This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers.

The Core Proposal

U.S. Biathlon’s board voted Wednesday on a “Strategic Operating Alliance” with U.S. Ski & Snowboard. Under the agreement, biathlon remains legally independent and the recognized governing body, but delegates day-to-day operations to the larger organization through a services agreement.

Jack Gierhart, U.S. Biathlon president and CEO, explained: “The mechanics of this are like an operating agreement between U.S. Biathlon and Ski and Snowboard where they take over operations” while honoring the Ted Stevens Act.

The Financial Picture

The USOPC reduced U.S. Biathlon’s grant by 22 percent this year. However, Gierhart stated the cut wasn’t conditional: “It hasn’t been like, if you don’t do it, we’re taking away money.”

The alliance would provide approximately $600,000 in additional first-year revenue, with guaranteed increases through 2030. Combined with operational savings, Gierhart estimated “at least $3.3 million over four years.”

Critically, all biathlon-specific funding remains “ring-fenced” permanently for the sport.

The Legal Question

Critics cite the Ted Stevens Act’s single-federation rule and autonomy requirements, arguing the alliance violates both. Gierhart countered: “We’ve gotten the opinion from the USOPC’s legal counsel” confirming compliance “as they’re written now.”

However, the USOPC’s statement used careful language, saying it supports exploration of a relationship that “complies” with the Act — leaving compliance as something still to be demonstrated.

Governance Structure

The U.S. Biathlon board remains unchanged at 12–15 members, elected by biathlon’s approximately 1,500 members. A new Biathlon Sport Committee (6–8 members, including required athlete representation) sits within U.S. Ski & Snowboard’s structure.

Biathlon maintains separate athlete representation on Team USA’s Athletes’ Commission.

Athlete Funding Protections

The current athlete support model — including World Cup stipends, need-based aid, and performance bonuses — continues through 2030. The agreement specifies these structures remain “unless changes are jointly approved by the Biathlon Sport Director and the U.S. Biathlon Board.”

“There is a strength in independence. You have a trust that your leader…is trying to figure out how to make biathlon better.”Jake Brown, retired athlete and U.S. Biathlon board member

Justin Wadsworth, U.S. Biathlon’s Head Physiology Coach, emphasized what requires protection: “The number one is just, are the athletes going to continue to be getting funded when they’re absorbed with U.S. Ski and Snowboard.”

The Exit Strategy

An exit exists but with conditions. After annual assessments and comprehensive reviews, if “significant challenges” materialize, organizations can implement corrective action plans. Only if “substantial concerns remain unresolved” can either party pursue “alternative organizational structures, including the return of U.S. Biathlon to an independently operated organization.”

Gierhart stressed this isn’t a standard exit ramp: “I don’t want it to sound in any way that in four years there’s an exit ramp that’s most likely going to happen.”

The Community’s Hesitation

The working groups surfaced recurring questions. Some participants noted many proposed benefits “could theoretically be pursued without a formal alliance,” questioning whether formal merger is necessary rather than closer collaboration.

Sophie Goldschmidt, U.S. Ski & Snowboard president and CEO, responded that informal collaboration has proven insufficient: “This formal Alliance creates a level of commitment, coordination and accountability that cannot be achieved through informal collaboration alone.”

The Case for Alliance

Advocates highlight operational efficiencies — shared legal counsel, fundraising capacity, sport-science support — that small governing bodies cannot afford independently. Wadsworth noted: “An appeal…can cost 30 to $50,000, and if that’s 5 percent of your budget, that’s a big hit.”

The sport-development argument centers on coordinating biathlon and cross-country pathways, including shared coach education and integrated youth development — critical given biathlon’s infrastructure dependence on shooting ranges.

The Path Forward

Wednesday’s vote authorized foundational terms, not a finalized operating agreement. A detailed contract, independently vetted by legal counsel, would follow before a second board vote. This staging itself became contested ground, with skeptics arguing a binding vote should await the complete agreement’s legal review.

“Whichever way the board decides, I really want to be able to take our membership with us in whichever direction we go, and maintain good relationships with our full community. Because otherwise, we lose.”Jake Brown