Email
Riders signing up for Britain's newest and most expensive charity cycling sportive could be forgiven for thinking that part of their entry fee goes direct to a good cause.
After all, the official title of the event is the Marie Curie Cancer Care Etape Pennines.
Together with its well established big brother north of the border, the Etape Caledonia, it charges the highest entry fee on the sportive calendar – £61. Yet none of that goes to the charity.
Instead, all profits go to one of the richest showbiz and sport talent agencies in the world, IMG, which includes Rafael Nadal, Justin Timberlake and Tyra Banks among its clients.
5,000 riders took part in May's Etape Caledonia. Almost 3,000 have signed up for the Etape Pennines, which takes place in County Durham on 7 October. That's a turnover of nearly £500,000.
Both events are closed-road sportives - yet does this really justify the high entry fee, especially as none of it goes to charity?
IMG certainly thinks so. In response to this question, it emailed me a list of what the entry fee covers. Included were all the things provided by other, cheaper sportives, such as "medical support" and "comprehensive ecommunications before and after the event making the experience as smooth as possible".
The list also included "paying a large number of stewards and marshals", even though the websites for both events make it clear these are volunteers who receive only "agreed travel expenses".
And finally there was this: "Paying for the right to host events in some of the most beautiful locations in the country."
As the largest independent producer of sports programmes in the world, IMG's television division may well have to pay for the use of certain locations, but as far as I'm aware, no one has to pay "for the right" to host a cycling event on public roads in the UK, even if they are closed to motorized traffic. Instead, they have to apply to the local council for a road closure order and pay for policing costs.
In the case of the 81-mile Etape Caledonia, Perth and Kinross Council charged IMG their standard rate of £500 for the road closure order. In the case of the 78-mile Etape Pennine, this service was provided free by Durham county council.
The cost of policing such events is a slightly more complex issue. Neither of the two police forces concerned would tell me how much they charge for road-closures of this nature, but a set of official guidelines issued to chief police officers in England and Wales last year might provide a clue as to why IMG chose to share the name of its events with a well-known charity.
Under this "guidance on charging for police services", forces are encouraged to offer "abatements" of up to 50% for "charitable events". The Marie Curie Cancer Care Etape Pennines would conceivably qualify as just such an event.
IMG are obviously in the business of making money, whether that be from securing a lucrative endorsement deal for Maria Sharapova or charging "weekend warriors" a high price for their regular endorphin fix. The benefits to them of running Britain's biggest cycling events are obvious. But what's in it for the charity?
When I put this question to IMG, they emailed me back:
"We give them a large number of complimentary places (over 500) for them to use for fundraising purposes."
I read "complimentary" as meaning the entry fees for these places would go directly to the charity or be waived completely. I was wrong. This is what Ali Cameron from Marie Curie told me:
"Once the event sells to the point where there are only 500 places left, the £61 registration fee still goes directly to the organisers but these riders will also be required to commit to raise a minimum of £250 for Marie Curie. They automatically become Daffodil Team members. This is the stage we are currently at."
Only after these places have sold out do 50 "gold bond" places become available, where the £61 entry fee goes direct to Marie Curie.
To a regular rider and charity supporter such as myself, it seems a shame that IMG can't be more upfront on their website about the fact none of the entry fee goes to Marie Curie. Several veterans of the Etape Caledonia I spoke to were surprised when I told them this was the case. "None of it went to charity? And all I got was a crappy water bottle?" said one.
It's also a shame that Marie Curie feel the need to use a pan-global, profit-driven event management group to run their Etapes. Other charities, such as the British Heart Foundation and Action Medical Research, successfully run their own fundraising bike rides in which 100 per cent of the profits goes to them.
Last month, I did the 80-mile Cairn O'Mount Challenge sportive which raises money for development charities in Malawi. It cost me £25. The roads weren't closed, but the route was so well designed – taking in back roads and part of the National Cycle Route 1 – that we hardly saw any motorised traffic anyway.
Other than that, it offered exactly the same features as the Caledonia and Pennines Etapes, ranging from well-stocked feed stations, marshals, clear signage, timing chips and even a certificate at the end (finishers at the Etape Caledonia received a plastic medal).
But the most satisfying part of it all was the knowledge that, according to the website, "at least £20" of my entry fee was going direct to a good cause.
Comments
20 June 2012 1:51PM
Whilst I can appreciate certain costs in the organisation and management of this type of event, this story just strikes me as being 100% out of order.
I assume the charity has looked into everything and decided the sponsorship is worth it but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
20 June 2012 1:57PM
Wow... I would also have assumed some of the entry fee would go to the charity.
20 June 2012 2:03PM
I do some work for St John Ambulance as a volunteer - I wonder if we have volunteers there as 'medical support'. Working with a charity that gets no government funding but takes a massive strain off government funds stuff like this gets me really annoyed.
It will probably go further too. They may get volunteers on the drinks stations and medals. The kindness of others to help those who train hard and do so much to raise funds for good causes does line the pockets of some already rich people.
I'm speculating here btw - I've no clue if St John Ambulance are involved with this or if they are paying the one off staff - I'm just going on previous form with these type of events.
20 June 2012 2:17PM
Madness. The cost of entry to races is getting a bit mental, with the London triathlon costing close to £100. I appreciate there are road closures and policing to consider, but surely there are economies of scale with races of that size?
20 June 2012 2:25PM
What, they don't even get an NVQ in event management?
20 June 2012 2:30PM
Charity marketing is all around us. You're not just buying a starbuck's latte - you're choosing to save the rainforest. You're not just buying Nike trainers, you're choosing to fight AIDS. One would have to be positively evil not to buy in. By making it seem like charity, you attract people other than the MAMILs (who hardly need any encouragement), and you increase your profits. Simple!
20 June 2012 2:47PM
I don't understand why I can't just go for a long bike ride - which I presume I would enjoy and send the charity a cheque, thus they get 100% and I get the pleasure!
My wife and daughter realised how little of the cost of entry to the local Race for Life is for the charity.
Also, the parking, the traffic jams, etc., make for a huge, expensive morning.
So they are simply using the sponsorship forms and doing the run during the week, in their own time.
I once climbed Kilimanjaro but didn't ask anyone for money to do it!
20 June 2012 2:48PM
I have always been wary of "charity" sporting efforts. Cycling is a way of getting around as far as I'm concerned.
This one is worse than I imagined. Marie Curie deserve to be kicked hard for this.
Should the promoters of all "charity" events be forced to display in large print the proportion, or expected proportion for the first time, of the income expected to go to the charity?
20 June 2012 2:53PM
"I don't understand why I can't just go for a long bike ride - which I presume I would enjoy and send the charity a cheque, thus they get 100% and I get the pleasure!"
Any charity would rather you did that. Unfortunately that may not raise the funds necessary to carry out the charitable objectives. Not enough people are committed.
So, the charity has to offer something to encourage the less committed to take part and/or engage chuggers. These things mean the charity gets less money than direct giving, but the charity is in a difficult position.
20 June 2012 3:09PM
Hi,
I am helping to organise a two day ride for cancer research UK this year. We have a £40 fee that covers 2 days food and camping, return ferry to the isle of whyte and transportation of equipment (for camping). None of that money goes to the charity because it is being spent supporting the riders. The riders then raise a minimum of £200 that goes straight to cancer research UK. This seems a better deal than £60 for some marshalling and a water bottle.
This is achieved by being organised by volunteers rather than looking for a private sector partnership.
Presumably Marie Curie feel they get something out of it
20 June 2012 3:17PM
Yes, charity 'giving' is becoming more complicated. I'm not sure of my thoughts but getting people to be 'committed' seems akin to people selling their efforts to an event organiser and being rewarded with the chance to join in some communal fun and receiving a certificate or lollipop. Not the same as offerings given freely with nothing back.
My mother ran an Oxfam shop for many years but left when the organisation realised that her position needed to be called Manager together with all the other necessary devices to draw in the punters.
Those Golden Days of Innocence but praps little income!
Basically we don't seem to do owt for nowt. Even a sticker will do.
20 June 2012 3:25PM
Amazing isn't it - IMG have arranged it so that if cyclists boycott the event, Marie Curie won't get anything at all. Even if it's fully subscribed, they don't get much relative to what IMG are raking in - potentially less than £130k for sponsorship compared to around £300k (assuming ~5000 entries) just for entries.
I wonder if the volunteers know they're basically free labour for IMG?
20 June 2012 4:01PM
1) Set up a direct debit to your favorite charity.
2) Go for a nice bike ride (maybe with some friends, a local club or an Audax ride).
3) Be smug in the knowledge you've side-stepped the crowds, fees, poseurs and parasitic middlemen.
20 June 2012 4:09PM
nextSibling: Do all that but don't be smug, that seems to detract from the charitableness of your offering and should be unnecessary!
20 June 2012 4:22PM
I'm running a 250 mile audax at the weekend ( http://www.ukcyclist.org.uk/avalon ) it costs £10 to enter and there's a BBQ included at the end
It's part of "Bike Week" and Samsung sent me some free balloons and keyrings. That's as far as my involvement with big business goes
20 June 2012 4:34PM
Leaving aside my opinion of charity (an activity patronising to the recipients and self-aggrandising to the donors that we thought we'd made unnecessary with the welfare state), I do not require someone to give me money or goodies to go on a nice bicycle ride in the country. Neither do I need to pay anyone unless those nice Audax people have worked out a good route and provided a few cups of tea and bickies.
20 June 2012 4:41PM
You may feel outraged or indifferent about the ethics involved in the naming of the event
- the Marie Curie Cancer Care Etape Pennines - but you have to take your hat off to the lads (and lasses) at IMG. What a crafty lot!
20 June 2012 4:57PM
I would agree that this whole marketing appropiration of charity is misleading but why the cycling focus.? Is it not a smiliar arrangement with the London Marathon who sell places to charities?
20 June 2012 5:20PM
Along with some workmates, I entered the Marie Curie Etape Caledonia 2011. We had a blast!
We were under no illusions about the fee only covering event entry. I thought that was clear from the entry forms. Those 'free' vests, 'free' medals, road closures and support all cost money. £61 is a lot but of money so is a ticket for a premier league football game, an arena concert or a carbon fibre Italian seatpost.
We each paid our own fees and then family and friends sponsored us, knowing that some of us are well past our prime and the race was going to be a tough challenge. We've raised a lot of money for a very good cause. I saw a number of of cyclists wearing 'in memory' messages as tributes to loved ones and that fairly rammed home a reminder of the amazing work Marie Curie nurses do.
It's true, I could have gone for a long cycle myself and given the additional £61 to Marie Curie but I also wanted to participate in a race environment and the location was stunning. It would be great if IMG donated a (big) percentage and if charities weren't increasingly squeezed by events companies who have them over a barrel (London Marathon on Ch4 Dispatches, sheesh!) but I'm realistic. I'd welcome a really wide-reaching Guardian investigation into big money events but in the meantime charities have to do what they have to do in order to attract fundraisers. I'm far more comfortable with fun runs, cycle rides or charity challenges than I am with chuggers stopping me in the street.
Etape is a fantastic event, Marie Curie Cancer Care is a fantastic charity. Read the small print. Participate, or don't. Just don't 'kick hard' the good causes, as somebody suggested up above.
20 June 2012 5:52PM
Thanks for this - I read about Etape Pennines without any real intention of riding it, and was a bit puzzled by the setup. All is now explained.
I am more and more ambivalent about charity events; perhaps I'm the billy-no-mates here, but people will soon get hacked off being asked for a sub when all I'm doing is spending a more than averagely self-indulgent day out on my bike doing what is effectively sponsored eating. 6000 calories is fair few Eccles cakes.
@roquentin et al - races are not sportives.
20 June 2012 6:40PM
This sort of event will ultimately hurt the charities who attach their name in the hope of making some money. The 'Marie Curie' brand is now associated with exploitative shysters. Surely the charities must realise this?
20 June 2012 7:17PM
Here in Canada for the more established 'Rides to Conquer Cancer' the minimum you have to pledge to raise is, I think $2,500 befoe you can and they are not that far either (120K over two days on average). Did a 75K heart disease ride a few weeks back and the minimum was $150. So it is a fairly common occurence over here, but I suspesct that this is to do with tax laws ... The non-charity sportives though are very good value for money the Tour D'Alberta being good old traditional 'century' (195K to be accurate) with good support, terrific volunteers and snip at, I think c$80.
If you want a real challenge 'up north' enter the Etape du Dales (Fleet Moss, Buttertubs, and Kirkstones (?)) in one day ... masochistic joy
20 June 2012 11:46PM
Years ago it was revealed that only 10p in the pound of money donated to oxfam actually got to those in need, the only charity that I have given money to since then is the Salvation Army. Some quite well known people seem to have done very nicely career wise and I expect other wise from their 'donations' to charities.
In the UK we seem to turn a blind eye to all sorts of scams, wonder why?