ASO wants to leave World Tour in 2017

[Jancouver]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.

I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis. Like in football leagues, 16-18 teams of 20 guys is perfectly fine. Or in tennis, the grand slams will have 128 players including qualifiers.

I think even Giro or TDF with the best 128 riders would be more exciting than the current 200 where you have 10 guys chasing the top placings, 5 guys chasing the sprints and the rest is there just to support them. What a boring concept.

I don't really want to watch the current concept where you have 8 SKY domestiques riding like robots looking down on their powermeter towing their leader to the 1km sign.

Give me 2 weeks long TDF, 20 teams of 6, no radios, no powermeters and you will see some exciting battles.

I dont even need the TDF, who cares where they ride. When the best 100 riders shows up for the Tour of Danmark/Poland/Swiss/California etc. it will be a good race to watch. Better than the hyped up boring TDF we have seen the last few years.

Reducing the number of professional cyclists may or may not be a good idea from the perspective of the sport as entertainment. I don't think it is, but either way, trying to do so would certainly be a terrible thing from the perspective of the average domestique.

"perspective of the average domestique"

Sorry, but the average domestiques are not my priority and I don't mind having less of them around. They, along with the team tactics, are one of the reasons the current system sucks.

While domestiques, do have their role at the current system, I would prefer a better racing where the team leaders have fewer teammates (domestiques) around to help so the "team leaders" has to do more work for themselves.

 

[Jancouver]

Re: Re:

NOOOOO!!!! The attrition will not be the same over 2 weeks. You wanna see good racing. Take all your idea's but leave the GT's at 3 weeks. Oh and force the top gc riders to ride all three gt's.

Perhaps 2 weeks / 3 weekends is ideal. Start on Friday and finish Sunday after two weeks. Thats 17 days. Perhaps just one day off after 10 days so you have 16 race days. More than enough when you have a team of 6 and the leader has to work harder.

 

[RedheadDane]

While it's a damn shame that one race has become so big, its organisers are basically able to go "Well, if the rest of you don't wanna play the way we wanna play, then we just don't wanna play with you!" I have to say that ASO does have a point.
There are several things about the WT that just doesn't work, in the particular the All WT teams going to all WT races thing. Sometimes that's not a good thing for the teams involved; come on! Who actually wanted to ride Tour of Beiijing?
Then there are the cobbled classics, as it has already been mentioned; what was Euskaltel even doing there? Or what's Movistar doing there? No offence, but their focus isn't really on the cobbles - except when there'll be cobbles in the Tour (and then we're back to the everything revolves around the Tour issue) - last year they had to send in Dayer Quintana for Paris-Roubaix! While I don't know what type of rider Dayer is exactly - in fact I think I read back then that he's definitely better on the cobbles than Nairo - I'm going to assume that he's not exactly a classics specialist.
Tinkoff faced a similar problem despite actually having a decent classics squad; so many of their riders were sick or injured that they had to send Jesper Hansen.
Of course everybody wants to ride the GTs, but even so not all teams - even WT teams - will be able to be competitive, or even active in all three of them. Come on, what exactly did FDJ do during this year's Vuelta?

Honestly, it seems like a lot of this Whole issue stems from the fact that teams are economically dependant on sponsors, sponsors who want exposure at the big races, in particular the Tour, sponsors who can withdraw their sponsorship at the last moment, practically on a whim. (I'm looking at you, CULT!)
Maybe the area that really needs reforms is how sponsorship is managed, and not just on WT level, but on all levels, and men's and women's cycling both.

 

[Vesica]

Totally agree with Jancouver. Half the peloton is riding for nothing or nobody. Shorter races are not per definition less entertaining, just look at the more and more entertaining Eneco tour for example.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Unipublic follows ASO as expected. Wonder if they have to invite all of the six portuguese continental teams.

 

[TMP402]

I've never understood Velon. I keep seeing people mentioning them, but the only thing I've seen them do is some stuff with GoPros. Who are they, what do they want, and why is that bad?

 

[Broken_Leg]

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.
I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis.

I don't have a clue what the 'good' number of pros is.
But the problem if the number of pro cyclists is reduced too low is that many potential good cyclists won't be cyclists but accoutants/bakers/whatever.
Because if there is not enough financially attractive slots, many young won't even try - even if they are quite good in the amateur & young categories.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Totally agree with Jancouver. Half the peloton is riding for nothing or nobody. Shorter races are not per definition less entertaining, just look at the more and more entertaining Eneco tour for example.

