Just because something can be done, that doesn’t mean it is always the best course of action.
That was what we said with regards to including the Paris Test Event in the WTCS. However, the sentiment can equally be expressed of World Triathlon’s latest venture.
Prior to the Test Event, World Triathlon announced a new partnership with the Professional Triathletes Organisation (PTO). The PTO grew out of what was a union for athletes and has transformed into a commercial brand hosting races. With the PTO Open races, among others, they have pumped money into long distance racing.
Under the World Triathlon-PTO alliance, the PTO structure will become the basis of a long distance world series, matching that of the pre-existing WTCS.
Both parties have reasons to engage in the deal. For example, the PTO will be able to formally call its product the world series lends considerable legitimacy and credibility. For World Triathlon, the move may help it to assert its power over the entirety of the sport. After its legal entanglements with the World Triathlon Corporation (Ironman) in the 2000s, it has a rare opportunity to bring long distance firmly under its umbrella.
However, just because something can be done, it does not necessarily need to be enacted upon. Indeed, there is a fatal flaw that could sink this arrangement.
Let’s go back to the Test Event to explain why.
The Paris Olympic Test Event paid as a World Cup. Prior to the race, we wondered why the race was not simply called WTCS Paris from the start. The Test Even was included as a scoring race in the Series after all and had a world class start list. The answer was simple: it saved money.
Alex Yee and Beth Potter took home a mere USD 7,500 for their wins. A normal WTCS win is worth USD 19,000.
Moreover, at the Test Event, 15th place paid USD 150. At WTCS events, payment goes down to 30th place who take away USD 1,000. Financially, then, the athletes got a bad deal out of the Test Event.
On the one hand, as it was worth WTCS points its will contribute towards the end of season bonus pool for the overall Series. As such, money can still be made. On the other hand, if it counts towards the WTCS, maybe it should pay like the WTCS.
The money for the Test Event prize purse came from World Triathlon’s reserves. Herein lies the problem. If they are too cash-strapped to fully pay the athletes, their partnership with the PTO may suffer a premature demise.
While it is obviously lamentable how little the athletes are paid, the bigger intrigue arises when the Test Event is compared with the PTO.
Running in parallel with the Test Event was the PTO Asian Open. Kristian Blummenfelt took the win after finishing 9th at the Test Event. For his efforts, Blummenfelt took home USD 100,000.
In the WTCS, the bonus pool pays out USD 70,000 to the world champion, while a win at the WTCS Final is worth USD 30,000. It would therefore take winning the world title and the Final to make as much prize money in one day as Blummenfelt did at one PTO race. That is also a false equivalence as the PTO prize money is genuinely standalone. To win the WTCS an athlete needs four other high finishes in the Series too.
In terms of workload, it is therefore easier to make money in the PTO than the WTCS.
Further down the field, 15th place at the Asian Open paid USD 4,000. Pierre Le Corre took home USD 3,000 for his 4th place in Paris.
The WTCS has been the poor relative of the sport for some time. While it has the ties to the Olympic Games and therefore the prestige, it cannot compete financially. Even if the PTO prize money structure changes, it will likely dwarf that of the WTCS.
Money, then, is the time bomb that could thwart the deal between World Triathlon and the PTO. In a worst-case scenario, it could even undermine the WTCS itself.
The issue at hand is how the World Series partnership between the PTO and World Triathlon will work. If World Triathlon endorses a competition that pays far more than its own flagship product, it will lose talent. The more talent the WTCS loses, the more irrelevant it will become.
World Triathlon therefore has two options: do nothing or raise the prize money. Based on current finances, World Triathlon is not in a position to raise WTCS prize money across the board in such a way.
Henceforth, the ball is in the PTO’s court.
The PTO can choose to do nothing and leave the status quo as it is. Plenty of athletes looking to make money will have their heads turned which will help the PTO. Athletes have short careers and rent to pay. That outcome, however, would be severely detrimental to the WTCS.
Alternatively, the PTO could subsidise the WTCS prize money to ensure pay parity. Yet that could disturb stakeholders in the PTO. Even if the PTO did make this move, it would render World Triathlon and the WTCS beholden to it. The PTO would suddenly command plenty of influence over the WTCS while having an interest in a separate series which would be a problematic state of affairs.
A third option is for the PTO to cut its own prize money to bring it in line with the WTCS which would rather upset its current crop of long distance athletes.
When it comes to paying the athletes equally across both competitions, the money does not add up and there is a real risk that World Triathlon cannot carry two world series simultaneously.
If World Triathlon has to raise its prize money to match PTO or even contribute towards PTO, it could slip into a loss position. It managed to turn a profit in 2020 and 2021 but there’s is only so much it can take.
A separate conversation can also be held as to whether the PTO is even different enough from a distance perspective to justify its own series. PTO is distances are typically a 2km swim, 80km bike and 18km run. Even with the non-drafting format of the bike, the product is not massively different.
The primary issue, however, is money.
World Triathlon are already not in a position to adequately pay their athletes, as shown by the prize money at the Paris Test Event. To absorb a whole new series with a complete different pay structure is therefore a big risk.
At this point, there are two possible dangerous outcomes on the horizon. Either World Triathlon breaks the bank to pay for this second series and risks the entire sport, or it leaves the issue of prize money as it is and lets the WTCS wither on the vine.
Whatever happens next, the unbalanced finances between the WTCS and PTO may be about to precipitate the biggest shift in triathlon of the last decade. For fans of the WTCS, the shift might not be one you want to see.
