ENTRY FEES – Mystification and Reality 
 
The subject of Entry Fees for world masters championships always seems to entice 
excitement, for athletes and organizers alike. Is this justified or is the case a little 
overstated? 
 
By way of examples I would like to compare inflation adjusted entry fees for Stadia 
events for the period of Carolina, Puerto Rico 2003 to Sacramento, Cal., USA 2011, 
and touch upon some basic pertinent points first.  
 
Entry Fees are not an isolated item and have to be judged in the context of the unique 
budget structure of each event. They are the most important income item for the Local 
Organizing Committee (LOC) to cover part of the costs of the event but will never 
compensate for all financial requirements. Access to sponsorship funding (public and 
private) and some marketing measures on location during the championships 
(commissions on sale of goods, catering etc.) provide additional limited income; those 
also vary from event to event. 
 
Individual fees are assessed relative to estimated expected registrants. Fee levels of 
past championships play a role in this consideration as well.  
  
In reviewing the whole picture of Entry Fees, it cannot suffice to simply compare 
absolute numbers. Inflation takes its toll in all economic areas (not just people’s 
income), and likewise in the income and expense picture of a LOC. Add to that 
varying price levels in different countries, even within the European Economic Zone, 
for example, and you have one of the explanations for varying fee levels. Different 
currencies will cloud the forecast additionally.  
 
Detailed below are inflation adjusted entry fee comparisons for Stadia events for the 
period from Carolina 2003 to Sacramento 2011. (For comparability, the separate 
WMA share, which the athletes still paid up to the San Sebastian LOC as a pass- 
through for WMA, is of course added to the 2003 and 2005 fee bases. This separate 
assessment has been discontinued since 2007.) A general statement can be made that 
the simplified fee structure at Riccione was exceptionally advantageous, and cannot 
necessarily be expected to become the norm for all future events. 
 
Starting with 2003 at 100%, an annual cumulative inflation increment of 3% 
(considered a realistic average for the purpose of this exercise) will bring the adjusted 
cost base to 126,8% by 2011. One way to test the changes of fees for the Lahti event 
and beyond is to consider Lahti to be 100% and back-calculate the inflation adjusted 
fee levels for prior events. This method establishes for Carolina that their absolute fee 
represents only 83,7% against 100% Lahti, and Sacramento 2011 will be 106,1%.   
 
The result of comparing some representative entry fee categories on such inflation 
adjusted bases relative to Lahti is uneven; Currency exchange rate Euro : US-Dollar is 
assumed to be 1 : 1,40 (Sacramento) and was 1 : 1,13 (Carolina). It should be noted 
that the additional anti-doping supplemental fee that was recently introduced at the 
insistence of the Anti-Doping Committee, is not included in this comparison. 
 
            % Lahti is higher (+) or lower (-) than 
     2003  2005  2007          2011 
     Carol.  SanSeb. Ricc.     
    Sacr. 
 
Base fee + 1st individual event -19,7  -4,35  +13,8          +1,5 
 
Base fee + 3 individual events +18,0  +12,3  +6,3          -3,4 
 
Base Fee + Combined Events + 
 3 individual events  +11,3  +2,6  +14,5  0 
          
Base Fee + Marathon              -12,5  -11,1  +37,9            -3,8 
 
As an aside, it is interesting to note, that for the first three Indoor Championships, 
held in Europe between 2004 and 2008, the fee structure remained unchanged (even 
unadjusted for inflation) which means fees became lower for the later events in terms 
of actual purchasing power, and that for Kamloops 2010, on a current exchange rate 
basis, fees in most categories will be even further lower by 10% or more, half- 
marathon being an exception. 
 
Sum total: Entry Fees are a very important consideration for an athlete when making a 
decision for participation in an event. However, they are also a relatively small 
portion of the total cost package, any registrant is confronted with. Assessing the 
examples that were demonstrated here, it can be summarized that all increases are 
painful to recognize for all organizing parties, but that the deviations are not as 
dramatic as has been communicated elsewhere on the subject.  In addition, they do 
require some appreciation of the overall financial budget situation of each LOC which 
varies from event to event and is less visible to an athlete. 
 
What can be taken for granted is that all organizing parties, including WMA, are well 
aware of the sensitivity of the subject and that decisions in this area are not made 
haphazardly. 
 
Friedel Schunk 
WMA-Treasurer