Interestingly cycling is all about the rider's contracts, transfer rumours, etc. It adds depth but also is what fills the off-season news.
Perhaps the issue in trail running is still there there are not many team structures other Salomon, Terrex , North Face, and the reason for changing sponsors is still very much based on who will offer a better contract. In cycling, the reasons for changing are much more dramatic such as a rider going to another team to have a shot as a leader, or a team offering a better support team, better coaches etc.
As the sport of trail running continues to grow and structured teams become more prevalent I think it will be a natural evolution that we will talk of runners going to rival "teams" vs another "brand". Also, the day that the teams begin to become sponsored by non-running brands will be a big step in the growth of the sport on a global scale but that is a whole other story on how you will build a cohesive storyline of a season of running that a causal fan can follow and understand more easily, Sky Running, Mountain Running, GTS, UTMB Series, where do you even begin..
Great point Christian, the comparison to cycling is an interesting one. GTS tried in their docu-series this year to play up some brand team rivalries, to varying degrees of success. But confusingly they then bracketed athletes into country-based teams this year. Whatever team structure we settle on, there needs to be some belief from fans that each team is different in some way to foster rivalries and competition.
Agree on the non-running brand point - the only non-endemic brand that has a sponsorship deal in trail running that i can think of at the moment is Dacia with UTMB. Wonder if we’ll get some pharma or telecoms companies like cycling…
Another thought provoking post, Matt. My take on all this is that brands and organisations have an opportunity - through storytelling - to turn casual viewers into fans. I’d argue that you and your friends, who you say are “ just nomads who are happy to watch something entertaining on a Saturday night” could become fans of the stories around ice hockey were told better. If you were more invested in what was happening on the ice, in the league and in the teams, then you’d be more likely to buy a season ticket, some merch and pay attention to the brands involved in the sport. So I’d argue that you are the perfect target for whomever is marketing the sport. Running has the chance to do the same thing - turn casual observers into fans. But the answer has to be stories.
Oh completely agree with you there - I’ve been wondering though, what elements of running do you think are not being told or developed as much as they could be? And where do you think the onus for storytelling sits - on brands or organisations?
For me i feel running tends to focus too much on individual performances, but neglects the fact that these performances happened in the context of a race, where there were potential rivalries or competitors that spurred them on to be better.
An additional perspective is that while newer participants like you and Finn appreciate what goes on 'behind the curtain', the old guard did not want to know. "Business" was sort of frowned upon; ultrarunners did it for the love of the sport. This is a classic storyline, well told by "Chariots of Fire". Note that it wasn't until 1986 that the Olympics allowed an athlete who had ever been paid anything! The best runners in the world had to be paid under the table; a great example is Frank Shorter - Yale B.A., Florida J.D. Law - and 2 Olympic medals - who fought hard to allow economic sustainability in this sport. The story goes on, as this speaks to the privileged class, etc.
Christians comparison with road cycling opens another storyline - cycling is indeed the opposite of running - but it's business model is a wreck, with too much power held by the big races - which speaks to our current questions re UTMB.
Fascinating context there Buzz, do you still think the old guard are not interested in what goes on ‘behind the curtain’?
The comparison to cycling is unnerving now that few big ultramarathons now exist outside of UTMB. As we’re only seeing the start of what UTMB is to become I’m still holding hope that it’s a net benefit to the sport, but the historical precedent is hard to ignore…
I think professionalism in ultrarunning is now accepted, while the UTMB circus raises eyebrows, which I think, few of us would argue with, even as we follow and participate. The media/marketing language is very undeveloped, almost embarrassingly so - I avidly follow other sports that I don't do, while find ultrarunning too boring follow, even though I'm a longtime participant.
Professional road cycling is a huge other subject. Note that the UCI Tour probably costs 300 million dollars - and it mostly exists only in western Europe. Cycling is big in the US, yet professional cycling totally collapsed in this country. Not only do athletes have little say in what they do, but multi-billion dollar sponsors don't either.
