Home > Fit City > Archives > 2008 > November > 19 > Entry
Is running for charity bad for the sport?
Is running for charity a bad thing?
John Conley, director of the Austin Marathon and Half Marathon, just returned from a road race directors meeting in Florida, where veteran running broadcaster Toni Reavis talked about what focusing on mass participation rather than elite competition has done to the sport of road racing.
In a word, Reavis says it’s made it “boring.” Conley emailed me a copy of the broadcaster’s comments, which definitely stirred up the crowd.
“In 2006 charities raised $714 million through running events in the USA, up $49 million from the previous year,” Reavis said. “But ask yourself, what do any of these charities have to do with running? Where is the connection other than they see our stages as perfect vehicles for their purposes?”
These days, a flood of regional road races that push participation over competition has made for dismal fan interest, Reavis told the gathering. The average age of runners is growing older. Kids aren’t inspired to follow in the foot path of running heroes because there are no big heros. Running gets minimal coverage in the media.
Reavis, creator of the radio show “Runner’s Digest,” called on the industry veterans to create more inspiring events that would engage the next generation and, in turn, fight childhood obesity.
To do that, he said, we need running heroes. That means bigger prize purses and more coordinated series of running events across the country, Reavis said. That will draw more media attention and reinvigorate the sport of running.
“You cannot sell kids running as a health issue,” Reavis said. “That has no soul. But ‘I want to be him!’ or ‘I want to be her!’ That does.”
Many runners today don’t realize there has been a dramatic shift from running for running’s sake to running for a disease or a charity. But in the 1970s and 1980s, during the running boom, charities weren’t integrally associated with running as they are now. “Toni argues that running has been co-opted by charity and now the charity is the focus instead of the sport,” Conley says.
“It was an interesting discussion about where our sport is headed and why sponsorship dollars are being shunted to other sports, including ‘games’ like poker and billiards, which routinely get great coverage on ESPN and ESPN-2,” Conley said.
Interesting stuff.
I like the fact that charity events get people who otherwise wouldn’t off the couch and exercising. What’s the harm in that?
What do you think? Is there a down side to charity running events?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment Categories: running
Comments
Click here to report comment abuse.
By RunningNation
November 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
This is a tough point to argue. The moment you open your mouth to point out the negatives associated with charity running, you become evil.
The truth is, there is plenty of competitive running going on all over the country/world. It takes place on the track. Distance running just doesn’t have the glitz & glamor held by sports like football, basketball and - God forbid - even poker.
Personally, I am a huge fan of distance running, but I don’t care to watch it as much as I watch basketball. Sure, I will tune in for big races, but big races rarely happen anymore. Runners are too scared to go head-to-head on a large scale outside of the huge races like the Olympic Games and World Championships. Personally, I don’t blame them, that is how the sport works. Runners have to peak for specific races, and therefore only come out of the woodwork when there is something worth winning. The majority of races are time trials. I don’t fault the runners necessarily, but that is how the sport works.
I ran competitively in college, and even held a fairly decent post-collegiate career, so I know the importance of peaking.
For an example, lets just focus on the marathon. Someone like Ryan Hall or Brian Sell cannot run every major marathon and expect to compete with someone training for one specific race. In basketball, Gilbert Arenas can go out every other night and play his butt off for the fans. Kids aren’t going to back some runner who only shows his face once a year, at most.
In my opinion, trying to build running into a major spectator sport is a hollow initiative. It is never going to happen. 99.9% of the time, the only people who pay attention to running are runners. Take away the charity running dollars and you have a sport with the same amount of true fans, but far fewer dollars.
Are races prostituting themselves to charity runners? Yes. But what is the alternative?
By Rob
November 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
I disagree completely. Charity runs bring out people. People bring sponsors. Sponsors fund purses. Purses bring out professional runners. Kids who would be sitting at home watching TV are dragged out by their parents to these runs. The competitive kids want to run fast. Some get hooked.
The wane in popularity of elite running in the US is the same as in tennis: now that the sport is dominated by non-Americans the American public isn’t as interested. Simple fact. Get a Tiger Woods of running who wins the Boston Marathon and popularity will rise.
By Muna
November 20, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
I am not sure that I agree with Reavis’ opinion that you have to sell kids on running by offering up a glamorous hero who runs. I would think that parents running would be the best path to kids taking up the sport.
If we are looking at ways to encourage kids’ running, I think there are better options than distancing races from charities. More track events for kids, more kids’ races, kids’ running clubs, kids’ running coaches. All of these things exist for team sports, which cost a lot more. Why don’t they exist in greater numbers for kids’ running, too? Marathon Kids is a great program that is showing how this can be done.
If we want more sponsor dollars for races across the board, then working with charities makes even more sense to me. Tax deductible donations are a good draw for a potential sponsor, and more runners means more people to advertise to.
If we need any examples of how charities can help fitness, we need look no further than the Race for the Cure. This charity event is the largest attended race in Austin. It gest more people on their feet and raises the most money for everybody involved. How can that not be a good thing?
Even elite runners know that occasional runners add value to the sport by providing the participation that makes prize purses possible. Without the masses, just getting roads closed for the elites to race would not be possible.
There is nothing wrong with a for-profit event, but I think the sport benefits from links to charities much more than it is hurt by them.
Why spectators favor Nascar over running when watching television is another issue entirely.
By David M. Patt, CAE
November 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
One problem is that charity races often focus on fund-raising, not on race quality.
Regardless of the purpose of the event, there still needs to be an organized start, accurate course, properly located aid stations, effective course marshals, correct results, and lots more.
Charity races don’t always make those things a priority.