Breaking Away - "Top cycling teams explore creating new competitive league"

[Potomac]

I read in the Inner Ring blog that costs for sponsoring a cycling team is outgrowing the cost of inflation.

I think that indicates the sport is growing.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

Hasn’t grown as fast as other sports at all.

Growing in which aspects?

When looking at the Financial aspect and comparing it with for example football that might be a good thing. Basically all clubs at high level are bleeding money that the owners have to cover just so already super rich players make even more money and sleezy agents gets a big piece of the cake. At the same time prices for watching football on TV is sky rocketing and the same with ticket prices, resulting in for example more and more rich tourists on the grounds of Premier League team instead of locals and worse atmosphere in the stadium. There is a lot of negative things connected to this growth,

 

[E_F_]

OneCycling is a terrible "proposal" (or lack thereof), but that doesn't mean that cycling wouldn't benefit massively from not eating away at itself from all angles. The teams, the organizers, and the governing body should just get together and make a single entity.

 

[Potomac]

OneCycling is a terrible "proposal" (or lack thereof), but that doesn't mean that cycling wouldn't benefit massively from not eating away at itself from all angles. The teams, the organizers, and the governing body should just get together and make a single entity.

How do the teams be part of single entity?

 

[E_F_]

How do the teams be part of single entity?

By emulating the sports leagues with the highest revenues..?

 

[Potomac]

By emulating the sports leagues with the highest revenues..?

The teams in these leagues are distinct entities, are they not?

 

[E_F_]

The teams in these leagues are distinct entities, are they not?

Not always. Of course even in soccer the teams often run the competitions themselves, but I think franchising works a lot better.

 

[saunaking]

By emulating the sports leagues with the highest revenues..?

Why?
One cycling is nothing but a move by the teams/owners to try and grab as much money as possible. They care ZERO for the history or culture or the fans of the sport.
If you listen all you hear about is 'brining new fans' and 'creating a narrative'

I get it, but F THAT and F THEM.

They literally think it is bad to have more race days than calendar days.
They think it is bad that Tirreno and P-N overlap
They think its bad that some TDF riders will be in the Dauphanie and some in Suisse

If some Saudi offered them $100M to have a 5 race series in the desert, yes, they would be all over it.

Cycling is not football, NFL, or F1. Compare it to other endurance sports - xc skiing, triathlon, marathon.

It is top of the heap.

Don't change cycling, you are beautiful

UCI UAE supertucks, socks i dont care, its so Fing awesome

Boo hoo, cycling team owners are never gonna sell their teams for billions like in the NBA

edit-can we stop the sky is falling bs about the current model being 'unsustainable'? What 120 years now? Stronger than ever

 

[Breezy1985]

Here is a list of sports that grew way more since the 70s than cycling: Football, NFL, MLB, NBA, Cricket, NHL, Formula 1, Golf, Rugby, Nascar, Tennis, MotoGP, and Volleyball.

All those sports grew faster than cycling, which means their market share is growing compared to cyclings.

And why is this happening? Because free roadside access limits ticket income, and team models rely on transient title sponsors rather than equity‑rich franchises. That last part means the success of sponsor-naming teams doesn’t drive fan loyalty or merchandising.

Not to mention cycling is just difficult. Someone who knows nothing about cycling isn't able to follow a season, and needs an explanation. I mean look at this forum. We are more interested in who is going to relegate, than who would actually win a season.

So yeah the sport is going to keep shrinking compared to others if we don't make changes.

Cricket and rugby have not grown more outside of their heartlands than cycling has in that time. Rugby it should be noted was starting from a very low Base and was amateur until the 90's

I don't know a lot about MLB and NHL but I see nothing to suggest they have grown in any way more than cycling.

Most people don't even know what NASCAR or MotkGP are and volleyball is just too funny an addition to even comment on. Formula 1 peaked 20 years ago and has had well publicised problems attracting fans in recent times. Tennis has very likely just peaked too.

So ya the behemoth that is soccer has grown more which could be said of any sport its compared to. NFL has grown massively too which baffles me personally but people do seem to be loving it.

None of your examples would have me believe cycling should get into bed with sportswashing on the One Cycling level.

 

[Breezy1985]

Hasn’t grown as fast as other sports at all.

It was shrinking to the point that "it will end up like CX and no one will care"

Now it's just not growing "as fast"

That's called moving goalposts.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not always. Of course even in soccer the teams often run the competitions themselves, but I think franchising works a lot better.

