Run.fund and the Future of Prize Money in Trail Running
How crowdfunded prize pools could reshape race economics, athlete incentives, and fan participation in the sport.
If 2025 signaled anything about trail running, it’s that the sport is clearly on the rise.
From shoes to ultramarathon finishes, everything feels up and to the right. Elite fields are deeper than ever, start lines are packed, and many of the sport’s marquee races now sell out months in advance.
And yet, trail running has long faced an awkward reality: meaningful prize purses remain the exception, not the norm.
There are notable outliers. Run Rabbit Run has historically offered one of the sport’s largest prize pools, and in 2025 Nike ACG made waves by sponsoring Gorge Waterfalls and Broken Arrow, backing those races $75,000 and $150,000 prize pools, respectively. Salomon has also recently stepped in as presenting sponsor of The Big Alta.
These investments matter. They signal that major brands see a return on investment in trail running’s future. Not just in participation, but in storytelling. Larger prize pools attract deeper fields, which leads to better racing, clearer narratives, and more compelling content around the sport’s biggest moments.
But that raises a bigger question. If larger prize pools are so clearly additive, must they always depend on large brand support? Or is there a way for fans, athletes, and communities to help crowdfund meaningful prize money themselves?
Enter Run.fund.
The Origin Story: Why Run.fund Exists
Run.fund, started by Erik Peterson, is a platform that allows fans, athletes, and brands to crowdfund prize pools for trail races. The goal? Expand access to prize money beyond the small handful of races and athletes that benefit from major sponsorship dollars.
The idea exists because of a long-standing prize pool paradox in trail running. Larger prize purses are widely believed to attract stronger fields and elevate competition, but the question has always been where that money comes from.
In most cases, prize money must either come from a title sponsor or directly from a race’s own margins. That’s a problem. Race directors already operate on thin margins, especially at the local and regional level. The only way to increase these margins would be to:
Cut expenses: Unlikely due to permitting, insurance, and aid station supply needs. Plus, races already rely heavily on unpaid volunteers.
Increase entry fees: Charging more per race entry would provide more funds for prize pools, but would effectively shift this burden to the runners themselves.
Run.fund exists to bridge this gap by unlocking demand that already exists but historically had no direct outlet. By enabling fans to financially support prize pools for races of their choosing, the hope is that this added financial incentive can make every trail finish line meaningful, whether a brand like Nike ACG is there to support it or not.
How Run.fund Works
At a high level, Run.fund operates as a simple pass-through platform for trail race prize money.
Step 1: A race creates a prize purse campaign on Run.fund, which creates a pool available for contributions (or “boosts”) from fans, brands, etc.
Step 2: Fans, athletes, brands, and community members contribute directly and securely via Stripe. All contributions are subject to Stripe KYC and anti-money laundering processes.
Step 3: Funds are earmarked specifically for prize money. As a race’s pool grows, additional payout tiers unlock, meaning more athletes earn prize money as total contributions increase. All payouts are split evenly between men’s and women’s fields.
Step 4: Run.fund takes a flat 5% platform fee, with the remaining 95% allocated directly to the race’s prize purse.
Step 5: Once the race results are final, athlete results are verified and payouts are made via Stripe.
The mechanics are intentionally simple and that simplicity is the point.
What Problem Does This Solve?
Crowdfunded prize pools help realign incentives that have historically been misaligned.
Athletes want more opportunities to earn meaningful prize money, but race directors often can’t justify funding prize purses themselves. Sponsors can fill this gap, but only for a small number of races they choose to support.
Even well-sponsored races may still have unmet demand. A race like Black Canyon 100K, for example, already has a presenting sponsor, yet fans and additional brands may still want to contribute directly to the competitive stakes of the event.
Run.fund creates a mechanism for that demand to express itself.
Why Race Directors Might Like Run.fund
From a race director’s perspective, Run.fund offers upside with minimal downside.