This is untrue for 99% of the teams. Most teams have a gc leader, sprinter, or gt leader who is looking for some sort of accomplishment. All his teammates are used up between protection from wind, leadouts, waterboys, ect. Even Tinkov's Giro team (which you hardly saw towards the end of the mountain stages) was still working. They were controlling the peloton early in the race, keeping breakaways in check, protecting their leader. There's a lot that goes on for a leader. I'm not saying keep the teams at 9 riders...I still think it would be fine to reduce teams...I'm just saying even now it's not like there's dead weight on a team - everyone works.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Horrible article by cyclingnews about the whole thing today....

Cycling has always suffered from its unique economic model - without the income of ticket sales or television rights falling to the teams, the sport is left to rely on the charity of the corporations it calls sponsors.

Brilliant. Even the sponsors aren't REALLY sponsors it seems. But charities. Cyclingnews of course has always been a cheerleader for the ProTour/World Tour, regardless of who owns CN, but never as obvious as here... Who wrote this piece, the UCI itself?

ASO doing the right thing. Even if I don't really know what's in the newest incarnation of the reform, but as Libertine said earlier, basically none of all the great and oh so necessary reforms proposed so far are an actual improvement over what's going on today.

And it wouldn't even be that difficult to have sensible reforms, but it seems nobody is interested in that. Certainly not Velon, not the UCI either.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.
I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis.

I don't have a clue what the 'good' number of pros is.
But the problem if the number of pro cyclists is reduced too low is that many potential good cyclists won't be cyclists but accoutants/bakers/whatever.
Because if there is not enough financially attractive slots, many young won't even try - even if they are quite good in the amateur & young categories.

Isn't this already sort of the problem with "lady cycling"? Hardly any jobs that pay any money, so you get a very small pool of available talent since so many people do other things with their lives?

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re:

I've never understood Velon. I keep seeing people mentioning them, but the only thing I've seen them do is some stuff with GoPros. Who are they, what do they want, and why is that bad?

http://www.velon.cc/about/
The current reform is partly Velon's doing.

They create the Abu Dhabi Tour, only to make business.

 

[Jancouver]

Re: Re:

Totally agree with Jancouver. Half the peloton is riding for nothing or nobody. Shorter races are not per definition less entertaining, just look at the more and more entertaining Eneco tour for example.

This is untrue for 99% of the teams. Most teams have a gc leader, sprinter, or gt leader who is looking for some sort of accomplishment. All his teammates are used up between protection from wind, leadouts, waterboys, ect. Even Tinkov's Giro team (which you hardly saw towards the end of the mountain stages) was still working. They were controlling the peloton early in the race, keeping breakaways in check, protecting their leader. There's a lot that goes on for a leader. I'm not saying keep the teams at 9 riders...I still think it would be fine to reduce teams...I'm just saying even now it's not like there's dead weight on a team - everyone works.

You nailed it! Exactly everything I hate about the current system. ..... protecting the leader from wind, keeping the peloton in check, having 8 teammates and 2 team cars to take care of the gc leader. Basically, the leader spends 99% of the race doing nothing, hidden behind his teammates. Yeah, sure, great fun and exciting racing to watch that is.

 

[staubsauger]

Re:

Unipublic follows ASO as expected. Wonder if they have to invite all of the six portuguese continental teams.

That would actually increase the racing again. More teams which are actually interested in the race as a season goal like it used to be pre 2005. As well as stronger second division teams with decent leaders that prefer to play a major role in their grand tour as a captain of a smaller team, rather than being a domestique on a bigger squad.

It would be the same with the Giro actually. So weirdly enough actually it's the ASO which could cause more challenging fields at the other grand tours if the new owner of RCS decides to exclude his races from the WT as well.

I ain't got no love for the WT / PT anyway. If there ain't no lobby for real changes to professionalize the direction of cycling with a NFL like structure, anyway. Well, I rather want back the structure of the 90s than the current ***!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Horrible article by cyclingnews about the whole thing today....

Cycling has always suffered from its unique economic model - without the income of ticket sales or television rights falling to the teams, the sport is left to rely on the charity of the corporations it calls sponsors.

Brilliant. Even the sponsors aren't REALLY sponsors it seems. But charities. Cyclingnews of course has always been a cheerleader for the ProTour/World Tour, regardless of who owns CN, but never as obvious as here... Who wrote this piece, the UCI itself?

ASO doing the right thing. Even if I don't really know what's in the newest incarnation of the reform, but as Libertine said earlier, basically none of all the great and oh so necessary reforms proposed so far are an actual improvement over what's going on today.

And it wouldn't even be that difficult to have sensible reforms, but it seems nobody is interested in that. Certainly not Velon, not the UCI either.

I thought it was local taxpayers around the world that prop up many races. Without public funding a lot of races would collapse.

 

[The Hegelian]

Anyone seen any clear and systematic analyses of the power struggle? Links would be appreciated.

If we take it as a given that the essence of the struggle is about who is in the best position to profit from the commodification of the sport, what are the secondary issues?

It seems to me there is a debate about preserving the history of the sport as distinctively European versus expanding it into something new and globalised.

The ASO promoting the former, UCI the latter.

On these grounds (and I know that this not the only issue), I would favour the ASO. I'm sick of every sport I like being transformed into a hyper-globalised commodity stripped of its history, context and meaning. Frankly, I don't want races in China, Australia, South America. I want the European calendar preserved, because that is where all of my interests are. At the end of the day, Liege-Bastonge-Liege has value almost purely on its account of its rich history. You weaken that, you weaken everything.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

It seems to me there is a debate about preserving the history of the sport as distinctively European versus expanding it into something new and globalised.

I don't think that's what the current debate is about at all. It does seem that some want to frame it that way, though.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

I've never understood Velon. I keep seeing people mentioning them, but the only thing I've seen them do is some stuff with GoPros. Who are they, what do they want, and why is that bad?

http://www.velon.cc/

They're just the latest group that's trying to make improvements to the sport and make it more financially stable and viable. It's not the first time and it will probably produce the same result, which is virtually nothing. Egos, self interests, and stubbornness means we'll probably never see any major changes.

For any real, positive change to occur, riders, teams, organizers, and the UCI (particularly the UCI and ASO) would all have to be willing to work together and be willing to compromise, which they'll never do.

One thing we know is that the French teams will never join one of those groups. And with ASO now affiliated with the Vuelta, no Spanish teams likely will either.

 

[Tonton]

I like the timing: Oleg announces that he quits, and soon afterwards ASO hits the weakened opposition.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

Anyone seen any clear and systematic analyses of the power struggle? Links would be appreciated.

If we take it as a given that the essence of the struggle is about who is in the best position to profit from the commodification of the sport, what are the secondary issues?

It seems to me there is a debate about preserving the history of the sport as distinctively European versus expanding it into something new and globalised.

The ASO promoting the former, UCI the latter.

On these grounds (and I know that this not the only issue), I would favour the ASO. I'm sick of every sport I like being transformed into a hyper-globalised commodity stripped of its history, context and meaning. Frankly, I don't want races in China, Australia, South America. I want the European calendar preserved, because that is where all of my interests are. At the end of the day, Liege-Bastonge-Liege has value almost purely on its account of its rich history. You weaken that, you weaken everything.

Compare it to the F1. F1 has grown in popularity in the world since it started new circuits and dropped the old ones. The std markets will always watch the races but newer markets will come in only if there is chance of hosting the races locally. This brings in newer sponsors and new teams.
Here is the problem. New races in other locations mean dropping some of the older races in the calendar as there are limited number of days available. the UCI will develop these new races and then once these have gained status, will drop some of the old established races. This is what ASO is afraid of.
Second the hijacking of tech based coverage by Velon. The ASO host the races but if the technical details are with Velon, then ASO has to pay Velon to use that aspect.
Cycling will never have impact in emerging markets or even US if they donot host races there. At present, there are essentially 5 countries which host the most of the major races- France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands. Unless there is a concerted effort to host races elsewhere, we are looking at a diminishing returns model especially when the economy of these countries is in recession.
With established long standing sponsors like Rabobank going away, There is is need to increase the number of sponsors. That way the teams at least have the potential to change sponsors every 2 years instead of closing down.
What has ASO got. Only the TDF is known around the world but very few people in the world watch it as there is no coverage or interest. But basing its stand only on that is a wrong one.Its strengths are its skills to organize races. So if new races are being developed, ASO should try to get a piece of the pie.
As long as this standoff continues, cycling is doomed to languish

 

[Jancouver]

I like the timing: Oleg announces that he quits, and soon afterwards ASO hits the weakened opposition.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Exactly! ASO does not want any changes. They are happy Oleg already gave up. They want to keep the TV rights under their control so they dont have to share any of the profits with the teams or anyone else.

ASO is the only one financially benefiting from all the big races so as long as there is enough companies donating their money to "sponsor" the teams, they want to keep it that way and keep ALL of the CA$H generated from the best races.

Can anybody even imagine that something similar would be possible in other sports? Just imagine football and some private company would keep 100% of the profits from Champions League and the participating teams would get nothing? Would the teams and UEFA agree to that? I dont think so!

F**K ASO!

 

[Alexandre B.]

One day I will translate Madiot's book chapter about the globalization of cycling, and you will understand French point of view.

 

[ice&fire]

Re: Re:

Anyone seen any clear and systematic analyses of the power struggle? Links would be appreciated.

If we take it as a given that the essence of the struggle is about who is in the best position to profit from the commodification of the sport, what are the secondary issues?

It seems to me there is a debate about preserving the history of the sport as distinctively European versus expanding it into something new and globalised.

The ASO promoting the former, UCI the latter.

On these grounds (and I know that this not the only issue), I would favour the ASO. I'm sick of every sport I like being transformed into a hyper-globalised commodity stripped of its history, context and meaning. Frankly, I don't want races in China, Australia, South America. I want the European calendar preserved, because that is where all of my interests are. At the end of the day, Liege-Bastonge-Liege has value almost purely on its account of its rich history. You weaken that, you weaken everything.

Compare it to the F1. F1 has grown in popularity in the world since it started new circuits and dropped the old ones. The std markets will always watch the races but newer markets will come in only if there is chance of hosting the races locally. This brings in newer sponsors and new teams.
Here is the problem. New races in other locations mean dropping some of the older races in the calendar as there are limited number of days available. the UCI will develop these new races and then once these have gained status, will drop some of the old established races. This is what ASO is afraid of.
Second the hijacking of tech based coverage by Velon. The ASO host the races but if the technical details are with Velon, then ASO has to pay Velon to use that aspect.
Cycling will never have impact in emerging markets or even US if they donot host races there. At present, there are essentially 5 countries which host the most of the major races- France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands. Unless there is a concerted effort to host races elsewhere, we are looking at a diminishing returns model especially when the economy of these countries is in recession.
With established long standing sponsors like Rabobank going away, There is is need to increase the number of sponsors. That way the teams at least have the potential to change sponsors every 2 years instead of closing down.
What has ASO got. Only the TDF is known around the world but very few people in the world watch it as there is no coverage or interest. But basing its stand only on that is a wrong one.Its strengths are its skills to organize races. So if new races are being developed, ASO should try to get a piece of the pie.
As long as this standoff continues, cycling is doomed to languish

Compare it to football. At present the major leagues are those of England, Germany, Spain and Italy. And they don't need ManU, Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Inter playing regularly games everywhere in the World to promote the sport. Apart from a few friendly games during their pre-season there's the FIFA Club World Cup, but that's the icing, not the cake; and the World Cup is only once every 4 years. For most of the season it seems that good TV coverage of the best national leagues and Europe's Champions League is enough to raise interest everywhere without resorting to the travelling circus model of F1. If people in whatever country want to see live games in the field every week then they have to grow their own competition with their own players and -if they have the money for it- a few old have-been's from the big European leagues.

 

[MTroon]

The topic of this thread and my post is the action of ASO, not the proposed UCI reforms generally. I do not believe that the UCI negotiates in alignment with the riders, quite the opposite in fact. My point here is that, imo, growing the financial pie while stabilizing team fiscal health would most benefit the foundational areas of teams; domestiques, support, development teams, etc. This wouldn't necessarily mean more below average pros, ideally it would mean better pay, training, nutrition, accommodation, equipment, scouting and development. ASO is an oligarchy that operates like other monopolies, lazy, paranoid, unimaginative. Change means more work, more risk and less time on the golf course.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But just because ASO are resistant to change (they are) doesn't mean that they are wrong not to accept the changes that are being presented (they shouldn't). Because while the status quo may not be perfect (it isn't), if the changes proposed do not present any improvement (they don't) then ASO would not be in the wrong to resist them (they aren't).

Now, if changes were presented that would present an actual improvement to the sport (they haven't been), ASO may well still resist those changes (they likely would) if they presented a significant risk to their position in the status quo. But we haven't got to that point yet.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re:

One day I will translate Madiot's book chapter about the globalization of cycling, and you will understand French point of view.

Here's some quotes I picked (I don't know if my translation is always accurate).
Hope it explains part of ASO's thinking about the sport.

Le Tour de France, it’s the world looking at cycling’s cradle.
Le Tour de France is the keystone of the sport. It is cycling’s jowel, France’s jowel. The Anglo-Saxon have to deal with it, and that is a big problem for them. Like it or not, France is the centre of cycling’s world. Let me add Italy, Belgium, Spain and Netherlands to that list. All these countries are cycling’s roots. I’m sorry Mr.Englishmen, but you didn’t invent this sport and you are not cycling’s roots. You may govern it, but you didn’t invent it and you must take that into account.

One day, I was in a commission with Pat McQuaid when ideas of races in China were in the air. We evoked Giro di Lombardia and especially the Italian preparation races. He didn’t care about them.
I told him : « Pat, you can’t do that! They have been in the calendar for fifty years! »
He asked me : « Are they World Tour? »
Me : « No. »
Him : « Then I don’t care. »
It is grievous to say that. I can’t stand their mentality. I do not agree. And four years later, we don’t go to China anymore, meanwhile we are letting European races die.

In the 2000s, UCI intended to establish cycling on all continents : Oceania (Tour Down Under), America (GP Québec, GP Montréal), Asia (Tour de Pékin). Isn’t that a formidable promotion for a universal sport?
Those races develop and persist only if they have a cycling DNA. Montréal, there’s a DNA. It’s a circuit race, with Mont Royal. It can work and it will work. Pékin looks like nothing. No public. It’s prefabricated. No local roots, no links with the country. Why is it still working in Australia? Because there’s a link with the country.

Why are you so critical of the Anglo-Saxon ?
I have nothing against the people but I don’t share their vision for cycling. Because they think in term of ‘efficiency’ and ‘productivity’. Because they didn’t invent cycling and didn’t have hundred years of cycling behind them.

We have a beautiful country, the best calendar in the world, and the best race in the world in the middle of Paris – Roubaix, Paris – Nice and Dauphiné. They come to race here in France. They are invited. They are not the ones who decide. It’s a power struggle once again.

Patrick Lefevere, Dave Brailsford, and all that band : I’m not in their crew. They wanted me to join Velon, but it was to shut me up. Lefevere likes cycling but wants to make business. He dared to say : « Today, cycling is no different, the big eat the small ». So, if you’re small, you have the one and only right to die. I don’t stop anyone from being big, but I consider that everyone has the right to eat.

Back in March, Oleg Tinkov said that pro cycling is a show that has to be inspired by the best in the field (football, formula one, tennis)…
It’s the same thing, we don’t share the same vision. In the sport automobile, there’s a lot of money at the head of the pyramid, but the bottom of the pyramid doesn’t exist. Cycling must not mimic that. The elite has to feed the rest. Conversely, I don’t think that the bottom need to expect everything from the head. Everyone must contribute.

In order to be known, foreign teams come to race in France to take what is good to take. Once they gain access to Le Tour de France, they don’t come to race here again. It’s not normal, it’s too easy. You don’t leave like that, you don’t let people die like that.

Did you talk with Team Sky manager, Dave Brailsford?
I barely know him. He never comes, we never saw him. They don’t care.

What relationship do you have with the leaders of world cycling?
Any. With Brian Cookson, it’s « bonjour, bonsoir » at the meetings. I come. To annoy them. And I ask them one question : « If I have 20 millions euros of budget with FDJ tomorrow, great riders in my team, and I don’t want to be part of the World Tour, what happens? »
They don’t like when I ask this. Let’s dream a little : I have 20 millions, the best riders in the world. What am I doing? I leave World Tour and I race wherever I want.