Races are lousy fund-raisers
They generate a lot of publicity - more than do most fund-raising events. But they usually don't raise a lot of money. And when they do, it doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy some fund-raising executives.
Grassroots fund-raisers can net 80% or more of their gross receipts. Races often yield the reverse - or worse - since entry fees don't even cover costs.
Some races lose money all of the time, and that's OK with them. The race is a marketing tool to promote a business, drive customers into a store, or direct them to a web site. Expenses are, hopefully, offset by sales income.
Charities, however, cannot lose money. They have to turn a healthy profit.
Except for women who support breast cancer research, though, most runners who register for races do so to run, not to support a cause.
They are not donors, members, or even prospects. They just want to run.
Some do prefer to pay entry fees to charitable organizations rather than to businesses. They may mistakenly believe their entries are contributions - they may even record them (wrongly) as charitable donations on their tax returns.
Still, they showed up to run - and they expect a quality running experience.
The event benefits from their participation by gaining access to an audience that would not be available through donor-based or member-based activities. It is up to the event to figure out how to leverage that audience to raise funds (usually from a different audience) for the charity.
So, if you have rigid fund-raising expectations, a running event may not be the best venue for you.
If athletics appeals to your audience, create a unique event (not a standard road race) geared toward supporters, not the general public. If athletics is not related to your cause, do something else.
Don't expect to raise a lot of money from a running event. And don't punish the race director who may have fallen short of an unrealistic fund-raising quota.