A crowdfunded prize pool can either create prize money where none previously existed or supplement an existing purse without requiring the race organization to take on additional financial risk. In either case, the race becomes more attractive to competitive athletes without affecting the race’s cost structure.
Run.fund also appears to offer reduced fees and marketing tools to race directors who claim and verify pools, further aligning incentives between the platform and race organizers.
How Run.fund Makes Money
There’s a difference between a good idea and a sustainable business. One works in theory, while the other works in reality.
To address this idea, Run.fund monetizes through a flat, transparent 5% platform fee. For every $100 contributed, $5 goes to Run.fund and $95 goes directly to the race’s prize purse.
This model has a few clear advantages:
Easy to understand. Five percent goes to Run.fund, the rest goes to the prize pool. Simple as that.
Potential upside with scale. More races and repeat donors would help grow Run.fund’s revenue exponentially.
Transparently supports Run.fund’s mission. No hidden fees, so donors know their boosts are contributing directly to trail race prize pools.
That said, this is ultimately a volume business in a sport that is still structurally small. Run.fund doesn’t monetize through media rights, exclusivity, or IP. Its success depends on steady participation and sustained demand.
The Upside: Why This Actually Makes Sense
At its core, Run.fund fills a real gap in the trail running economy in a way that feels consistent with the sport’s values.
By creating a direct connection between fans and competition, the platform allows supporters to play an active role in shaping the competitive landscape of the races they care about. That connection can deepen engagement as the sport continues to grow.
The model is also transparent. Contributors know exactly how their money is allocated, and race directors can experiment with prize purses without putting their operating budgets at risk.
Perhaps most importantly, Run.fund aligns with trail running’s community-first ethos by enabling grassroots financial support without heavy reliance on intermediaries.
The Headwinds: Where This Gets Tricky
Despite its strengths, Run.fund may face several structural challenges as it scales.
First, there is a natural demand ceiling. Early contributors are likely to be highly engaged fans, but it’s unclear how far beyond the core trail audience the platform can reach. As more races join, competition for limited donor dollars will intensify.
Donor fatigue is another risk. Supporting one race is easy, but supporting the same race year after year requires sustained enthusiasm and disposable income. As athletes rotate through different events, donor preferences may shift as well.
There are also equity considerations. Popular races are likely to attract more funding, while smaller or newer events may struggle to gain traction. Early data already hints at this dynamic, with Black Canyon 100K’s prize pool (February 14th) already at $1,300, while Chuckanut 50K (March 14th) is only at $155.
Finally, there is substitution risk. If crowdfunded prize pools grow large enough, sponsors may begin to view prize money as community-funded rather than core sponsorship spend, which risks subtly shifting financial responsibility away from brands and onto the community as a whole.
Is Run.fund Actually Viable?
In short, yes, with some caveats.
From a business standpoint:
Run.fund appears viable as a small, sustainable niche platform. A 5% platform fee paired with what I assume is relatively low operating complexity suggests it can maintain its current scale as long as demand persists. Unlocking meaningful upside, however, will likely require expanding beyond basic prize pools.
One compelling direction could be branded or segment-specific prize pools. Imagine a sponsor-backed “first up the Escarpment” challenge at Western States or a crowdfunded prize for the first athletes through a signature aid station at Black Canyon (SATISFY already sponsors Bumble Bee at mile 19.2). These ideas create value for brands, athletes, and fans while positioning Run.fund as the coordinating layer.
From a trail running standpoint:
In its current form, Run.fund may work best as a supplement to existing prize pools rather than a replacement. It doesn’t solve the core economics of race organization and sponsorship, nor does it need to. Instead, it provides an avenue for fans to support the athletes and races they care about most.
Going back to the segment idea above, I think there are a number of creative and value-added ways the platform can be used to accomplish what I believe it is ultimately trying to achieve in the first place:
Facilitate connection between the various parts of the trail running economy
Provide direct financial support to the athletes and races powering the sport
Help grow the sport in a transparent and sustainable manner
Run.fund doesn’t pretend to solve trail running’s prize money problem on its own. It won’t replace sponsors, rewrite race economics, or suddenly make professional trail running financially stable. But it does something quietly important: it creates a transparent mechanism for demand to reveal itself.
If fans are willing to contribute, that signal matters. If they aren’t, that also tells us something about the limits of the market. Either way, Run.fund shifts the conversation towards who is actually willing to pay, and for what.
In that sense, Run.fund isn’t just a crowdfunding tool. It’s a real-time experiment in how much the trail running community is willing and able to value competition itself.
If you’re curious to learn more, drop a comment below, check out Run.fund, or send questions to hello@run.fund.
The Aid Station
Miscellaneous quick hits. Trail style. Actionable, digestible, essential.
💰 Norda Receives a Second Investment from Ermenegildo Zegna Group
Following an initial investment from the multi-billion-dollar Ermenegildo Zegna Group in 2023, Norda announced a second investment in December 2025.
“This investment simply enables us to continue doing what we do best, and do it at an even larger scale.” - Norda co-founder and CEO Nick Martire
The investment seems to be a win-win for both parties, with Ermenegildo Zegna, the group’s chairman and CEO, noting:
“Our decision to increase our Group’s stake in Norda reaffirms our strong belief in the brand’s long-term potential. Norda’s authentic identity, rooted in material innovation, lightness, and a compelling long-term value proposition fueled by unprecedented growth, is fully aligned with our Group’s purpose.”
🌯 Jamil Coury Creates The Burrito League
Somebody at Strava or Chipotle dropped the ball by not continuing the Chipotle segment challenge after last year’s epic battle that came down to the final day.
Nevertheless, last year’s winner Jamil Coury has official announced The Burrito League, a grassroots challenge taking place on the Tempe, Arizona Chipotle Strava segment. Prizes include a year’s worth of burritos, entry into the Cocodona 250, Mount to Coast shoes, Aravaipa race entries, and more!
Jamil and others have already started logging segments you read this.
I think this could be very powerful if the race director works with the small towns that often host these races. Not a lot of investment from local folks ($5K? $10k) could be a big story and likely attract more runners and attention to slightly less well known races. I think the potential here is to market the destinations
As always, I have a very contrarian take for this.
For starters, do we know any other sport where direct crowd funding like this actually became successful? Why would I donate prize money rather than supporting my favorite runner? Is it going to be a 'rich get richer' sort of thing? Because the people who win the most races already get the most from sponsorships, and now they will get even more from larger prize purses.
There are reasonable answers for all of the above questions, but I fundamentally disagree with this line.
> Run.fund aligns with trail running’s community-first ethos by enabling grassroots financial support without heavy reliance on intermediaries.
Trail running is not grass roots anymore. People are doing actual real money here. Sure, there ain't many, but every year, more and more people are making trail running their full time job. The economy surrounding trail running is growing year on year in every department (shoes, equipment, race entry fees, nutrition, coaching, physios).
I think we need to go the other way. Have pro races be separate from the everyone else's races, like it was in the World Championships at Canfranc. Have pro races be their own spectacle like in other sports, and let everyone else enjoy their own runs separately. Think about UTMB. How much better would the experience be for normal runners if Chamonix wasn't flooded by all the media and the whole circus surrounding the pros. As a result, there would be less people, accommodation would be more readily available, everything would be cheaper (I believe the prices are as high because of the high demand, not the cost of the item itself) and it would just be a normal race.
I recognise that my opinion is very different to a lot of people's. I'm also not tempted by Boston Marathon or any of these big races. It's a circus, and I want a run, not a performance. I enjoy pro sports for what it is, but unless I'm playing in the pro circles, I don't want it to effect my enjoyment of the sport.
Would be interesting for you to dive into the cycling race, and if they are experiencing a lot of growing pains we are experiencing in trail running (even though they are like 30 years ahead).