-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
@Libertine Seguros
All your examples are dependent on regulations with respect to cars etc. Different rulesets make developing cars which adhere to differing ones difficult. Then a 'breakaway' that evolves differently is difficult.
Cycling is not about the most optimal bike. ASO does not make the regulations, the UCI does. A new league would not differ so any team can just compete in both, just like they now compete in the Giro and the Tour.
Without the Tour I think it's still beneficial. There used to be the 'UCI Road World Cup' and the new league can create something similar. Spread out events with a winner at the end. Exact setup to be determined but effectively points per race and you can scratch some results (or best x results count). You avoid July and you have the chance of attractive fields throughout a season for the organisers that join (like Flanders). You sell it as one package and I'd expect sponsorship of the events as well as TV package to be worth more than now individually. Especially with calling whoeever wins it the best cyclist of the season, rather than the ridiculous voting now. You leave a standing invitation for the Tour to join and keep blaming the French for not working in unison. It would create a more cohesive calender and more to look at through the year as its actually interconnected throughout, instead of all loose events.
I now see (thank you Google/Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Cup ) that TDF was never part of the UCI Road World Cup but also that events still were sold separately. So it's something with legacy but in a renewed package which might attract more money to the sport. Also something that might entice people besides the TDF.
@kingjr
Held back; that everything is individually organised (well, mostly) and that supposedly people only care about the TDF and will only care about the TDF. Except for the 'die-hard' fans. Thinking like that makes it a self-fulfulling prophecy. Cycling is entertaining, it's amazing but it's not marketed well. Most people just associate it with doping and maybe the TDF (or combination thereof). While there are many events on the calendar that are amazing. Broadcasting of it can also be improved a lot and there are ways of bringing people closer to the riders and their achievements. Netflix documentary helped (but was only about the tour), many teams had their own documentaries but those are quite small scale but we can also think outside the box: think of publishing the power data and you can ride with the riders on the same route virtually (most people will need some help then though ;-) ). When Vingegaard goes you can stay in his wheel (assuming your power to weight gets a 50% boost!) while sweating your arse off.
Anyway, I took a detour: An attractive set of races, throughout the year, combined together with an additional competition whereby broadcast rights are sold as a package and investments are made in the broadcast/marketing around (like another Netflix docu although that's copying a bit) would, I believe, attract a larger audience than they now do individually.
All your examples are dependent on regulations with respect to cars etc. Different rulesets make developing cars which adhere to differing ones difficult. Then a 'breakaway' that evolves differently is difficult.
Cycling is not about the most optimal bike. ASO does not make the regulations, the UCI does. A new league would not differ so any team can just compete in both, just like they now compete in the Giro and the Tour.
Without the Tour I think it's still beneficial. There used to be the 'UCI Road World Cup' and the new league can create something similar. Spread out events with a winner at the end. Exact setup to be determined but effectively points per race and you can scratch some results (or best x results count). You avoid July and you have the chance of attractive fields throughout a season for the organisers that join (like Flanders). You sell it as one package and I'd expect sponsorship of the events as well as TV package to be worth more than now individually. Especially with calling whoeever wins it the best cyclist of the season, rather than the ridiculous voting now. You leave a standing invitation for the Tour to join and keep blaming the French for not working in unison. It would create a more cohesive calender and more to look at through the year as its actually interconnected throughout, instead of all loose events.
I now see (thank you Google/Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Cup ) that TDF was never part of the UCI Road World Cup but also that events still were sold separately. So it's something with legacy but in a renewed package which might attract more money to the sport. Also something that might entice people besides the TDF.
@kingjr
Held back; that everything is individually organised (well, mostly) and that supposedly people only care about the TDF and will only care about the TDF. Except for the 'die-hard' fans. Thinking like that makes it a self-fulfulling prophecy. Cycling is entertaining, it's amazing but it's not marketed well. Most people just associate it with doping and maybe the TDF (or combination thereof). While there are many events on the calendar that are amazing. Broadcasting of it can also be improved a lot and there are ways of bringing people closer to the riders and their achievements. Netflix documentary helped (but was only about the tour), many teams had their own documentaries but those are quite small scale but we can also think outside the box: think of publishing the power data and you can ride with the riders on the same route virtually (most people will need some help then though ;-) ). When Vingegaard goes you can stay in his wheel (assuming your power to weight gets a 50% boost!) while sweating your arse off.
Anyway, I took a detour: An attractive set of races, throughout the year, combined together with an additional competition whereby broadcast rights are sold as a package and investments are made in the broadcast/marketing around (like another Netflix docu although that's copying a bit) would, I believe, attract a larger audience than they now do individually.
problem is there are no free weekends for these "new" races. there's a WT race every weekend from March to mid-September. the races of this "new league" would begin from 2026, but all the teams will need the UCI points to get their WT license (and wild cards) for the next 3 years.
