Very well, said, Chris. From my perspective, I was never a fan of huge commercially-driven events and always preferred smaller local ones driven by soul, no matter whether was it trail running, running, or cross-country skiing. People we meet are a huge part of the satisfaction and experience we get by taking part in races. Seeing how much soul and love locals, for example, put into preparing and making such events happen is a treasure on its own. Therefore I agree we as a community make a choice and supporting such local events by participating is definitely a good one.
Thanks for this, Artem. You are right about the "soul" of our sport. It lies within us, and whenever dedicated and passionate runners gather the true spirit of this community will become visible.
Thanks for covering this topic. It's important that we runners think about how we spend our money and how we support the sport. One thing you didn't mention is UTMB's relatively new "stone" system that requires runners to run their branded events as qualifications to enter the UTMB lottery. This is really what's driving the monopolization. I hope you will check out the second half of this post, where I also write about the brand's homogenization of events. Happy new year. https://sarahrunning.substack.com/p/getting-loopy-on-long-runs
Sarah, happy new year to you, too! You are absolutely right, the new "stones" qualifying system ist at the very core of the alarming monopoly position of UTMB. I only made a side comment about it ("...more than 40 races around the globe. All interwoven in the fabric of a multi-level qualifying system every runner has to submit to, if they want to participate in the actual UTMB “finals” in Chamonix."), but this fact definitely needs more attention. In fact, it was the main reason why a lot of my personal friends turned away from UTMB. We want to plan our racing season as WE wish, not as UTMB wants us to. We have already done most of the "by UTMB" races close to us, before they were "by UTMB". Most of them were, and still are, super nice, but returning to the same races over and over again, just to collect some stones is not how we vision our racing seasons.
I had obviosly missed your substack about the UTMB issue, thanks for pointing me towards it! A really great deep-dive with great quotes and absolutely plausible conclusions.
Happy Holidays! Thanks for another great read :) I know it's simplistic, but spend money on what you want to do, run where you want to run. Nothing is forever so if you really want to run something, do it while you can
Thanks for this post. I too am a glass-half-full person, and your hopes are similar to mine — that UTMB will realize they are drifting, and come back to us. The majority opinion when I wrote about this (https://rushofitall.substack.com/p/utmb-gone-astray) seemed to be that this was naive, that they knew full-well what they were doing, that money is the driving factor and they will drive on with their current approach, weather the storm, and be fine on the other side of it (even if some portion of their audience disowns them). That may well be right, but I still share your hope...
If UTMB did want to come back to us, what could they do? My thought is that the core issue is the "by UTMB" system that makes their branded races the only route into the main race. I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it needs to be that way. If they were to return to something like their old system, where there was a wide selection of well-vetted qualifying races to choose from (a system that helped rather than hurt the broader trailrunning community), I think a lot of us would welcome them back.
Why do they need that "by UTMB" monopoly anyway? Well-run races at prime venues are likely to sell out regardless of whether they are qualifiers for some other race or not. Are they saying that their races couldn't compete otherwise, that they require the monopoly to achieve sell-outs, that they wouldn't be able to attract a full field otherwise? That's certainly what it looks like.
In reality, if they were to return to something like their old system, with multiple paths to Mont Blanc, I think they would still sell out their branded races (and maybe the protest movement — especially if people like Zach decide to convene at other venues — has a chance of actually making them more likely to sell out in an open system rather than in a closed one). They could still be just as commercial, make just as much money... the only real difference is that we could view them as responsible citizens rather than a fallen pariah.
Hey Jeff, thanks for your feedback! I remember reading your substack article about UTMB. It came out before Whistler, right? At that time I was still even more "glass-half-full". For a long time my argument was that UTMB had reacted positively to feedback and criticism in the past, for example regarding pregnancy-deferrals and on a par media coverage of female athletes. But then Whistler and kicking out Corrine Malcolm happened and it got VERY hard to stay hopeful everything would turn out for the good one day.
Great thoughts on the new qualification system and "by UTMB" races. I totally agree with you. I don't think they really need it. An open system would work for them equally well and an increasing amount of money could still be earned, simply because the sport grows and UTMB (finals) are still the no.1 races in the sport.
Another thing that never understood is why so many well established races wanted to become "by UTMB", anyway. I don't know many of the US races which teamed up with UTMB, but over here in Europe, well establihsed, iconic events like the Eiger Ultra Trail, Mozart100, Lavaredo Ultratrail and Verbier were sold out every year even before they become "by UTMB" races. They had their own "fans", sold their own merch and stood on top of the bucket list of many runners. I wonder what their advantage was to sign that contract. But as I write in my article, none of us have actually read those contracts. We have no idea how far-reaching those agreements are, and in what way (extra) money is being earned for both parties.
My prediction is that 2024 will be highly dynamic regarding UTMB. A lot of things will happen. Funny side note: I don't even plan to participate any ultra races next year haha! But I'm going to follow the development and look forward to discuss them with all of you!
Agreed - without seeing the actual contracts involved, we can only speculate. Still, it's hard to imagine what could possibly be in there to convince a race like Western States (for example) to be involved. (For a while I thought WSER wasn't really "in" the same way as the other races are, because on at least some of the UTMB race lists they are the only one to avoid the "by UTMB" branding, but then I found "Western States® 100-Mile Endurance Run by UTMB®" on other UTMB web pages.)
Anyway, thanks, and yes, it will be interesting to see how things develop.
