Lock them up? How very Trumpian of you.
"I disagree with these people! Arrest them!"
It's a long way from Voltaire that we've come. How depressing.
-
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!
"I disagree with these people! Arrest them!"
It's a long way from Voltaire that we've come. How depressing.
The answer is obvious: us.
It really is about TV revenue, changing the product to make it more appealing to TV, getting more money from TV by getting TV to get more money from us. The days of €49.99 a year Disco+ subscriptions will be in the past.
There's no magic money tree out there that no one else has discovered. Just the same old same old, milk the fans.
Like all attempted reshaping of various cycling disciplines be they specific teams and interested parties or the UCI I driven have the same concern.
All sports depend on the lower levels of the pyramid and as usual this either ignores, shuts out or ruins the lower levels.
UCI supported change in Mountain biking is currently excluding smaller teams from the top of the sport.
Eventually the pyramid will shrink withe the inevitable consequences..
Maybe Plugg et al will manage to bring money into the sport on a likely short basis, there will be inevitable consequences,
Most race organisers are not becoming rich from their races, if top teams and riders do appear then these races will most likely fold.
All sports depend on the lower levels of the pyramid and as usual this either ignores, shuts out or ruins the lower levels.
UCI supported change in Mountain biking is currently excluding smaller teams from the top of the sport.
Eventually the pyramid will shrink withe the inevitable consequences..
Maybe Plugg et al will manage to bring money into the sport on a likely short basis, there will be inevitable consequences,
Most race organisers are not becoming rich from their races, if top teams and riders do appear then these races will most likely fold.
While some kind of subscription service is perhaps the ultimate goal, I don't think it will work that well unless (like you have mentioned) changes are made to the product to make it worth watching for more than the final 30 minutes.
Reading the front page article
www.cyclingnews.com
The concept reads like something PT was originally envisioned circa 20 years ago minus the overlapping events and with revenue sharing planned for teams (I honestly don't remember if there was revenue sharing in the original PT plan, but unless I am imaging things the notion of TV rights being easier to sell with a single PT series was there).
And football/rugby/NFL/F1 as competition is really wishful thinking territory.
New plan to inject venture capital into pro cycling 'necessary step', says Vaughters
Plugge tries to convince Tour de France organisers of merits of new league-not-league
www.cyclingnews.com
The concept reads like something PT was originally envisioned circa 20 years ago minus the overlapping events and with revenue sharing planned for teams (I honestly don't remember if there was revenue sharing in the original PT plan, but unless I am imaging things the notion of TV rights being easier to sell with a single PT series was there).
And football/rugby/NFL/F1 as competition is really wishful thinking territory.
The main problem is that they want to sell "one cycling", which is their cycling.
And that's fine, but one of the things that has always appealed to a core of the cycling audience is the cast of thousands, the ability to celebrate the unheralded breakaway, that you can watch races in different parts of the world with completely different fields and their own little universes. How domestic races in different traditional cycling countries have their own fields and their own feels.
Packaging it all up with the same field in every race and making a uniform format is a sure-fire way to break the sport, making every race identikit and predictable, and taking away the essence of what appeals about cycling to a large proportion of its existing fanbase... in the pursuit of a hypothetical one.
I always get criticised as being way too conservative when any of these proposals are mooted and I am dead set against them, but the thing is, I'm not opposed to new ideas, I'm opposed to bad ideas. And even if reform might be beneficial, the idea being mooted has to offer a clear and appreciable upgrade on the status quo for me to back it. And as somebody who likes small races, likes the pseudo-meritocracy, likes seeing wildcard teams work hard all year for their chances to compete against the bigs, likes seeing different races in different parts of the world having completely different characteristics; as somebody who was attracted to the sport precisely by its variety, I see the progressive Premier Leagueification of the sport, taking away as much variety as they can in favour of a homogenised format and field where the big guns can guarantee that they hoover up even more of the results than they already do and the small and medium sized teams who keep the sport alive in many countries are reduced to irrelevant pauper status and shut out from the races they often depend on for continued survival, is something I see very much as a bad thing for the sport.
It seems like a lousy idea to us, but who's going to argue that cycling currently has a healthy financial model? The only ways to inject cash into the sport are to let in bad actors like the Saudis and other petrostates, rely on the largess of the Ratcliffes of the world, or gin up more TV/streaming revenue. Don't think fans will pay admission to watch live, either...
Sure, it's nice for us hard-core fans to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to races, riders and teams, but I think it just confuses or bores the average sports fan. Do any races generate revenue outside of the GTs, classics and major week-long stage races? Most seem like are just efforts to promote the local tourism board.
I personally like it the way it is now from a racing perspective, but I hate that half of the WT teams are on the verge of folding at any given time. If there was a way to generate enough revenue to share and set up a salary cap we might see even better racing. Honestly I'm not quite sure how that would come about without some kind of awful LIV golf scenario.
Sure, it's nice for us hard-core fans to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to races, riders and teams, but I think it just confuses or bores the average sports fan. Do any races generate revenue outside of the GTs, classics and major week-long stage races? Most seem like are just efforts to promote the local tourism board.
I personally like it the way it is now from a racing perspective, but I hate that half of the WT teams are on the verge of folding at any given time. If there was a way to generate enough revenue to share and set up a salary cap we might see even better racing. Honestly I'm not quite sure how that would come about without some kind of awful LIV golf scenario.
So from reading this-
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ne...to-pro-cycling-necessary-step-says-vaughters/
"As an aside, he described the scheme as "not quite [a league] because this would function under the umbrella of the World Tour" and as being necessary for the sport's future.
"In other sports, media rights or broadcast rights are the primary revenue source. Cycling broadcast rights are almost entirely occupied by large race promoters and the teams do not receive distribution of that at all.
"In this case, the allies of the teams, athletes, and smaller races would bundle all of those media rights into a package."
Single teams or races like the GP de Plouay, a smaller WorldTour one-day race, may not have a lot of value alone, he said, "But when you put 18 teams together, and you put together a number of these smaller events and produce a series and produce ... a series ... packaging it together will create a greater amount of interest and a greater value than trying to do it individually."
It sounds to me like they just want to get their hands on the TV-rights and by some how bundling together smaller races (securitization idea rears it's head again) into some sort of competiiton then every man and his dog will buy a Netflix subscription (or whoever has the rights) to watch. If millions of people were watching for free, I'd get it, but they're not.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ne...to-pro-cycling-necessary-step-says-vaughters/
"As an aside, he described the scheme as "not quite [a league] because this would function under the umbrella of the World Tour" and as being necessary for the sport's future.
"In other sports, media rights or broadcast rights are the primary revenue source. Cycling broadcast rights are almost entirely occupied by large race promoters and the teams do not receive distribution of that at all.
"In this case, the allies of the teams, athletes, and smaller races would bundle all of those media rights into a package."
Single teams or races like the GP de Plouay, a smaller WorldTour one-day race, may not have a lot of value alone, he said, "But when you put 18 teams together, and you put together a number of these smaller events and produce a series and produce ... a series ... packaging it together will create a greater amount of interest and a greater value than trying to do it individually."
It sounds to me like they just want to get their hands on the TV-rights and by some how bundling together smaller races (securitization idea rears it's head again) into some sort of competiiton then every man and his dog will buy a Netflix subscription (or whoever has the rights) to watch. If millions of people were watching for free, I'd get it, but they're not.
Maybe this comes together with the reshaping of the WT calendar that we've heard of a year ago. The idea was that in 2026 we would get a new calendar with less WT races, and no more overlap of races (Paris-Nice/Tirreno).
What I don't understand is that if you decide to make a new WT competition, package it, and sell it as a whole, how ASO fits in, because they don't want to share TV-rights.
Unless we end Up with a separate untested federation that includes races Like the Volta a Portugal I'm stricktly against It.
Seriously, all the PCT Teams will get screwed over.
Seriously, all the PCT Teams will get screwed over.
can anyone fild a GIF of the old French man at the side of the road at Paris-Nice 2022 making a sign with his arm waving like to say "fjck this" when the 3 Jumbo attacked? that's the reaction I'll have to this new league. I am a Sky-Ineos fan, but I'll transform in the most hard core French retired man drinking Kronenbourg on the TDF roadside and swearing when he see something he dislikes, if the new Saudi funded league will start
So who's leaking to RadioCycling then, or is it all click bait? Not surprising if smaller budgeted teams are up in arms - they wont be the winners if this goes ahead.
Plugge's problem is the fact he has zero leverage. The real dirty truth about cycling is the fact as a spectacle & sport it doesn't need super teams or super performers in order to provide entertainment in July. This isn't football where Messi or Ronaldo provided the 'magic' which brought in the masses when they played for the most historically well known clubs, no, this is about cyclists who're of secondary importance compared to the real star of the show, i.e. the countries, regions & roads they race on; whilst their performances & battles can be entertaining no matter how fast they're riding.
If a bunch of riders raced up the Puy-de-Dôme (for example) five minutes slower than Vinge & Pog did whilst racing for the win, then France TV, L'Equipe & Eurosport would still get what the viewers want: interesting scenery & tight bike racing. What Plugge wants is power & money. He wants a sport where the winning teams get the spoils. Personally I think the contrary is probably safer for the sport, i.e. a world where cycling remains a niche product, where money doesn't flow & it's sustained by European brands using the sport as exposure - especially brands with historic ties in the sport.
So when Plugge & Vaughters say the current system is unsustainable, what they really mean is it's unsustainable regarding their own long-term job security & position at the top of the sport (especially with regards to Plugge). He wants Jumbo Visma to become the Bayern Munich of cycling. That'll benefit him alone, not the sport.
If a bunch of riders raced up the Puy-de-Dôme (for example) five minutes slower than Vinge & Pog did whilst racing for the win, then France TV, L'Equipe & Eurosport would still get what the viewers want: interesting scenery & tight bike racing. What Plugge wants is power & money. He wants a sport where the winning teams get the spoils. Personally I think the contrary is probably safer for the sport, i.e. a world where cycling remains a niche product, where money doesn't flow & it's sustained by European brands using the sport as exposure - especially brands with historic ties in the sport.
So when Plugge & Vaughters say the current system is unsustainable, what they really mean is it's unsustainable regarding their own long-term job security & position at the top of the sport (especially with regards to Plugge). He wants Jumbo Visma to become the Bayern Munich of cycling. That'll benefit him alone, not the sport.
Given he was a guest on the show and spoke openly about the project I'd hardly call it a leak. Everyone knows that Vaughters and Whittle are besties.
Armchair Cyclist
Moderator
Do we have any real information on what is proposed. I totally understand the suspicion and fears about what the wolf under the sheep's clothing might be, but in terms of what has been made public, the changes seem to be :
A) avoid overlapping races (so some change to scheduling of Paris-Nice and/or Tirreno-Adriatico, and to GP Plouay and the Canadian races) but this is something UCI have long said that they want to do;
B) smaller (but presumably still WT) races to be sold to broadcasters as a single package by a new entity owned by, or at least with monies distributed to, the teams.
Is there more that is explicit? Are either of those issues to be scared of in and of themselves?
A) avoid overlapping races (so some change to scheduling of Paris-Nice and/or Tirreno-Adriatico, and to GP Plouay and the Canadian races) but this is something UCI have long said that they want to do;
B) smaller (but presumably still WT) races to be sold to broadcasters as a single package by a new entity owned by, or at least with monies distributed to, the teams.
Is there more that is explicit? Are either of those issues to be scared of in and of themselves?
If CVC are involved it really inspires my confidence.
As a big fan of Gloucester rugby they now play in a league where three team's have gone to the wall since CVC have been involved.
I am genuinely amused by the thought that some are going "Heh, you know, if it's just about avoiding overlapping races and if it's just about bundling all races into a single TV package deal, well there ain't nothing to sweat about there." Cause you need to go and sell the sport to the Saudis or CVC in order to avoid overlapping races an in order to bundle all races into a single TV package deal. It takes VC money to open an online diary and move the races around so the next doesn't start before the previous one ends. That sort of skillz don't come cheap. Gimme me the money!
ManicJack
BANNED
I'm yet to hear any argument on how this is going to benefit the race organizations. Unless someone comes in and buys all of the races, nothing being talked about will come to fruition.
I never got the problem with overlapping races. If we put Paris-Nice running from monday to sunday and Tirreno running from monday after P-N ends to sunday, we will still have almost no riders doing both races and we will be instead limiting smaller races both in terms of riders starting and television streaming.
If there is a problem is about broadcasting slots and that can be already fixed the way things are. Instead of having a Vuelta stage, a belgian semiclassic and Deutschland-Tour stage finishing at the same time, for example, UCI could always mandate that no pro event could have a scheduleded finish time in the same slot. One event finishing between 12p.m. and 2p.m., another between 2p.m. and 4p.m. and another between 4p.m. and 6p.m.
If there is a problem is about broadcasting slots and that can be already fixed the way things are. Instead of having a Vuelta stage, a belgian semiclassic and Deutschland-Tour stage finishing at the same time, for example, UCI could always mandate that no pro event could have a scheduleded finish time in the same slot. One event finishing between 12p.m. and 2p.m., another between 2p.m. and 4p.m. and another between 4p.m. and 6p.m.
Do you think that a VC or Mideast PI fund would invest in a series where races of equal stature are held at the same day? Cycling is not like a league but rather a bunch of loosely related standalone events. No one cares who wins the WT points race.
I've said before that I like it the way it is, but it's a barrier to greater financial stability for the sport in general.
Follow suit or you’re not WT anymore and all the perks that come with it. First few years this might not matter but it will long term.
ManicJack
BANNED
The UCI determines that, not some break away teams with Saudi $ and a stupid idea
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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram