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

[CyclistAbi]

It's not that they had difficulties securing a sponsor, it's that they had trouble securing enough money to continue to run at the level they are at and paying all the legal fees to get away with poaching riders from other teams.

In my opinion they actually were struggling, to secure a sponsors. If their existing partners wouldn't bail them out, they would likely fell down to somewhere in the middle if not worse. One could argue it's life, one could argue, look in football, Barcelona and Real got plenty of money, from the rewards system, and they still struggle, due to over spending, still it's not that unreasonable to discuss possible future changes, that could enable teams to get part of the money, for their operations, based on results and from other streams, then sponsors.

Yep, listen to assholes like Plugge who tell you this thing is so UNSUSTAINABLE!

Nah, that was my take on it. But maybe i was wrong on this one. As there is still enough oil, sugar, alcohol ... to sustain a model, on where top teams can have 50 million and up annual budgets.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I wouldn't compare Plugge to Pérez at all. It's not about being able to buy Mbappé, it's about a more sustainable model so you don't have to beg people for money the whole time. That if 1 person decides he doesn't want to go through with sponsoring that you have to lay awake at night for 6 months finding someone new or else the team will disband and all riders and staff will lose their job.

This will probably still be the case, since the teams will keep forcing each other to raise their budgets if they want to stay at their current levels within the sport. Mo money, mo problems.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So what i personally support is, some guidelines:

• System where all parties involved can still participate if they chose to. Obviously that somehow demands changes on where it's beneficial to join, not for your existence or position to be threaten if you don't. Due to such joint agreement i assume getting more money from other sources should become easier. Bigger power when negotiating.
• Stability. That is contract and negotiations to be done for lets say 5 year period. So some portion of team annual budget to be secured and not just relied on sponsors.
• Awards system more based on results then privilege.
• Tradition to be respected and protected. Changes to be made in evolutionary fashion.
• Widening this model to other areas in the world a possibility but not the main goal.
• System that includes widening and strengthening national cycling leagues cross Europe. That obviously involves money among other things.
• Mandatory introduction of air bag technology in highest levels of this sport, to protect soft tissue and bones.
• ...

So on why i likely don't support One Cycling. As so far i didn't read anything about addressing any of this areas i mentioned. Due to negotiations being made in secret. I read it more than lets just take the money and congratulate ourself and *** the rest.

 

[Berniece]

This will probably still be the case, since the teams will keep forcing each other to raise their budgets if they want to stay at their current levels within the sport. Mo money, mo problems.

It'll be better if 86% of the budget doesn't come from sponsorships only. That's the biggest issue here that they try to resolve.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It'll be better if 86% of the budget doesn't come from sponsorships only. That's the biggest issue here that they try to resolve.

No it's not just about this. It's about politics, control ... In football there is much more money involved, already, and it's still about money and other things i mentioned. It's life.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

It'll be better if 86% of the budget doesn't come from sponsorships only. That's the biggest issue here that they try to resolve.

It doesn't matter where the funds are coming from if the teams have to keep using all of them. Football clubs are on the brink of bankruptcy all the time, for instance, and they are constantly complaining that federations and broadcasting companies are giving them raw deals, just like the teams do in cycling.

 

[Berniece]

It doesn't matter where the funds are coming from if the teams have to keep using all of them. Football clubs are on the brink of bankruptcy all the time, for instance, and they are constantly complaining that federations and broadcasting companies are giving them raw deals, just like the teams do in cycling.

Of course if matters where it comes from. You are completely dependant on 1 revenue stream, sponsorships. If you have a company, and you would have 100 clients, but 1 client accounts for 86% of your revenue, don't you think you might have a problem if that client leaves? How are you going to be able to run your company on 14% of the revenue?

You aren't, and that's the issue. They don't want to be solely dependant on sponsorships, so that IF a sponsor would like to leave, you don't have to kill the team. Which has already happened in the past multiple times that a team stopped existing because a sponsor quit.

 

[Samamba]

This will probably still be the case, since the teams will keep forcing each other to raise their budgets if they want to stay at their current levels within the sport. Mo money, mo problems.

People just don't want to understand this. If teams have more money they just spend more and still want more. There is already plenty of money in cycling, it's just that team spend too much. The only way to counter this is to work with some sort of budget of salary caps, and yes that also has some downsides.

where top teams can have 50 million and up annual budgets

That's the thing, they shouldn't have to. Cycling doesnt need this kind of money. Too many riders are getting paid to much, most riders are simply not worth that kind of money if we look at whats coming into the sport, how many eyes there are on the sport, TV income, etc. But teams like Ineos and UAE have ruined the market completely, cause they don't seem to care (well atleast UAE) about ROI.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Of course if matters where it comes from. You are completely dependant on 1 revenue stream, sponsorships. If you have a company, and you would have 100 clients, but 1 client accounts for 86% of your revenue, don't you think you might have a problem if that client leaves? How are you going to be able to run your company on 14% of the revenue?

You aren't, and that's the issue. They don't want to be solely dependant on sponsorships, so that IF a sponsor would like to leave, you don't have to kill the team. Which has already happened in the past multiple times that a team stopped existing because a sponsor quit.

In reality it's usually multiple sponsors and if you are any good then you always have some options. But it's obvisuly messy and a struggle. So people doing it should always get credit for at least that.

 

[CyclistAbi]

That's the thing, they shouldn't have to. Cycling doesnt need this kind of money. Too many riders are getting paid to much, most riders are simply not worth that kind of money if we look at whats coming into the sport, how many eyes there are on the sport, TV income, etc. But teams like Ineos and UAE have ruined the market completely, cause they don't seem to care (well atleast UAE) about ROI.

The thing with money is usually there is a point. Before that point you really are lacking money and above it things can get a bit crazy. So considering cycling is developing in this regards, money. Somebody will just have to analyse this and set some boundaries. If on the other hand cycling would become a company (western style). Then there is obviously only one purpose left and that is maximizing the profits, as that is the sole reason of existence of such entity. But i don't see that happening. It would be like saying a state can be run as a company. It can't be.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Of course if matters where it comes from. You are completely dependant on 1 revenue stream, sponsorships. If you have a company, and you would have 100 clients, but 1 client accounts for 86% of your revenue, don't you think you might have a problem if that client leaves? How are you going to be able to run your company on 14% of the revenue?

You aren't, and that's the issue. They don't want to be solely dependant on sponsorships, so that IF a sponsor would like to leave, you don't have to kill the team. Which has already happened in the past multiple times that a team stopped existing because a sponsor quit.

I agree that getting money from different sources can lead to more stability, but I don't think it will.

In many sports it can be quite difficult to combine sporting success and financial growth. Having a fixed league system will of course help because the teams then won't be under as much threat of being replaced, but they'll still need more and more money to stay competitive.

At first they might be able to cut costs a bit by having fewer riders and staff members, if the new league leads to fewer races and race days, but at some point that will be leveled out by increasing salaries.

Considering there isn't that much money in cycling compared to some other sports, and the fact the teams don't have a home ground or a very loyal fan base or local politicians or banks being feared of them going under, I actually think it's pretty well done that many teams have survived for years.

Sure some have changed sponsors and owners or been forced to merge with other teams, but at least they're still around.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In my opinion they actually were struggling, to secure a sponsors. If their existing partners wouldn't bail them out, they would likely fell down to somewhere in the middle if not worse. One could argue it's life, one could argue, look in football, Barcelona and Real got plenty of money, from the rewards system, and they still struggle, due to over spending, still it's not that unreasonable to discuss possible future changes, that could enable teams to get part of the money, for their operations, based on results and from other streams, then sponsors.



Nah, that was my take on it. But maybe i was wrong on this one. As there is still enough oil, sugar, alcohol ... to sustain a model, on where top teams can have 50 million and up annual budgets.

That's it. They would have not been able to sustain their position of dominance. That's all. Plugge doesn't want to protect the income of the sport and make a more sustainable cycling. He wants to prolong a situation where his team is the dominant one and he can afford to swan around disregarding other teams' contracts because if he wants a rider he gets his man damnit. And that's why I compare him to Florentino Pérez, because Real Madrid enjoy an advantageous situation in the Spanish league and when Covid meant that the creditors actually wanted some of their money back and he might be forced to curb his spending, he went on a crusade to "save football" by ensuring that the Galácticos could remain Galácticos and wouldn't have to be subject to the same financial limitations that the rest of the league pyramid deals with day in day out.

And as Samu says, more money to the teams will just mean more money being spent. Agents will know that the teams have more money at their disposal so will push salaries up, and locking the top level off will kill off smaller teams and races - especially as the race organisers will have less money to budget their events because that money went to the teams instead. A team that is not spending to its limit will be criticised for not doing everything in its power to get results, but if they spend to their limit and still don't get results (because somebody else has more money or just has better riders) then all that happens is the sport needs more and more money, but doesn't provide any improvement in the number of races, riders or the spectacle and just becomes a money sink that, without ticketed revenues, it just doesn't generate enough money to justify. And guess what we then get? Circuit races with ticketed, priced revenues, killing off one of the biggest appeals that the sport has had for over a century: that it's the sport that goes to the common man, not the other way round.

A closed league has to - there is no other choice - have parity laws. The US leagues are a key example, where draft picks, trades and salary caps are used to prevent one team from running away with things for too long as it becomes impossible to maintain a high quality core AND support cast for the duration, so teams are forever having to rebuild and redevelop. I don't think this would be at all possible in cycling, not least because of EU labour laws when it comes to draft rights and trading players between teams in different countries.

 

[Anderis]

I’m not fine with what you are saying at all. Power should lie with the teams and riders imo.

Looking at the experience of F1, the last thing I want in the sport is the teams to have too much power.

 

[pastronef]

@Libertine Seguros well I've never agree so much with you like I do in this thread (when I'll feel it's too much we'll meet again in the Geraint's thread )

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

I think that in the future teams will find some kind of membership funding. Say you have the basic membership where you pay 50 or 100 euros a year to get a bit of exclusive insight (social media, news letter etc) and you get to vote on small things like jersey design etc. And you have some higher levels of membership where you can meet riders etc if you pay a certain amount. For every 10 000 member with basic membership that's 1 million if it cost 100 or the half if the membership fee is 500.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Despite my personal opinions about it, I do expect that this will happen sooner or later. The Middle East seems to be the one place in the world where people don't care too much about how they spend their money at the moment.

I only hope it won't make it harder and/or more expensive to follow cycling, make the races less exciting or create too much of a gap between the riders and the fans. There shouldn't be a huge difference between the child who's playing Tour de France on an oversized racing bike and the guy who stands on top of the podium in Paris.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I think that in the future teams will find some kind of membership funding. Say you have the basic membership where you pay 50 or 100 euros a year to get a bit of exclusive insight (social media, news letter etc) and you get to vote on small things like jersey design etc. And you have some higher levels of membership where you can meet riders etc if you pay a certain amount. For every 10 000 member with basic membership that's 1 million if it cost 100 or the half if the membership fee is 500.

I think it costs 100 Euros a year to be a member of the Fundación Euskadi.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

I think it costs 100 Euros a year to be a member of the Fundación Euskadi.

102 Euros it seems. Do you know circa how many they have?

 

[Anderis]

Looking at the experience of F1, the last thing I want in the sport is the teams to have too much power.

Just to expand on why I think so.

It's because it's not in the teams' interest to have open and fair competition. It's in their interest to maintain status quo, discourage new participants and to not put themselves under too much challenge, which goes directly against what sport should be about IMO. Give the teams power and they'll use it to indirectly influence the sporting outcome in their favour. to make sure they aren't dethroned by smaller teams or newcomers and that they aren't challenged too much about maintaining their sporting advantage etc. Giving the competitors too much say about what the competition looks like is often not a good idea. They usually make it about maintaining their position rather than about what's the best for the competition. Even if an outside governing body doesn't do that much for the good of the sport either, at least they don't usually have as much incentive to discourage open and fair competition when they're in power.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

102 Euros it seems. Do you know circa how many they have?

I have to admit that I'm not a member myself, even though I probably should be.

This article from January mentions 1300 members. However I don't know if that number includes companies, which can apparently sign up, too.

 

[scribers]

Just to expand on why I think so.

It's because it's not in the teams' interest to have open and fair competition. It's in their interest to maintain status quo, discourage new participants and to not put themselves under too much challenge, which goes directly against what sport should be about IMO. Give the teams power and they'll use it to indirectly influence the sporting outcome in their favour. to make sure they aren't dethroned by smaller teams or newcomers and that they aren't challenged too much about maintaining their sporting advantage etc. Giving the competitors too much say about what the competition looks like is often not a good idea. They usually make it about maintaining their position rather than about what's the best for the competition. Even if an outside governing body doesn't do that much for the good of the sport either, at least they don't usually have as much incentive to discourage open and fair competition when they're in power.

isn’t there a disproportionate amount of power between teams now because of sponsorship funding? Set aside race organizers and uci elements

Wouldn’t a structure shift funds from the actual races across all teams proportionally?

 

[CyclistAbi]

That's it. They would have not been able to sustain their position of dominance. That's all.

Still, a team should be rewarded, up to a point, for being successful, not to fall apart?

As for the rest we all more or less seem to agree, imagine that. That for now we somehow don't want super league in cycling or football, at least not in Europe, where football and cycling are rather great. Maybe this investors should rather focus on European basketball? Or is that just too much work for them. Developing before milking it.

 

[Anderis]

Wouldn’t a structure shift funds from the actual races across all teams proportionally?

Proportionally to what?

isn’t there a disproportionate amount of power between teams now because of sponsorship funding? Set aside race organizers and uci elements

Why set aside? How does that disproportionate amount of power manifest itself when the teams don't have much say about the rules?

 

[scribers]

Proportionally to what?


Why set aside? How does that disproportionate amount of power manifest itself when the teams don't have much say about the rules?

Equally between teams. If revenue generated goes into one pot, each team is working with the same amount of money. That’s not the case now.

Set aside for this conversation because you suggest teams can have too much power. As I can tell the teams want the stable revenue The races generate annually.

 

[Berniece]

isn’t there a disproportionate amount of power between teams now because of sponsorship funding? Set aside race organizers and uci elements

Wouldn’t a structure shift funds from the actual races across all teams proportionally?

Yes. They could do tv right like the premier league where everyone gets an equal share