Very well, said, Chris. From my perspective, I was never a fan of huge commercially-driven events and always preferred smaller local ones driven by soul, no matter whether was it trail running, running, or cross-country skiing. People we meet are a huge part of the satisfaction and experience we get by taking part in races. Seeing how much soul and love locals, for example, put into preparing and making such events happen is a treasure on its own. Therefore I agree we as a community make a choice and supporting such local events by participating is definitely a good one.
Thanks for this, Artem. You are right about the "soul" of our sport. It lies within us, and whenever dedicated and passionate runners gather the true spirit of this community will become visible.
Thanks for covering this topic. It's important that we runners think about how we spend our money and how we support the sport. One thing you didn't mention is UTMB's relatively new "stone" system that requires runners to run their branded events as qualifications to enter the UTMB lottery. This is really what's driving the monopolization. I hope you will check out the second half of this post, where I also write about the brand's homogenization of events. Happy new year. https://sarahrunning.substack.com/p/getting-loopy-on-long-runs
Sarah, happy new year to you, too! You are absolutely right, the new "stones" qualifying system ist at the very core of the alarming monopoly position of UTMB. I only made a side comment about it ("...more than 40 races around the globe. All interwoven in the fabric of a multi-level qualifying system every runner has to submit to, if they want to participate in the actual UTMB “finals” in Chamonix."), but this fact definitely needs more attention. In fact, it was the main reason why a lot of my personal friends turned away from UTMB. We want to plan our racing season as WE wish, not as UTMB wants us to. We have already done most of the "by UTMB" races close to us, before they were "by UTMB". Most of them were, and still are, super nice, but returning to the same races over and over again, just to collect some stones is not how we vision our racing seasons.
I had obviosly missed your substack about the UTMB issue, thanks for pointing me towards it! A really great deep-dive with great quotes and absolutely plausible conclusions.
thanks!
Happy Holidays! Thanks for another great read :) I know it's simplistic, but spend money on what you want to do, run where you want to run. Nothing is forever so if you really want to run something, do it while you can
Thanks Adam, same to you! Well... sometimes the solution to a complex matter IS that easy haha ;-)
Good summary. Thanks for wrapping up.
Thank you, Jens! Left me awake a couple of times lately and I am glad I finally nailed it to paper ;-)
I can imagine! 🥴😄👌🏻
Thanks for this post. I too am a glass-half-full person, and your hopes are similar to mine — that UTMB will realize they are drifting, and come back to us. The majority opinion when I wrote about this (https://rushofitall.substack.com/p/utmb-gone-astray) seemed to be that this was naive, that they knew full-well what they were doing, that money is the driving factor and they will drive on with their current approach, weather the storm, and be fine on the other side of it (even if some portion of their audience disowns them). That may well be right, but I still share your hope...
If UTMB did want to come back to us, what could they do? My thought is that the core issue is the "by UTMB" system that makes their branded races the only route into the main race. I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it needs to be that way. If they were to return to something like their old system, where there was a wide selection of well-vetted qualifying races to choose from (a system that helped rather than hurt the broader trailrunning community), I think a lot of us would welcome them back.
Why do they need that "by UTMB" monopoly anyway? Well-run races at prime venues are likely to sell out regardless of whether they are qualifiers for some other race or not. Are they saying that their races couldn't compete otherwise, that they require the monopoly to achieve sell-outs, that they wouldn't be able to attract a full field otherwise? That's certainly what it looks like.
In reality, if they were to return to something like their old system, with multiple paths to Mont Blanc, I think they would still sell out their branded races (and maybe the protest movement — especially if people like Zach decide to convene at other venues — has a chance of actually making them more likely to sell out in an open system rather than in a closed one). They could still be just as commercial, make just as much money... the only real difference is that we could view them as responsible citizens rather than a fallen pariah.
Hey Jeff, thanks for your feedback! I remember reading your substack article about UTMB. It came out before Whistler, right? At that time I was still even more "glass-half-full". For a long time my argument was that UTMB had reacted positively to feedback and criticism in the past, for example regarding pregnancy-deferrals and on a par media coverage of female athletes. But then Whistler and kicking out Corrine Malcolm happened and it got VERY hard to stay hopeful everything would turn out for the good one day.
Great thoughts on the new qualification system and "by UTMB" races. I totally agree with you. I don't think they really need it. An open system would work for them equally well and an increasing amount of money could still be earned, simply because the sport grows and UTMB (finals) are still the no.1 races in the sport.
Another thing that never understood is why so many well established races wanted to become "by UTMB", anyway. I don't know many of the US races which teamed up with UTMB, but over here in Europe, well establihsed, iconic events like the Eiger Ultra Trail, Mozart100, Lavaredo Ultratrail and Verbier were sold out every year even before they become "by UTMB" races. They had their own "fans", sold their own merch and stood on top of the bucket list of many runners. I wonder what their advantage was to sign that contract. But as I write in my article, none of us have actually read those contracts. We have no idea how far-reaching those agreements are, and in what way (extra) money is being earned for both parties.
My prediction is that 2024 will be highly dynamic regarding UTMB. A lot of things will happen. Funny side note: I don't even plan to participate any ultra races next year haha! But I'm going to follow the development and look forward to discuss them with all of you!
Agreed - without seeing the actual contracts involved, we can only speculate. Still, it's hard to imagine what could possibly be in there to convince a race like Western States (for example) to be involved. (For a while I thought WSER wasn't really "in" the same way as the other races are, because on at least some of the UTMB race lists they are the only one to avoid the "by UTMB" branding, but then I found "Western States® 100-Mile Endurance Run by UTMB®" on other UTMB web pages.)
Anyway, thanks, and yes, it will be interesting to see how things develop.