Franchising works in those leagues because there is a finite number of spaces at the top and a structure built entirely out of affiliate teams who don't actually compete with the sole goal of victory (since they serve as development teams for the parent club primarily) and parity rules that would be nigh on impossible to implement in a sport which covers a huge number of countries and varying labour laws, and that each franchise has its own tangible assets in the form of stadia, property and so on which is simply not possible for a cycling franchise to compare to.

This was always one of the problems with the proposed European Super League in soccer, that it would be unable to provide genuine parity - unless they had ALL of the big teams and leagues on board, there would be alternatives that were not restrained by budget caps, so they couldn't apply a salary or budget cap as a constraint, and the teams, having had a century of meritocracy pro-rel formats behind them, have their own youth and academy setups so there's no need for a draft, notwithstanding that draft rights for players outside of that league such as happen with Euro players drafted in the NHL or NBA would be unenforceable due to EU labour laws. The proposed means by which to ensure that it didn't get too predictable was to have the 'core' Super League teams have guaranteed spots, and then a small number of additional teams by invite - which, when you think about it, is rather the same as the current cycling system. You know, the one the teams are trying to do away with because they want to guarantee that those smaller teams can't be relevant enough that they might steal some glory money away from their share of the pot.

 

[Berniece]

Cricket and rugby have not grown more outside of their heartlands than cycling has in that time. Rugby it should be noted was starting from a very low Base and was amateur until the 90's

I don't know a lot about MLB and NHL but I see nothing to suggest they have grown in any way more than cycling.

Most people don't even know what NASCAR or MotkGP are and volleyball is just too funny an addition to even comment on. Formula 1 peaked 20 years ago and has had well publicised problems attracting fans in recent times. Tennis has very likely just peaked too.

So ya the behemoth that is soccer has grown more which could be said of any sport its compared to. NFL has grown massively too which baffles me personally but people do seem to be loving it.

None of your examples would have me believe cycling should get into bed with sportswashing on the One Cycling level.

Yes they have… Google it then… I mean I’ve already said they grew harder which means cycling has a smaller market share. If you think they didn’t grow as hard, show me. You say Rugby didn’t grow as hard, the WC alone generated 500M in revenue.

The Breakdown | Rugby World Cups aren’t adding up for major unions and there is no easy fix

South Africa no longer see hosting as viable and World Rugby is under pressure to deliver for its members

www.theguardian.com

I’m not a fan of sportwashing either, would rather have a different company fund the initial investment, but they don’t find anyone apparently. But I do want to see a change, the business model doesn’t work and the sport is getting smaller compared to others.

 

[houtdffan]

Why?
One cycling is nothing but a move by the teams/owners to try and grab as much money as possible. They care ZERO for the history or culture or the fans of the sport.
If you listen all you hear about is 'brining new fans' and 'creating a narrative'

I get it, but F THAT and F THEM.

They literally think it is bad to have more race days than calendar days.
They think it is bad that Tirreno and P-N overlap
They think its bad that some TDF riders will be in the Dauphanie and some in Suisse

If some Saudi offered them $100M to have a 5 race series in the desert, yes, they would be all over it.

Cycling is not football, NFL, or F1. Compare it to other endurance sports - xc skiing, triathlon, marathon.

It is top of the heap.

Don't change cycling, you are beautiful

UCI UAE supertucks, socks i dont care, its so Fing awesome

Boo hoo, cycling team owners are never gonna sell their teams for billions like in the NBA

edit-can we stop the sky is falling bs about the current model being 'unsustainable'? What 120 years now? Stronger than ever

owners have every right to get the money for themselves.

why not call out race organizers who are doing everything they can to keep all of they money for themselves?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

owners have every right to get the money for themselves.

why not call out race organizers who are doing everything they can to keep all of they money for themselves?

Without races to enter, the team owners have no value proposition. We saw from the limited interest in the additional footage and data given by Velon (it attracted curio value but was not a game-changer) and the lack of a continued clamour for the Hammer Series that they have thus far struggled in their attempt to set up their own organisational structures to rival those of ASO, RCS etc..

That's why they're trying to drive fan loyalty toward teams rather than individual riders, and use that importance driven by name value teams and riders to convey the prestige onto a homogenous calendar of identikit races they can then move around who pays the most rather than races of varying size and shape whose prestige is derived from history and tradition.

The intention is to have all the biggest name teams and riders at all races on a circuit comprised of races of uniform length and duration, usually on circuit races so they can sell tickets to entry, that can move around as required geographically with no race being inherently more valuable than any other, and they can just locate those races in whichever cities will pay the most. That circuit, having all the big name riders and biggest teams, will automatically therefore be where the money is.

If you're not in that circuit, too bad. You don't deserve to exist as far as One Cycling and Richard Plugge are concerned. I mean, you can try to follow the format, but you have no access to any big names or teams, and all the same costs of setting up competition, plus far less income from the overcharged popcorn and warm beer. You know, the kind of thing that in other franchise sports you can get away with because the teams will have smaller stadia/arenas with lower associated costs. And it's not like safety measures are going to be any easier when the teams have made it abundantly clear that as far as they're concerned safety is a cost that the organisers should carry, their riders should be allowed to divebomb any corner they like, their role is point and squirt and any danger is the organisers' responsibility.

No wildcards at the top, because we don't want poor people interfering with our competition, and we sure as hell don't want any newly-minted Johnny-come-latelys trying to Manchester City their way to one of our spots at the top. But what we do want is to gatekeep the top level so if any of their riders show any promise we can promise to pay them more, persuade them to refuse to ride for their teams and maybe seed some stories in the press to encourage them to break contracts and then pay off any costs involved.

And then they can ride fourth in line in the train, and we have all been taught to dream by the fresh ink of the newspapers, Soyuzpechat'.

 

[Berniece]

to convey the prestige onto a homogenous calendar of identikit races they can then move around who pays the most rather than races of varying size and shape whose prestige is derived from history and tradition.

Complete bs, as if RCS and Flanders Classics want to destroy races like the Giro and Ronde van Vlaanderen.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Complete bs, as if RCS and Flanders Classics want to destroy races like the Giro and Ronde van Vlaanderen.

The Monaco Grand Prix pays no more points to the F1 World Championships than the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.

 

[Berniece]

The Monaco Grand Prix pays no more points to the F1 World Championships than the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.

No, you said:

“ homogenous calendar of identikit races they can then move around who pays the most”

As if you can do Tour of Flanders in Qatar…

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No, you said:

“ homogenous calendar of identikit races they can then move around who pays the most”

As if you can do Tour of Flanders in Qatar…

I was also talking about what the stakeholders like Richard Plugge and the Saudis want, not what the ones like RCS and Flanders Classics want.

But I guess it's too early to tell what the plans involve and we aren't allowed to judge it yet (or at least people who aren't going to glaze the proposals aren't, people who are going to praise it are fine to make judgments), even if we've been told 99% of what it entails and it's exactly what we expected it to be.

 

[Berniece]

I was also talking about what the stakeholders like Richard Plugge and the Saudis want, not what the ones like RCS and Flanders Classics want.

But I guess it's too early to tell what the plans involve and we aren't allowed to judge it yet (or at least people who aren't going to glaze the proposals aren't, people who are going to praise it are fine to make judgments), even if we've been told 99% of what it entails and it's exactly what we expected it to be.

You aren’t judging it, you are making stuff up.

 

[Potomac]

Does anyone have solid numbers on what broadcasters pay to the organizers of a race?

I just googled to see what ASO gets from NBC/Peacock but there's no recent data.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You aren’t judging it, you are making stuff up.

Everything we've claimed it to be has been what has been in the information we've been given about it. The city centre circuits. The "races need to be the same length so people understand it better". The "a translatable uniform format of races, probably including TTTs". The selling tickets and popcorn. The "all the big teams and all the biggest riders guaranteed in all races". They've all been in what has been disclosed about the proposals. Including by its public mouthpiece himself.

None of it is new. None of what we have been presented so far is either new or an improvement, and everything that has been disclosed so far about the proposals is the exact same thing we've seen rejected at least three times in the last fifteen years: a bunch of old rich men who grossly overestimate their importance to the sport trying to grab as much of a stake as they can and redirect the profit split in the sport so that they get the biggest share.

But it seems we're not allowed to criticise the things we do know, because the things we don't know could be amazing. I mean, the odds are heavily against it given what we know so far, but hey, it's not zero, so therefore all criticism must be silenced until the fait accompli is completed.