapeakeman.
Conversely, here is what the owner of a popular triathlon retailer said about his the last several years of his town of Boise, Idaho. “We are a triathlon focused retail store, and though our business has grown over the last 3 years, we have seen a slight drop in the number of triathlon-specific revenue during that time. The local 70.3 has left town and I've noticed that we have lost those one-timer athletes who were training for 70.3 as a bucket list event. The core triathletes are still racing and training, and ultimately these are what our business focuses on.
“Also, more local athletes are traveling to races. Many local triathlons closed down during the 8 years Ironman 70.3 was in town. When Ironman left town after last year’s race, it literally left only 3 local triathlons in the city – all sprints. There use to be 7 or 8 races of multiple distances before Ironman came to town in 2008.”
How Ironman is viewed in the triathlon race organizer community is graphically demonstrated by the chart above. Nearly every race director acknowledges that Ironman has been a source of good for triathlon, not just historically but in recent years, by ushering into triathlon new blood. Still, the two columns to which red arrows point speak to the insular nature of Ironman – not especially helpful or collegial to other race organizations in each region (from the point of view of many or most of triathlon's other race organizers).
Ironman certainly sees what the rest of the sport sees, that there has been a decline each year for the past 4 years in adult participation in triathlon. Does Ironman value the notion of working together with other race orgs, besides Life Time Fitness, its major RD strategic partner in the U.S.?
If Ironman believes it is a good faith partner in the fraternity of race organizers, our polling indicates that this fraternity fail to recognize Ironman’s welcome outreach to them. Circling back to the concept of ownership structure, RDs point to the profit motive as the reason Ironman is not in their industry, rather is at war with their industry.
"The high cost of competing in Ironman is the worst thing about it,” wrote one race organizer.
“Ironman overall draws people to it, but is too expensive in regards to the poor product it produces,” wrote another RD. “It saps the marketplace of its dollars and simply churns the population quickly.”
“We hear constantly that people cannot afford to do as many local races after they pay for Ironman events,” wrote one organizer. “Many of the industry partners, advertisers, manufacturers and retailers have placed all or most of their resources in Ironman and have slowly moved away from supporting the grass root and independent events. I don’t think there is any blame – it’s basic economics.”
“Ironman is the BULL,” wrote Danny McCann of Montreal Esprit Triathlon to me. “Ironman will do what it likes no matter who it hurts. This is just big business and Ironman is simply big business.
“I do not think Ironman can hurt me in Montreal but I am not happy to see it expand and knock out local races. If Ironman is buying distressed events and turning them around, then Ironman is doing some good for the sport.
“Athletes are not participating in our race because they did an Ironman event," Danny continued, "They do an Ironman event because they already participated in our race.”
