On Sunday 1 November the New York City Marathon became the first marathon in history with more than 60,000 finishers. Two days earlier, Brand Finance published a report that explains why that number matters to more than the organisers. Its answer to the question every host city asks, what does a race actually do for us, is unusually direct: brand strength and economic impact go hand in hand. New York's marathon is worth an estimated 857 million US dollars a year to the city, and it is the race international runners want most. But the most useful figure for any other destination is the one about who did not get in. More than 240,000 people applied through the draw for this year's race. Around 1% of them were accepted that way.
What the numbers say.
New York Road Runners reported 61,529 starters and 61,146 finishers, the third year in a row that the race has set the world record for the largest marathon. The previous record, 59,830, was set by London in April. This year's field included 15,745 international finishers, about a quarter of the total, from 153 countries. Italy sent the most runners from outside the United States, followed by France.
Brand Finance's Marathons 50 report, now in its second year, surveyed more than 9,400 people in nine markets, including nearly 3,000 marathon runners, and ranked more than 75 races. It estimates that the 2025 New York race generated 857 million dollars in economic impact, more than any other marathon, ahead of Chicago at 803 million and London at 604 million, and that this year's edition could reach one billion. The top 50 marathons together generated around six billion dollars.
Two findings stand out. First, international visitors are where the value sits. Brand Finance estimates that they spend around 2.5 times as much as domestic visitors and stay for an average of 3.9 days, which is why the race fills hotels and restaurants well beyond Sunday. Second, New York is the only marathon in the global top ten whose reputation abroad is stronger than its reputation at home. Domestic runners rate it highly but are less likely to consider entering, which the report puts down to how hard it is to get a place, not to a lack of interest.
What it means for destinations.
The lesson is not that every city should want a race of 60,000 people. Very few could host one, and fewer should. The lesson is about what kind of asset a race is. Brand Finance measured the races on awareness, reputation, consideration and engagement, the same things a tourism board measures for a destination. The race with the strongest standing abroad is also the one that produces the most spending at home. That is not a coincidence. A foreign runner who travels for a marathon does not come for a day. They come for most of a week, often with company, and they plan it months ahead.
The oversubscription points the same way. When around 1% of a draw gets in, the other 99% do not stop wanting a big-city autumn marathon. Some will apply again, some will find another way in, and some will go somewhere else. That demand is real, it is international and it is already trained. Most destinations will never have New York's brand. What they can have is a clear answer for the runner who wants the experience and cannot get the bib: a race with its own identity, a date that fits the calendar, and a reason to stay longer than the race itself.
For brands, the report is a reminder that the audience of a major marathon is not only the people on the start line. It includes everyone who applied, trained and followed it from home. A brand that only shows up on race day reaches the smallest part of that group.
What we would do.
We would start with the international figure, not the total. For a destination, the useful question is not how many people ran, but how many came from abroad, how long they stayed and what they did on the days they were not racing. That is the number to set a target for and to measure afterwards.
Then we would build the race as a brand, not just an event. That means a course with a recognisable identity, a story that is told consistently in the source markets the race wants to grow, and a travel offer that turns a race weekend into the 3.9 days the research describes.
In practice it comes down to one agreement covering four parties. The destination brings the place, the dates and the target markets. The event brings the start line, the course and access to the moments only it controls. A brand with a genuine role in running, travel or recovery supplies product that is used, not just displayed. And athletes from the markets the race wants to reach run it, document the build-up and show what the trip looks like for someone who did not get into New York but still wanted the best autumn marathon they could find.
We would also keep the claims honest. Brand Finance's figures are estimates from a single consultancy, and every host city counts economic impact a little differently. A destination should agree the method before the race and publish the result after it, so that next year's case rests on its own numbers rather than on New York's.
If your destination hosts a race with more interest abroad than it currently captures, we would be glad to think it through with you.
Source: brandfinance.com
