✳️How should Trail Running be Run?

A conversation with UTMB’s head of Sports, Communities and Sustainability, Fabrice Perrin

Hey pals,

I just got back from a long weekend in the Lakes where I moderated a panel on the future of trail running in the UK at the Adventure Sports Events Conference (ASEC). Some fascinating discussion but one of the main points (relevant to this article) is that UTMB is having a material impact on all RD’s races - and we only have two races on this archipelago of ours that are currently organised by UTMB.

I also found my article on the state of trail running and what athletics can learn from it was published in this month’s print issue of Athletics Weekly - UK folk can find it in WHSmiths.

Now to today’s piece.

Last week I wrote a post for paid subscribers that showed that almost half of all 1000+ finisher events in the world are organised by UTMB. Fabrice Perrin, Head of Sports, Community and Sustainability at UTMB, responded in a post on LinkedIn that outlined his view that UTMB are only a small % of all races globally and feed an ecosystem of smaller races through encouraging more people to run trails.

It was a fair piece that I agree with in part, but thought a further discussion was needed to hear out UTMB’s position on competition and global governance. I’ve published the full messages below because I feel the points Fabrice makes needs the space to be read in full. It’s a lot, so i also give my perspective on the conversation in a brief analysis for paid subscribers.

Ultimately whether you agree or disagree with Fabrice’s perspective, these are the conversations our sport needs right now, so I’m grateful for Fabrice’s frank and open discussion.

Hope you have a great week,

Matt

Matt: I think where the tension lies isn’t in the number of UTMB events versus the total number of races, but in where cultural gravity sits. When one group runs nearly half of the world’s biggest ultras, it inevitably shapes what runners, sponsors and media see as “the sport.” Curious how you think we keep that ecosystem diverse at the top end.

Fabrice: You’re right: the real tension isn’t in the raw number of events, it’s in the cultural gravity. When one group sits at the center of visibility - athletes, brands, media, storytelling - it inevitably influences what the outside world sees as “the sport.”

For me the key is this: if the top end grows, it has to pull others upward with it, not absorb everything around it.

A few concrete ways I think we can keep the ecosystem diverse:

1️⃣ Protect and amplify local identities
Even inside global circuits, races need to keep their own cultural DNA - volunteers, traditions, terrain, local stories. That’s the opposite of standardisation.

2️⃣ Strengthen independent races through visibility and pathways
The UTMB Index system is built to encourage runners to participate in smaller, regional events: it creates progression, and it keeps thousands of independent races relevant in a very direct way.

3️⃣ Open athlete pathways beyond a single circuit
A healthy sport means athletes can shine through multiple routes: championships, historic races, other circuits, community-driven events.

4️⃣ Ensure big events contribute back to territories
If the cultural gravity is strong at the top, the responsibility must be equally strong: environmental commitments, funding local partners, supporting rescue and safety infrastructures.

5️⃣ Keep the sport governed by the sport
This is why collaboration with organisations like Golden Trail Series, WTM, Marathon des Sables, Hardrock, WS100, World Athletics, PTRA, WMRA and ITRA matters. The sport shouldn’t be “owned”; it must be stewarded collectively.

In short, I don’t think the goal is to reduce gravity at the top - but to increase diversity around it, so the ecosystem stays plural, creative and alive.

Matt: Appreciate this, especially the point about stewarding the sport collectively.

One thing I’m curious about is the UTMB Index: it certainly creates progression, but it also creates a gravitational pull toward UTMB-labeled pathways. For many runners, “relevant” becomes defined by that system.

How do we balance the benefits of structure with ensuring that independent events aren’t gradually pulled into a single orbit?”

Fabrice: About your question on the UTMB Index: you’re right.
Any system that brings structure also creates a bit of gravity... that’s normal.
The Index only makes sense if it stays a tool for everyone, not something that pulls everything toward one place.

The goal has always been simple:
> help runners understand their level and progress,
> give visibility to thousands of independent races,
> and offer a common reference for the whole sport.

And to avoid what you’re describing - a system that becomes too central - the solution is clear to me: the sport has to be built and guided together.

Not by one organisation, but by a mix of actors: circuits, independent races, historic events, athletes, and the wider community...

There are already a lot of good conversations happening in the background about how we can share standards, share pathways, and keep the sport open.

The idea that if trail running is becoming global, it needs some common tools that everyone can use.

If big events have cultural gravity, then their role is to create space around them, not to shrink it.

Is this the discussion between UTMB, World Athletics and GTWS (and PTRA)? Can you elaborate on what the ambition is for the shared outcome of the negotiations?

Yes, there are conversations happening between several organisations in the sport, and they include some of the names you mention ☺️.

But they’re early-stage, informal, and not the kind of thing I can frame as “negotiations”.

Right now it’s more about sharing concerns, comparing visions, and exploring where common ground could exist...

So I can’t comment on anything specific or formal - there’s nothing official to announce, and I don’t want to speak on behalf of anyone else.

What I can say is what the ambition looks like from my point of view:
> the sport needs some shared foundations (basic standards, safety, ethics, anti-doping, athlete pathways),
> no single organisation should define the whole sport,
> and we need tools that are open, transparent, and useful to everyone, not owned culturally or politically by one actor.

If anything, the shared ambition is simply this: to make sure the sport grows without losing diversity, and without creating parallel systems that confuse athletes and weaken organisers.

A healthy sport needs strong independent events, strong circuits, strong championships. All coexisting. That’s the spirit of the conversations so far.

Between people who care about the sport... trying to understand how we can align on the big pieces.

What you describe makes sense, but it also highlights the key pressure point:
If the sport uses shared tools, then control of those tools also needs to be shared. Otherwise we end up with common infrastructure shaped by a single actor, even unintentionally.

I’d love to hear how you think shared control could realistically, and practically, work in trail running’s current landscape considering we’re in the situation we’re in now because trail running hasn’t had a strong independent governing body.

Thanks, you’re raising exactly the right pressure point.

And I completely agree with your premise: if the sport uses shared tools, then the governance of those tools has to be shared too. Otherwise, even with the best intentions, you end up with an imbalance.

Now… how to make that practical, in a sport that has grown without a strong independent governing body?

There is no perfect model on the table today, and anyone pretending otherwise is oversimplifying the reality. Trail running grew fast, organically, and often outside traditional structures. So we’re trying to build coordination on top of something that was never designed for it.

But here’s what I believe could work in a realistic way:

1/ Separate ownership from governance
A tool can be developed by one actor, but guided by a wider group.
Almost like a consortium or supervisory board that ensures the tool stays open, neutral, and useful to all.

2/ Build shared governance step by step, not in one big reform
Trail running isn’t ready for a “global authority”.
But it is ready for:
• shared standards,
• shared anti-doping alignment.
Piece by piece, not all at once.

3/ Involve multiple types of actors, not just institutions
If governance only includes federations, it misses half the sport.
If it only includes private organisers, it misses the other half.
A real structure needs:
• federations,
• major circuits,
• independent organisers,
• athlete.
That mix would reflect the actual ecosystem of trail running.

4/ Make the shared tools transparent and open
Whatever tools the sport relies on - Index, rankings, standards - need to be:
• documented,
• auditable,
• and usable by anyone, regardless of affiliation.
That’s the only way to prevent cultural or political capture.

5/ Accept that shared governance doesn’t mean bureaucracy
It can be something light, simple, and focused on the essentials.
We don’t need a massive organisation.
We need clarity, neutrality and collaboration.

For me, the ambition isn’t to create a “new authority”. It’s simply to ensure the sport has common foundations that no single actor shapes alone.

Fascinating. Put simply, what you’re describing sounds less like creating a central governing body and more like forming a standards consortium, something closer to what exists in surfing, skateboarding or even cycling. In those sports, no single organisation “owns” the landscape, but they still share rules, rankings, safety norms and athlete pathways because the major actors agree it’s in everyone’s interest.

That model feels like the closest precedent for trail: shared tools, shared oversight, distributed ownership. A coordinating layer, not an authority.

I think we could go on and on here, but It feels like where this conversation is heading isn’t about whether UTMB is too big or is swallowing independents, but about what model of shared stewardship the sport ultimately needs.

If we agree that trail needs both independence and shared tools, then the real (and my final) question becomes: What would a version of the sport look like where the top end can grow without creating dependency at the grassroots - where independent races remain genuinely independent, not relying on UTMB or ITRA systems for their visibility or long-term sustainability?

Really like the way you’re framing this, a coordinating layer instead of an authority. That’s exactly how I see it too.

Trail running doesn’t need a single “owner”. It needs shared foundations so that the sport stays READABLE, fair, and safe, while remaining culturally wild and independent.

And your last question is the most important one: what does growth at the top look like when it doesn’t create dependency at the grassroots?

For me, it looks something like this:

1/ Independent races stay truly independent
They keep their identity, their rules, their format, their pricing, their community.
They don’t need to “join” anything to exist or thrive.

2/ Shared tools remain optional, not mandatory
Rankings, index, calendars, safety guidelines…Useful, widely accessible, but not required. If a race wants to use them, great. If not, it should still have the same legitimacy.

3/ Visibility shouldn’t depend on one system
A healthy landscape means:
• strong local media,
• strong national federations,
• strong independent storytellers,
• and multiple circuits telling the story of the sport.
No single platform becomes “the only window”.

4/ Grassroots organisers access resources without being absorbed
Things like:
• shared medical protocols,
• environmental guidance,
• crisis management,
• safety frameworks.
Not as a condition to enter a system, but simply as shared knowledge for the whole sport.

5/ Athletes can progress through many pathways
A runner can reach the top by:
• circuits like GTWS or Skyrunning or WTM or UTMB or whatever,
• historic races,
• national or continental championships,
• or community-driven events.
No single ladder defines “the way in”.

6/ Big events act as amplifiers, not centres of gravity
They can bring visibility, elevate storytelling, inspire newcomers. But they shouldn’t define what is “legitimate” or “relevant”. Their role is to widen the space, not shape it in their image.

Reflection

What this whole exchange with Fabrice really surfaces is the core paradox of trail