Flanders Cycling supposedly signed up. You just need a few other existing organisers to join the fold. It does not impact WT then, existing WT races but then part of a new championship would still provide UCI points. It can start with s limited calendar and take it from there. First attempt never needs to be all conquering. If they can show benefits for organisers and teams, more shall follow.
They discussed everything with the UCI. Who says you can’t get those points through these races? I also don’t think they are going to create new races only. Existing races might join.
Gosh I miss the World Cup(nostalgia goggles might be a thing here). It was small enough that you got classics riders going slightly out of their comfort zone to try and scrape some points in races that weren't their ideal cup of tea. But not so big that anyone would throw away a W in Paris Roubaix to deny the points to a competitor.
Also really nice that you only had 10 races, you didn't have to commit 40 weekends to keep up.
Also really nice that you only had 10 races, you didn't have to commit 40 weekends to keep up.
Yeah, make the cake bigger then it doesn't matter as much if you change the way you divide it.
I think you'll still need a bigger piece of the cake to reduce the impact of sponsorships.
yeah maybe, obs depends on how much you grow it, but yes one would expect riders demanding more in wages if the overall revenue of the teams go up significantly as well.
The proposed setup is fundamentally incompatible with UCI rules, because every single UCI race is obliged to invite at least some non-WT teams and taking out the non-WT teams is a cornerstone of the proposed setup. So either they take the whole plan apart (in which case the already-small potential benefits to those taking part become even smaller) or this will very much impact the WT.
Don't forget "shorter and explosive" "new" 3-day races which will "likely include a TTT". It's basically a rebadged Hammer Series. Which they wanted to stick around 10 of into the calendar "without impacting the existing calendar" despite making it compulsory to attend for members of their select "no poor team riff-raff allowed" club. Sounds familiar, huh.
Serious lipstick being put on a pig itt.
That's the ProTour set up by Hein Verbruggen. Not surprisingly ASO opposed the bundling of broadcasting rights.
How do you think that applying the F1 model to cycling (Richard Plugge's words, not mine) is going to work? The whole point of the F1 model is a closed shop.
He also said that no team would be left behind, and that this isn't going to be for a select few. Maybe he doesn't want to take everything from the F1 model, but just some parts?
F1 is quite different from cycling.
Costs, therefore barrier, to entry are huge in Formula 1. There are barriers to entry in cycling due to the licenses but not to same extent as that of F1. World Tour is a relatively closed system already. Most points are given in WT races and as a WT team you have to attend them all. Pro continental teams can't start them all so start 2-0 behind. Unless you are in the top two where you automatically can start all WT races. Unless a team has MVDP it's basically World Tour Teams and former World Tour teams that get automatic invites. Quite closed I'd argue.
@The fridge in the blue trees
Yes but it can be done without the Tour. With the practical benefit that the Tour has to be on public channels (copied from https://inrng.com/2015/02/the-tour-de-frances-tv-guarantee/):
A little-known government decree prevents the owners from maxxing out on the TV rights. However the changing media landscape could see the race become more valuable as more channels hunt for an audience. The decree is the “Décret n°2004-1392 du 22 décembre 2004” and enshrines in the law the requirement for the Tour de France to be screened on a TV channel that is free-to-air.
Other races can be bundled together and sold as a package.
Again, it has to be complemented with an improvement in broadcasts etc. Quality should go up and innovative ways to make it more interactive. Having a bigger group of races as a set should enable the investment. Combined with a new classification it could become very interesting. Although, my expectation is that they will fail in doing so... the potential is there. However, knowing people and how these processes work it will be conservative, lots of empty words and nothing special. One can hope for something better though! Not trying is worse than not succeeding.
Costs, therefore barrier, to entry are huge in Formula 1. There are barriers to entry in cycling due to the licenses but not to same extent as that of F1. World Tour is a relatively closed system already. Most points are given in WT races and as a WT team you have to attend them all. Pro continental teams can't start them all so start 2-0 behind. Unless you are in the top two where you automatically can start all WT races. Unless a team has MVDP it's basically World Tour Teams and former World Tour teams that get automatic invites. Quite closed I'd argue.
@The fridge in the blue trees
Yes but it can be done without the Tour. With the practical benefit that the Tour has to be on public channels (copied from https://inrng.com/2015/02/the-tour-de-frances-tv-guarantee/):
A little-known government decree prevents the owners from maxxing out on the TV rights. However the changing media landscape could see the race become more valuable as more channels hunt for an audience. The decree is the “Décret n°2004-1392 du 22 décembre 2004” and enshrines in the law the requirement for the Tour de France to be screened on a TV channel that is free-to-air.
Other races can be bundled together and sold as a package.
Again, it has to be complemented with an improvement in broadcasts etc. Quality should go up and innovative ways to make it more interactive. Having a bigger group of races as a set should enable the investment. Combined with a new classification it could become very interesting. Although, my expectation is that they will fail in doing so... the potential is there. However, knowing people and how these processes work it will be conservative, lots of empty words and nothing special. One can hope for something better though! Not trying is worse than not succeeding.
I think the main thing holding cycling back is its low CDI factor. And that's not going to change.
The problem is "no team left behind" at what level. If it's about "no team left behind" from within the select few to prevent teams becoming total cannon fodder, then I still hate it because it will choke off the lower levels, with second tier teams that rely on wildcards for their biggest paydays backed to the wall, and smaller race organisers in national scenes that depend on having the bigger name national teams and riders in attendance (think teams like Trek and EF turning up to the Maryland Cycling Classic, Movistar doing the Spanish calendar of mid-season small stage races, or races like the Tour of Belgium wanting QS and Lotto) not having access to those riders because they're off doing a Hammer Series facsimile in Bahrain or something could also kill off or reduce the race days available to anybody outside of that top level. They have not given me any indication at any stage that "no team left behind" would extend beyond their little cabal, seeing as we've been progressing towards an ever-reduced number of significant teams as the ProTeam level is being choked at the throat with only the two or three teams above the choke point who are WT teams in all but name because they get given the oxymoronic "automatic wildcards" able to be even remotely competitive.
If they are extending the "no team left behind" to include measures to support and ensure the survival of teams at the second and third tiers, then I would love to hear them (and also would love for it not to be to turn them all into effectively AAA affiliates of the cabal) because nothing I have heard so far has suggested this to be even remotely on the agenda, so I would like to hear more about it because it's something that I think is absolutely crucial.
Even if they only mean "no team left behind" as in they don't want it to become a closed league where there are cannon fodder teams (like when they let those new teams in in F1 but the teams vetoed any and all proposals that would let them be competitive - a key concern of having the teams have a high degree of say in the decision-making of the sport - so they came in, pottered around the back having their own little battle but never scoring any points, and then went bankrupt), then I would like to hear what parity enforcement measures they propose, because hearing that kind of statement from the very man who has been absolutely ruthlessly abusing the transfer market to bully other teams and try to steal talent rings just as hypocritical as hearing Jonathan Vaughters - the man who killed the best women's team in the world in less than a year after inheriting it and stole funding from it to hire Thomas freaking Dekker - try to posit himself as a voice of progress for women's cycling over those crusty old UCI types when the Hammer Series was dying.
The WT used to be less of a closed shop, but has become progressively more of one. Compare now to 2007-8 kind of time when the ProTour was there, and look at the number of strong ProContinental teams that were able to affect GCs and classics at the business end. Not just two teams who are ex-WT teams who have to be invited to every race regardless of what the organisers want. Cycling administration is not the only reason for this shift, but it has exacerbated it, largely by closing the loophole that Cervélo and BMC found where being ProConti was actually more beneficial than being ProTour if you spent the money you saved on the licence on strong enough riders that you got any wildcard you liked too, but without the obligations that ProTour teams had.
As for the bundling all the races other than the Tour together and selling as a package, the problem with that is that ASO also organise two monuments (Paris-Roubaix and Liège-Bastogne-Liège), one of the other two Grand Tours (the Vuelta), another classic and a semi-classic on the WorldTour calendar (Flèche Wallonne and Eschborn-Frankfurt), two of the biggest WorldTour stage races (Paris-Nice and the Dauphiné) plus, where extant, the women's versions of each of the above. You would have to offer them quite a lot of concessions to give up the rights to those because those are other races they have as leverage when it comes to bundling their own races together.
You say "not trying is worse than not succeeding" but this attempt to wrest power from ASO and homogenise the calendar into a digestible and repetitious format that can then be sold off to the highest bidder to make "sustainable cycling" and direct more funds to the teams and away from the race organisers has already been tried - and failed comprehensively - at least three times in the last 15 years alone. All we're getting here is the same terrible solution-looking-for-a-problem that has been rebuffed multiple times, just this time with more blood money. Eventually we'll find out how much money is needed to sell the soul of the sport - we already know that most of the teams and Flanders Classics will sell themselves down the river for peanuts. Everybody's got a price for the Million Dollar Man.
That's the thing, we haven't gotten any proper indications about anything. We are just guessing, I just like to have a positive attitude that it might be for the better of the sport.
