Why it matters
San Diego’s failed bid to host the 2025 World Road Running Championships isn’t just a setback for the city—it exposes a fundamental flaw in the financial model for hosting major international races. Unlike authoritarian states that use sports events for political leverage, democratic nations like the U.S. aren’t willing to bankroll them with public funds.
What’s happening
- San Diego organizers secured a $3 million title sponsor but couldn’t cover the full cost of hosting the event.
- World Athletics (WA) and USA Track & Field (USATF) expect local organizers to cover all expenses, offering little financial assistance.
- Without government subsidies or guaranteed corporate backing, the financial risk became too great, forcing the event’s cancellation.
- World Athletics is now scrambling to find a new host city, but the fundamental issue remains: their financial model doesn’t work in Western democracies.
By the numbers
- $17.2 million loss – World Athletics reported a financial deficit in 2022, with reserves of approximately $43.5 million.
- $13.46 million decrease in net assets – USATF’s financial statements from 2021 to 2022 indicate a significant drop, attributed to “one-off operational expenses,” including a $9.9 million subsidy for the Oregon22 World Championships.
- £500 million ($635.95 million) investment – Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, through SURJ Sports Investments, is considering investing in World Athletics’ commercial ventures, raising concerns about sportswashing and shifting power dynamics in global athletics.
- 50,000 expected participants – The projected size of the 2025 World Road Running Championships, which could have provided a major economic boost to San Diego.
- $165 million – The estimated economic impact of the event, rivaling San Diego’s annual Comic-Con.
The bigger picture
The U.S. isn’t alone in its reluctance to fund major sporting events without clear economic benefits. In recent years:
- Los Angeles only agreed to host the 2028 Olympics after securing major financial concessions from the IOC.
- Hamburg, Calgary, and Budapest all withdrew Olympic bids due to public opposition.
- China, Russia, and Middle Eastern nations have stepped in to host global sporting events, often leveraging them for political influence or reputation management (a.k.a. sportswashing).
- Saudi Arabia’s increasing presence in global sports, including reports of a substantial investment in World Athletics, signals a potential shift in where major events will be hosted in the future.
Who’s to blame?
Several key players share responsibility:
- World Athletics – Their reluctance to contribute funding makes hosting unrealistic for many cities.
- USA Track & Field – The national governing body offers little support to potential host cities.
- City and state officials – Unlike governments in other nations, U.S. policymakers don’t see global sports events as worth the public investment.
- Corporate America – U.S. sponsors hesitate to invest in unproven events, making it harder to secure necessary funding.
What needs to change?
To remain competitive in hosting major running events, the financial model must evolve:
- World Athletics must share costs. Expecting host cities to pay entirely out of pocket is unrealistic and limits opportunities for Western nations.
- USATF needs to step up. The national body must actively support domestic bids instead of leaving cities to fend for themselves.
- Public-private partnerships are crucial. Cities need clear economic incentives to justify investment, whether through tourism revenue, infrastructure improvements, or long-term sponsorship deals.
- Corporate sponsors must take risks. Major brands should invest in developing events, not just established ones like Boston or New York.
What’s next
With World Athletics now searching for a new host city, the question remains: Will they adjust their financial expectations, or will more Western cities continue to pass on hosting duties—leaving global road running events to nations willing to spend for reasons beyond sport?