Interestingly cycling is all about the rider's contracts, transfer rumours, etc. It adds depth but also is what fills the off-season news.
Perhaps the issue in trail running is still there there are not many team structures other Salomon, Terrex , North Face, and the reason for changing sponsors is still very much based on who will offer a better contract. In cycling, the reasons for changing are much more dramatic such as a rider going to another team to have a shot as a leader, or a team offering a better support team, better coaches etc.
As the sport of trail running continues to grow and structured teams become more prevalent I think it will be a natural evolution that we will talk of runners going to rival "teams" vs another "brand". Also, the day that the teams begin to become sponsored by non-running brands will be a big step in the growth of the sport on a global scale but that is a whole other story on how you will build a cohesive storyline of a season of running that a causal fan can follow and understand more easily, Sky Running, Mountain Running, GTS, UTMB Series, where do you even begin..
Great point Christian, the comparison to cycling is an interesting one. GTS tried in their docu-series this year to play up some brand team rivalries, to varying degrees of success. But confusingly they then bracketed athletes into country-based teams this year. Whatever team structure we settle on, there needs to be some belief from fans that each team is different in some way to foster rivalries and competition.
Agree on the non-running brand point - the only non-endemic brand that has a sponsorship deal in trail running that i can think of at the moment is Dacia with UTMB. Wonder if we’ll get some pharma or telecoms companies like cycling…
Another thought provoking post, Matt. My take on all this is that brands and organisations have an opportunity - through storytelling - to turn casual viewers into fans. I’d argue that you and your friends, who you say are “ just nomads who are happy to watch something entertaining on a Saturday night” could become fans of the stories around ice hockey were told better. If you were more invested in what was happening on the ice, in the league and in the teams, then you’d be more likely to buy a season ticket, some merch and pay attention to the brands involved in the sport. So I’d argue that you are the perfect target for whomever is marketing the sport. Running has the chance to do the same thing - turn casual observers into fans. But the answer has to be stories.
Oh completely agree with you there - I’ve been wondering though, what elements of running do you think are not being told or developed as much as they could be? And where do you think the onus for storytelling sits - on brands or organisations?
For me i feel running tends to focus too much on individual performances, but neglects the fact that these performances happened in the context of a race, where there were potential rivalries or competitors that spurred them on to be better.
Good perspective, and agreed.
An additional perspective is that while newer participants like you and Finn appreciate what goes on 'behind the curtain', the old guard did not want to know. "Business" was sort of frowned upon; ultrarunners did it for the love of the sport. This is a classic storyline, well told by "Chariots of Fire". Note that it wasn't until 1986 that the Olympics allowed an athlete who had ever been paid anything! The best runners in the world had to be paid under the table; a great example is Frank Shorter - Yale B.A., Florida J.D. Law - and 2 Olympic medals - who fought hard to allow economic sustainability in this sport. The story goes on, as this speaks to the privileged class, etc.
Christians comparison with road cycling opens another storyline - cycling is indeed the opposite of running - but it's business model is a wreck, with too much power held by the big races - which speaks to our current questions re UTMB.
Fascinating context there Buzz, do you still think the old guard are not interested in what goes on ‘behind the curtain’?
The comparison to cycling is unnerving now that few big ultramarathons now exist outside of UTMB. As we’re only seeing the start of what UTMB is to become I’m still holding hope that it’s a net benefit to the sport, but the historical precedent is hard to ignore…
I think professionalism in ultrarunning is now accepted, while the UTMB circus raises eyebrows, which I think, few of us would argue with, even as we follow and participate. The media/marketing language is very undeveloped, almost embarrassingly so - I avidly follow other sports that I don't do, while find ultrarunning too boring follow, even though I'm a longtime participant.
Professional road cycling is a huge other subject. Note that the UCI Tour probably costs 300 million dollars - and it mostly exists only in western Europe. Cycling is big in the US, yet professional cycling totally collapsed in this country. Not only do athletes have little say in what they do, but multi-billion dollar sponsors don't either.