• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.


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

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@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.
So where are the free weekends they put their three-day dog and pony shows?

Once you factor in that people will want to do several of the ASO races as well, it looks an awful lot like... you'd need a full roster, so the best riders won't be doing every race, no?
That was one guy saying something. There are weekends available if someone really wants it. These three days won't really matter in grand scheme of things.
Where do they go on the calendar? This was supposed to be the big jewel in the crown, the big raison d'être of this reorganisation, that the calendar would have these races that would revolutionise the sport and create big income with spectacular short races on circuits and selling tickets and popcorn.

Where do they go?

As without these apparent innovations that will create huge income and bring the sport to the masses (by making it more expensive to attend, natch) meaning that all the big names will do all the races and we get the same field at every race, all that we have here is a packaging of TV rights that doesn't include the only race that has cache beyond the audience that is already watching.
You seem to be married to ASO and Tour de France. It's a bit of a broken record. Yes, the Tour is currently attracting the most eyeballs. However, it does not mean other races can't increase the eyeballs watching them. Increase significantly. More eyeballs means more money.

TV registration can improve. Story telling can improve. Determining the 'best cyclist' of the season through actual races would be an improvement. There are other ways of increasing attention. Random idea, of these races make the last 25km available on a virtual platform where people can race the pro's (based on the actual watts), live and/or later (might need some boosting for us mere mortals). As a group these things can be organised better and can attract more investments for developments than individual organisers can. Teams are needed to since they will be relied on as well, for story telling, providing live data and potentially for loads of other things as well.

It all boils to one thing. Other organisers will be stronger when they work together by forming some sort of competition across their races. Teams can also play an important role in here. Then there can be money for investment in improving the offering, interaction etc they can't individually. TDF is not needed for this and waiting on them just perpetuates the status quo, which would be a shame. Would it be better out of the gate with TDF? Yes but without it big improvements can be made and actually might be better for cycling overall. As the main player benefits from a status quo.

/There are plenty of empty weekends if it's so important. Random races I picked can also be removed to favor such a thing. I have no idea what the 3-day would add or what it would look like but if people have a good idea, I'd always say to give it a try. Occasionally something stupid might be genius.
/There are plenty of empty weekends if it's so important. Random races I picked can also be removed to favor such a thing. I have no idea what the 3-day would add or what it would look like but if people have a good idea, I'd always say to give it a try. Occasionally something stupid might be genius.
This is the problem. It has to be a good idea.

These three day circuses have been tried in the Hammer Series. It failed. The amazing coverage options you mention sound like a lot of the grand plans of the Velon app which failed to revolutionise the sport. The world's biggest niche cycling broadcaster just went under because it's a niche sport. But the Plugges and Vaughterses of this world keep telling us there's this huge potential global audience for the sport and we just need to change and they'll come running - except everything they've tried has failed to bring a new audience and only served to alienate parts of the existing audience, while the existing races just keep on going unaltered and surviving in their niche.

It's not about being married to ASO, it's about the fact that if an idea requires causing significant damage to the status quo, it has to demonstrate its outcome to be better than the status quo before a lot of people are willing to support it. We don't want to throw existing races that we like (you even said yourself, random races - most of the ones you listed being good and historic races - can be removed to favour the crappy Hammer-alikes) down the well unless we know that what we get instead will offer a tangible, appreciable improvement. And what we have been presented so far has been the same old "revolutionary" garbage that's been proffered and rejected several times over, but with more Saudi sportswashing input.
I haven't paid much attention to this all as I think it'll die down soon, potentially with some changes here and there that affect team/race organiser/broadcaster structure more than fans. There is undoubtedly room to improve how cycling is broadcasted/transmitted, and perhaps the revival of a more important World Tour would be fun. I also think organisers should collaborate much more, though that has been happening over the last few years anyway. I see the appeal of an NBA TV style solution, both for viewers and for teams, and realistically Eurosport with Discovery+ is a fantastic global partner for it if UCI or Plugge et al want to create a single viewing platform.

I really don't see where the clamour for a transformation of the sport comes from though – it's niche, other than some specific countries and some specific races. Cycling gets popular in a country organically, i.e. when people from there do well, not when it's foisted on them with gimmick events. Surely they should know this by now?
yes? for the 3-days new circuit races?
check March, check April, check May. where are the empty weekends? the "new 3 day races" are a fantasy.
if we talk of current races joining One-Cycling ok, we can even think it's doable. but there are no empty weekends from, lets say, next weekend to the end of the Vuelta mid September
Why do you need a free weekend? Why can't it be that an existing race steps into the project and does with their weekend what they seem fit for the project?
The reasons why the Saudis want in, that I understand. But saying owners only want to do it for more money is just being disingenuous.

Have any teams come out wanting to run Amstel purely on Cauberg/Geulhemmerberg/Bemelerberg circuit? Or wanting to do Plouay on the 2000 Worlds circuit like it was run a few years back?

Allow me to feel skeptical about the sudden concern for race sustainability.
  • Like
Reactions: pastronef
Determining the 'best cyclist' of the season through actual races would be an improvement.

Assuming that you mean the equation most ranking points = best cyclist there are a couple of questions.

And how exactly would it be done considering the differences in rider specialties, field quality, points systems etc? The way to try making these factors less relevant would probably require some major format unification so how would an identikit race series with the same fields be an improvement for the average viewer?
And it seems like the comments section there is very similar to the one here. Nobody wants the reform that is being proposed except team owners with fat wallets who want fatter wallets.
Well, that's whenever changes are proposed. People are against it, or agree that it should be changed but it should be changed differently. People virtually always oppose change.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece
I can kind of understand why the casuals would want to see the best riders ride all three GTs, but not really the “all the best rider in all races” thing. What value does it give to see Vingegaard in Roubaix or a flattish criterium race in Asia in the new wrapping of Hammer Series?
I just think the marketing value of the best riders is a bit overrated. For the big crowd who only watches the Tour de France, the best rider is the one who wins the Tour. And they will have forgotten many of the good riders from last year's Tour by the time the next one starts. So they basically re-learn who the best cyclists are every year. Other than that, they mainly care about the stars from their own country, who are heavily featured in whatever broadcast they watch.

And if the Saudis and the teams want to grow the TV audience of the sport in general, these viewers are the people they need to engage in some way. I think the way of doing it is convincing them that there are other races with different characteristics that offer similar levels of entertainment to the Tour. And not necessarily telling them there are more opportunities to watch Vingegaard.
Is ASO to powerful? Yes
Is the UCI pretty useless? Yes
Is the system we have now sustainable? Yes. Vaughters still having a team proves that. How long now, must be getting close to 20 years..
Is the bundling of races for TV rights to get more money a good idea? Yes. In theory. Very doubtful if it can work in practice. How many races do actually make a profit for the organizers? The Tour. The Giro? That's it? Maybe Roubaix, Flanders...
Bundle together all the weeklong WT races and charge 10% more.... (let's say ASO agrees, even if they probably are already bundling together some stuff with the tour). Ok, no problem with that. But what happens with the non WT races then?
Is revenue sharing with teams a good idea? No. Unless of course the teams start revenue sharing with the organizers too... They probably have more to share than the organizers anyway... Again, in most races there's almost certainly almost nothing to share, or only revenue, no profit. The whole revenue sharing is about the Tour anyway. But who's the star? The tour or the riders? It's the Tour. Stars come and go, the Tour (and the Giro) stay what they are. They make the stars.

If the Saudis somehow manage to increase the revenue for organizers, nice. But how exactly are they going to do that? A series of Criterium INternationals won't cut it. Bundling and selling more expensively, not exactly sure how they plan to do that.
And are they in for the long run? Will they sustain there investment, or will they decide it's not worth it after a few years?
Well, that's whenever changes are proposed. People are against it, or agree that it should be changed but it should be changed differently. People virtually always oppose change.

because the reason we're fans of the sport is because we enjoy the way that it is. there's nothing that needs to be changed. the changes that have been made over the course of my cycling fandom have only made it worse (Flanders Classics killing 3 Days of de Panne, the new Omloop and RVV routes, etc).