@Libertine Seguros
Tour Down Under - Jan 16 - Jan 21
Tour Colombia - Feb 6 - Feb 11 (It's only 2.1 but would be great to have something in Colombia/South America
)
Omloop - Feb 24
Strade Bianchi - Mar 1
Tirreno Adriatico - Mar 4 - Mar 10 (we ignore Paris Nice)
Milano San Remo - Mar 16
E3 Prijs - Mar 22
Gent Wevelgem - Mar 24
Vlaanderen - Mar 31
Itzulia Basque - Apr 1- Apr 6 (assuming ASO doesnt want to play, we skip Roubaix for this competition but calendar is free)
Amstel - Apr 14
La Fleche Wallone - Apr 17 (we ignore LBL weekend after but ensure calendar is free)
Giro d'Italia - May 4 - May 26
Tour de Suisse - Jun 9 - Jun 16
< Gap TDF & Olympics >
San Sebastian - Aug 10
GP Quebec - Sep 13
Montreal - Sep 15
Emilia - Oct 5
Gran Piemonte - Oct 10
Lombardia - Oct 12
I see a lot of attractive races. Diverse and spread out. It's missing something in Saudi Arabia if they indeed would put in money but early Feb is open (unfortunately for Colombia then!). Asia is also lacking, end of year (as is now) could fit in.
Plenty of other remains. Random look at calendar. Take this with a huge grain of salt and I was more active in the first months, plenty could still be removed and it's still an attractive calendar with quite different reasons. While leaving space for TDF & Roubaix. Women's calendar I'm less familiar with but most are out of ASO as they only joined the game in the last few years (Trofeo Binda should get more respect).
Tour Down Under - Jan 16 - Jan 21
Tour Colombia - Feb 6 - Feb 11 (It's only 2.1 but would be great to have something in Colombia/South America
)Omloop - Feb 24
Strade Bianchi - Mar 1
Tirreno Adriatico - Mar 4 - Mar 10 (we ignore Paris Nice)
Milano San Remo - Mar 16
E3 Prijs - Mar 22
Gent Wevelgem - Mar 24
Vlaanderen - Mar 31
Itzulia Basque - Apr 1- Apr 6 (assuming ASO doesnt want to play, we skip Roubaix for this competition but calendar is free)
Amstel - Apr 14
La Fleche Wallone - Apr 17 (we ignore LBL weekend after but ensure calendar is free)
Giro d'Italia - May 4 - May 26
Tour de Suisse - Jun 9 - Jun 16
< Gap TDF & Olympics >
San Sebastian - Aug 10
GP Quebec - Sep 13
Montreal - Sep 15
Emilia - Oct 5
Gran Piemonte - Oct 10
Lombardia - Oct 12
I see a lot of attractive races. Diverse and spread out. It's missing something in Saudi Arabia if they indeed would put in money but early Feb is open (unfortunately for Colombia then!). Asia is also lacking, end of year (as is now) could fit in.
@Libertine Seguros
Plenty of other remains. Random look at calendar. Take this with a huge grain of salt and I was more active in the first months, plenty could still be removed and it's still an attractive calendar with quite different reasons. While leaving space for TDF & Roubaix. Women's calendar I'm less familiar with but most are out of ASO as they only joined the game in the last few years (Trofeo Binda should get more respect).
Tour Down Under - Jan 16 - Jan 21
Tour Colombia - Feb 6 - Feb 11 (It's only 2.1 but would be great to have something in Colombia/South America
Omloop - Feb 24
Strade Bianchi - Mar 1
Tirreno Adriatico - Mar 4 - Mar 10 (we ignore Paris Nice)
Milano San Remo - Mar 16
E3 Prijs - Mar 22
Gent Wevelgem - Mar 24
Vlaanderen - Mar 31
Itzulia Basque - Apr 1- Apr 6 (assuming ASO doesnt want to play, we skip Roubaix for this competition but calendar is free)
Amstel - Apr 14
La Fleche Wallone - Apr 17 (we ignore LBL weekend after but ensure calendar is free)
Giro d'Italia - May 4 - May 26
Tour de Suisse - Jun 9 - Jun 16
< Gap TDF & Olympics >
San Sebastian - Aug 10
GP Quebec - Sep 13
Montreal - Sep 15
Emilia - Oct 5
Gran Piemonte - Oct 10
Lombardia - Oct 12
I see a lot of attractive races. Diverse and spread out. It's missing something in Saudi Arabia if they indeed would put in money but early Feb is open (unfortunately for Colombia then!). Asia is also lacking, end of year (as is now) could fit in.
would RCS races and Giro join? (probably yes, they follow the money)
They were involved but did not commit as of yet. If I read reporting in media correctly. Their Grand Tour then has option for more status than now though, so it wouldn't be a weird decision but it all depends on terms etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Latest posts
-
-
New Jerseys - 2025 Season - TeamKits-Maillots-Tricots-Tenues- Latest: the delgados
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram