Table of Contents
Fabrice Perrin, UTMB’s Chief of Sport and Sustainability, heard our Bad Runners Take, where we largely celebrated UTMB but also critiqued the new mandatory UTMB Travel Fee for 2026, initially to be applied to runners traveling to the Chamonix Main Event.
Fabrice Perrin joined Josh on the podcast to make the cast for the UTMB Trave Fee [spotify | apple]. In the episode, Fabrice volunteered to come on the show and speak on UTMB’s behalf. I will say that it was very classy of him and speaks about his character and conviction that he would be willing to do this.
My intent as the host of this episode was not to debate Fabrice or even push back too much. My goal was to give him a platform to explain the UTMB Travel Fee to our audience.
As host, I wanted to be hospitable and welcoming without shying away to our initial comments in hopes of building trust with UTMB for ongoing discussions.
UTMB creates strong demand for their event, only to impose a variable fee that increases with travel distance, impacting runners coming from farther away.
UTMB Travel Fee Explained
The fee, part of UTMB’s plan to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2030, is based on the carbon footprint of each runner’s journey to Chamonix, with costs ranging from less than €1 for local runners to €100–€130 for those from places like Australia and America.
The intent is to fund carbon offset projects to 3rd party entities aligned with UTMB’s values.
UTMB also offers a 30% lottery bonus for runners choosing low-carbon travel options and has launched the UTMB Go platform to promote sustainable travel. I tried using the UTMB Go where it calculates carbon emissions.
Wolfie Argues this is Greenwashing
Wolfie said that the UTMB Travel Fee calms the fans and followers who want to see some movement on environmental responsibilty while setting the price low enough to where those who disagree with it will simply pay it and move on.
The fee, while tied to emissions, doesn’t actually reduce travel-related carbon output which makes it feel more like indulgences.
It shifts responsibility to runners, especially those from distant regions, without addressing the systemic issue of UTMB’s global World Series model, which encourages travel to even qualify for Chamonix.
For example, a runner from Ecuador might need to travel to Argentina or Brazil to earn qualifying points, increasing their overall emissions. The reliance on offsets, which may not deliver immediate or lasting carbon reductions raises further skepticism which ultimately is the case that the UTMB Travel Fee is greenwashing.
Some environmental advocates call for ‘degrowth’ where if UTMB truly wanted to reduce its impact it would restrict registration to only those who live within a certain radius of Chamonix and abandon the UTMB Travel Fee altogether. It’s not enough for them.
If your concern is carbon emissions there are several things they can do ranging from discontinuing the event all together to ‘degrowth’ tactics to reduce the demand, which I could argue their climate policies are effectively already doing.
But the biggest problem of all is that the primary draw of circumnavigating Mont Blanc is the true draw and UTMB has been given stewardship over it.
There is nothing UTMB can do to reduce demand for ambitious runners wanting to race that route. By this point, UTMB is simply the gatekeeper to runners’ adventure.
Beyond the actual race, UTMB is effectively a massive party for brands and running deal-makers. Chamonix and UTMB monetize this on a massive scale likely generating millions for the local economy above the race economic impact itself.
At this point, I do not know if the UTMB Travel Fee extends beyond runners. I’d prefer to see it for neither, though for the sake of intellectual honesty it should be applied to all.
On the Other Hand
UTMB’s efforts banning private cars at 80% of key race locations, investing €500,000 in shuttle services, and offering rail discounts show a commitment to reducing emissions.
The best solution to any percieved climate crises is one where it is economically viable and more convenient to the alternative which would lead people to choose the environmentally sustainable option in a more sustainable way.
It is much easier to navigate France on public transportation. Since moving to Paris I have drive a car once in 14 months and I do not miss it. Train travel is relaxing and enjoyable. Imagine all the stress of a car gone including where to park, navigating, etc.
UTMB does a service to visitors by encouraging public transport and by trying to make it easier. Their investment in shuttles and public transport feels like a useful and sustainable approach to better accomplishing their goals over increased fees to NGOs.
Verdict on the UTMB Travel Fee
I am biased to believe that organizations can either appear to do good or actually do good. I am always suspicious when an organization publicizes its do-goodery. It’s always aligned with what they think their core clientele want.
It is calculated.
If we advocate for this or that, will we rally our core customers and garner favor with them or alienate them? If we alienate some, is that worth the cost of rallying the others?
It’s transactional. And because of this I believe it is inauthentic at its core.
So if you can’t trust brand communications, where do you look to see if a company is actually doing well at doing good?
I think its found in internal company culture not obviously on display or curated through the comms department.
And thus, in my optimistic attempt to see good, my key take away from my interaction with Fabrice is that I believe that Fabrice is genuinely concerned about the environment. He loves UTMB’s Main Event but also believes its existence is net negative to the environment and so he’s trying to reconcile those two things with the UTMB Travel Fee.
Regardless of how you feel about UTMB’s position, I think Fabrice’s concern is authentic.
I personally am leery of any problem where the solution centralizes power or requries a tax.
I’m not saying centralized power or taxes are always the wrong route, but I am skeptical.
I don’t accept it at face value.
I try to stay away from idealogical thinking handed to me by experts.
I like to, as much as possible, study topics and make my own decisions which is why I approached my conversation with Fabrice the way I did. I gave him the floor without interuption to make his case.
In this case, I beileve policies like this make UTMB vulnerable to other organizations to unseat it as the global trail running power as we discussed with Speedgoat in a Bad Runners Take.
