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

[hrotha]

"The precarious business model of professional cycling". Meanwhile the origin of most top teams can be traced back to like 220 BC, some have had the same sponsor since 1537

 

[pastronef]

"The precarious business model of professional cycling". Meanwhile the origin of most top teams can be traced back to like 220 BC, some have had the same sponsor since 1537

well, rumors are the current Movistar owners' family tree dates back to Cortez era and they own huge amount of gold since those wild years
and Torku Şekerspor team club dates back to a Greek-Macedonian era "gymnasium" on the Turkish coast

 

[Libertine Seguros]

"The precarious business model of professional cycling". Meanwhile the origin of most top teams can be traced back to like 220 BC, some have had the same sponsor since 1537

You've got to admit though, it's a clever racket.

Drive the price of entry up by implementing more flyaway races, imposing barriers to entry to the biggest races without paying higher licence fees and increasing the importance of results points over visibility, driving higher wages and tech budgets. Then strangle the ProTeam tier out of the top races rendering the historic regional sponsor concern who builds a roster for the races in their sponsor's home interests, lock them out of invites to the biggest races in those home areas by imposing mandatory invites to curb even the small amount of freedom that the organisers have to give their race any independence or unique character, concentrating all of the best talent into a smaller number of teams, driving the budget required to be competitive ever higher because the top-down strength of the top teams is far above what it used to be.

Then call the business model unsustainable and precarious because the regional sponsors and targeted calendars that sustained the sport for a century are being squeezed out, and the rich teams that are able to adapt to the change want to change the rules to ensure that that same fate can't befall them if somebody with even more money comes along.

 

[Wyndbrook]

You've got to admit though, it's a clever racket.

Drive the price of entry up by implementing more flyaway races, imposing barriers to entry to the biggest races without paying higher licence fees and increasing the importance of results points over visibility, driving higher wages and tech budgets. Then strangle the ProTeam tier out of the top races rendering the historic regional sponsor concern who builds a roster for the races in their sponsor's home interests, lock them out of invites to the biggest races in those home areas by imposing mandatory invites to curb even the small amount of freedom that the organisers have to give their race any independence or unique character, concentrating all of the best talent into a smaller number of teams, driving the budget required to be competitive ever higher because the top-down strength of the top teams is far above what it used to be.

Then call the business model unsustainable and precarious because the regional sponsors and targeted calendars that sustained the sport for a century are being squeezed out, and the rich teams that are able to adapt to the change want to change the rules to ensure that that same fate can't befall them if somebody with even more money comes along.

Unfortunately the french mayor seems quite keen on this approach, his friends at Warner are already effectively implementing this in mountain biking this season,

 

[Berniece]

You've got to admit though, it's a clever racket.

Drive the price of entry up by implementing more flyaway races, imposing barriers to entry to the biggest races without paying higher licence fees and increasing the importance of results points over visibility, driving higher wages and tech budgets. Then strangle the ProTeam tier out of the top races rendering the historic regional sponsor concern who builds a roster for the races in their sponsor's home interests, lock them out of invites to the biggest races in those home areas by imposing mandatory invites to curb even the small amount of freedom that the organisers have to give their race any independence or unique character, concentrating all of the best talent into a smaller number of teams, driving the budget required to be competitive ever higher because the top-down strength of the top teams is far above what it used to be.

Then call the business model unsustainable and precarious because the regional sponsors and targeted calendars that sustained the sport for a century are being squeezed out, and the rich teams that are able to adapt to the change want to change the rules to ensure that that same fate can't befall them if somebody with even more money comes along.

A lot of what you are saying are just blatant lies. You are acting as if they already proposed everything and we know all the details.

 

[Potomac]

As much as we follow cycling, it seems a very niche spectator sport on the global scale.

This ONE cycling thing is compared to the golf LIV disruption attack. But the golf world seems an order of magnitude larger than cycling on the global scale. And it seemed more achievable with golf. I think it would have had a chance if they didn't mess with the basic format. But they screwed that up. I personally know zero golfers that can bothered watching the LIV golf.

I don't believe the current cycling fan base will be interested

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A lot of what you are saying are just blatant lies. You are acting as if they already proposed everything and we know all the details.

Where did I say that all of that was part of the proposals?

The fact of the matter is, a lot of the "unsustainability" and "precariousness" of cycling's business model is self-inflicted due to aggressively pursuing new markets and disregarding or taking for granted the existing ones.

Many previous attempts have been made at similar revolutions that inform that post. Look at the McQuaid-era push for globalisation and trying to put multiple flyaway races in China and Russia - driving the costs of running a team up. Look at the Cookson-era attempts at redesigning the calendar so that no top tier races can ever overlap and stage races outside the Grand Tours have a six day maximum. Look at the early 2010s proposals for a series of stage races over four days, formula-driven with one sprint, one hilly stage, one mountain stage and one time trial. Look at Jonathan Vaughters' proposals for long-term fixed licences so that he can lock the door behind him and guarantee himself status at the top table in perpetuity. Look at the Hammer Series.

All of them failed attempts at reinventing the wheel, driven by pushing the narrative of "fixing cycling's failing business model" and "increased sustainability", when the problems with the business model were largely driven by the sport wilfully driving away the mid-sized regional concern sponsors that had been the lifeblood of the sport for decades. If those sponsors weren't being driven out by rising costs, and the teams that they can afford to sponsor weren't being increasingly marginalised and gatekept from ever being competitive at their season targets, there wouldn't be a need to replace that money or those sponsors, and those teams wouldn't be going under and making the sponsorships at the top of the sport precarious. And if more small and medium-sized teams had enough resource and access to a good enough calendar to offer a worthwhile alternative to the big teams, then those big teams wouldn't require such a high level of investment to sustain their position either, making them more sustainable.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

I would love it if ASO just tell them to F##K right off and just remove all these OneCycling teams and roll on with the races they got. People would still go watch the Tour in july and the guys dominating that Tour would instantly become the new stars and those "super teams" would disappear into no one cares land.

Honestly, the ASO calendar with Catalunya, Roubaix, Fleche, LBL, Frankfurt, Dauphine, Tour, Artic Race, Deutschland Tour, Vuelta and Paris-Tours would be almost awesome enough, especially as there would still be plenty of good races on .HC & .1 category that still wouldve been out of the whole OneCycling thing.

Modernization of the sport might be good, but I dont think these ideas (atleast what has come out so far) are the right way.

 

[Berniece]

Where did I say that all of that was part of the proposals?

The fact of the matter is, a lot of the "unsustainability" and "precariousness" of cycling's business model is self-inflicted due to aggressively pursuing new markets and disregarding or taking for granted the existing ones.

Many previous attempts have been made at similar revolutions that inform that post. Look at the McQuaid-era push for globalisation and trying to put multiple flyaway races in China and Russia - driving the costs of running a team up. Look at the Cookson-era attempts at redesigning the calendar so that no top tier races can ever overlap and stage races outside the Grand Tours have a six day maximum. Look at the early 2010s proposals for a series of stage races over four days, formula-driven with one sprint, one hilly stage, one mountain stage and one time trial. Look at Jonathan Vaughters' proposals for long-term fixed licences so that he can lock the door behind him and guarantee himself status at the top table in perpetuity. Look at the Hammer Series.

All of them failed attempts at reinventing the wheel, driven by pushing the narrative of "fixing cycling's failing business model" and "increased sustainability", when the problems with the business model were largely driven by the sport wilfully driving away the mid-sized regional concern sponsors that had been the lifeblood of the sport for decades. If those sponsors weren't being driven out by rising costs, and the teams that they can afford to sponsor weren't being increasingly marginalised and gatekept from ever being competitive at their season targets, there wouldn't be a need to replace that money or those sponsors, and those teams wouldn't be going under and making the sponsorships at the top of the sport precarious. And if more small and medium-sized teams had enough resource and access to a good enough calendar to offer a worthwhile alternative to the big teams, then those big teams wouldn't require such a high level of investment to sustain their position either, making them more sustainable.

You don’t feel there’s something wrong with the businessmodel? How SOQ is funded seems completely normal to you?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don’t feel there’s something wrong with the businessmodel? How SOQ is funded seems completely normal to you?

I don't feel that the solutions presented to date (not just One Cycling, but including the bits and pieces that came out last time around when they previously tried to present this idea before having to go back to the drawing board) have been:

a) correctly identifying the problems
b) providing the best solutions to the problems there are
c) providing the best solutions to the problems presented
d) providing additional value to the sport as a spectacle
e) taking into account the position of any race, team or rider below the highest level of the sport.

I do feel that the solutions presented to date have been:

a) presented purely out of the intent of self-enrichment of the people presenting the concept
b) anti-competitive at their heart
c) based on a false preconception of what fans want to see or like about the sport
d) dismissive of and derogating the existing audience in favour of a hypothetical future one
e) predicated heavily on criticising a business model that, although not perfect in any way shape or form, was working fine for the sport for decades until their relentless pursuit of this hypothetical audience broke it.

 

[pastronef]

I would love it if ASO just tell them to F##K right off and just remove all these OneCycling teams and roll on with the races they got. People would still go watch the Tour in july and the guys dominating that Tour would instantly become the new stars and those "super teams" would disappear into no one cares land.

Honestly, the ASO calendar with Catalunya, Roubaix, Fleche, LBL, Frankfurt, Dauphine, Tour, Artic Race, Deutschland Tour, Vuelta and Paris-Tours would be almost awesome enough, especially as there would still be plenty of good races on .HC & .1 category that still wouldve been out of the whole OneCycling thing.

Modernization of the sport might be good, but I dont think these ideas (atleast what has come out so far) are the right way.

PARIS-NICE!! you forgetting one of the BEST races
and while checking, ASO also owns Alula-Tour, Muscat Classic, Tour of Oman, Hamburg Cyclassic, Tro-Bro-Leon

so the list would be

Alula Tour
Muscat Classic
Oman
Paris-Nice
Catalunya
Roubaix
Fleche
Liege
Gp Frankfurt
Tro-Bro-Leon
Dauphiné
Tour de France
Hamburg Cyclassic
Arctic Race Norway
Deutschland Tour
Vuelta Espana
Paris-Tours

a great list

 

[Rackham]

There's a world out there where cycling is just... cycling, you know? It's about bike manufacturers and other companies showing off their gear. It's about countries, regions and towns of Europe showing off their landscape, infrastructure and famous locations. It's about proximity between fans at the side of the road getting to see champions up close for free, standing outside their own homes cheering as they race by. And it's also about European business showing off their sponsorships on the team jerseys and paying a respectable amount of money (aka something which makes cyclists far more relatable instead of football's silly money) to the riders and staff involved.

If some people in the sport can't make that work... then I'd say that's a them problem, not a cycling problem. And on a personal note, the concept of monetizing fans via creating closed circuits and stuff like that which requires a ticket (I've seen that rumor) is sad in a comical sort of way.

People watch the Tour de France to see the landscape and the "les forçats de la route" as the French call them (which within context translates as something like the brave souls on the road). People don't actually watch the Tour just to see Pog and Vinge ride around on a closed loop exchanging 8W/kg 40 minute efforts whilst smiling at the camera with a finger in the nose.

 

[Berniece]

predicated heavily on criticising a business model that, although not perfect in any way shape or form, was working fine for the sport for decades until their relentless pursuit of this hypothetical audience broke it.

It depends a bit on where we want cycling to go to. Cycling grows as a sport, because our economies grew, but the sport itself didn't grow as fast as others, which results in it having a smaller part of the viewing market share. It used to be the 2nd biggest sport in Italy, it's not even on the podium anymore.

My point being that if we don't want cycling to eventually be a niche sport only viewed and participated in by a small group of people, something needs to change. I'm not saying that this is the best way forward, but what they are proposing would at least generate more money, and thus makes it more interesting for other parties to invest in. If this is then followed by more viewers, and more entertainment, everything will be fine. But that's to be seen.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It depends a bit on where we want cycling to go to. Cycling grows as a sport, because our economies grew, but the sport itself didn't grow as fast as others, which results in it having a smaller part of the viewing market share. It used to be the 2nd biggest sport in Italy, it's not even on the podium anymore.

My point being that if we don't want cycling to eventually be a niche sport only viewed and participated in by a small group of people, something needs to change. I'm not saying that this is the best way forward, but what they are proposing would at least generate more money, and thus makes it more interesting for other parties to invest in. If this is then followed by more viewers, and more entertainment, everything will be fine. But that's to be seen.

It wasn't in the top 3 in Italy 15 years ago when there were about eight different Italian ProConti teams who lived and breathed the Italian cycling calendar, before they were driven to the wall by an increasingly exclusionary invite policy and the financial crisis hurting the number of races at their disposal. Now there are no Italian teams at the top level and three at ProTeam, one of whom is likely to be excluded from riding Grand Tours shortly for being outside the top 30 teams on UCI points, and another of which is hanging precariously above that cutoff.

So it seems that Italy is a perfect example of where the Premier Leagueification of the sport has hurt its standing and popularity considerably, actually.

As I've said before though, if proposals were about Jonathan Vaughters closing the door behind him then I don't like it, but I understand the rationale. But guys like Richard Plugge don't have to worry about self-preservation, they just want you and me to be the ones to bankroll him poaching Cian Uijtdebroecks while under contract.

 

[Berniece]

It wasn't in the top 3 in Italy 15 years ago when there were about eight different Italian ProConti teams who lived and breathed the Italian cycling calendar, before they were driven to the wall by an increasingly exclusionary invite policy and the financial crisis hurting the number of races at their disposal. Now there are no Italian teams at the top level and three at ProTeam, one of whom is likely to be excluded from riding Grand Tours shortly for being outside the top 30 teams on UCI points, and another of which is hanging precariously above that cutoff.

So it seems that Italy is a perfect example of where the Premier Leagueification of the sport has hurt its standing and popularity considerably, actually.

I actually see it as the complete opposite of what has happened in Italy. It's indeed a financial issue that there are less teams and less races on the calendar. Why is this? Because of the shitty business model that only relies on the goodwill of some sponsors with an interest in the sport. If they fall away because there are better things to invest in, you get this as a result, and this has a snowball effect. Less sponsoring, less teams, less races, less interest in the sport, thus even less sponsorships, and that goes on and on. Everything relies on the sponsor.

Which in my opinion is wrong. With the globalization of sports, and also cycling you'll need more than interest and goodwill. It needs to be financially interesting, and to do that we need to diversify where the money comes from.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I actually see it as the complete opposite of what has happened in Italy. It's indeed a financial issue that there are less teams and less races on the calendar. Why is this? Because of the shitty business model that only relies on the goodwill of some sponsors with an interest in the sport. If they fall away because there are better things to invest in, you get this as a result, and this has a snowball effect. Less sponsoring, less teams, less races, less interest in the sport, thus even less sponsorships, and that goes on and on. Everything relies on the sponsor.

Which in my opinion is wrong. With the globalization of sports, and also cycling you'll need more than interest and goodwill. It needs to be financially interesting, and to do that we need to diversify where the money comes from.

I don't see how concentrating more power, all the talent and all the access to the big races into a smaller number of teams, and making it harder for smaller races to justify their costs without access to some of the big teams that provide an incentive to go to said races, is going to help with providing more teams or races.

None of the predecessor proposals to One Cycling made any provisions for any teams outside the closed club they were creating, and none of the leaked details about One Cycling did either.

When you are closing off the top level and concentrating all the talent into a smaller number of teams, that should be a more secure sponsor investment and make it easier to attract sponsors, so driving up the costs such that they have to be reliant on the benefice of oligarchs and multinationals instead of being self-sufficient with long-standing support from regional concerns is an own goal kicked by the sport, and so the managers of the teams who are poaching the smaller teams are banding together to tell us how unsustainable the sport is, and how we should be the ones paying to ensure they can keep their status. That's why we get told about how the sport needs to monetize its existing fanbase - maybe they should start with trying to lessen the stigma around casual riders wearing non-retro replica gear.

Instead, most of these proposals in the past, and much of what leaked about One Cycling before they went back to redraw them to make them more palatable, have come across much like how Florentino Pérez was faced with one little threat of having to play by the same financial rules as the rest of the league pyramid, and tried to force the closed shop ESL through so that he could maintain his club's immunity from consequences.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

My point being that if we don't want cycling to eventually be a niche sport only viewed and participated in by a small group of people, something needs to change. I'm not saying that this is the best way forward, but what they are proposing would at least generate more money, and thus makes it more interesting for other parties to invest in. If this is then followed by more viewers, and more entertainment, everything will be fine. But that's to be seen.

I don’t think the plans for generating more money necessarily is compatible with getting more viewers. A lot of the points that are being mentioned, like making more criterium style races to sell tickets and more expensive TV-deals to give the teams more money are ideas one can very easy put in relation with less access for the common man and that can potentially lead to less interest from the next generation.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Meanwhile RCS will bend backwards to accomodate their requests, you just know that Vegni (and even worse, Cairo, the owner of RCS) are already smelling the Petrodollars...

 

[Berniece]

I don't see how concentrating more power, all the talent and all the access to the big races into a smaller number of teams, and making it harder for smaller races to justify their costs without access to some of the big teams that provide an incentive to go to said races, is going to help with providing more teams or races.

None of the predecessor proposals to One Cycling made any provisions for any teams outside the closed club they were creating, and none of the leaked details about One Cycling did either.

When you are closing off the top level and concentrating all the talent into a smaller number of teams, that should be a more secure sponsor investment and make it easier to attract sponsors, so driving up the costs such that they have to be reliant on the benefice of oligarchs and multinationals instead of being self-sufficient with long-standing support from regional concerns is an own goal kicked by the sport, and so the managers of the teams who are poaching the smaller teams are banding together to tell us how unsustainable the sport is, and how we should be the ones paying to ensure they can keep their status. That's why we get told about how the sport needs to monetize its existing fanbase - maybe they should start with trying to lessen the stigma around casual riders wearing non-retro replica gear.

Instead, most of these proposals in the past, and much of what leaked about One Cycling before they went back to redraw them to make them more palatable, have come across much like how Florentino Pérez was faced with one little threat of having to play by the same financial rules as the rest of the league pyramid, and tried to force the closed shop ESL through so that he could maintain his club's immunity from consequences.

Why do we need more teams and races? The whole sport will be different. I get that in your opinion less races and teams resulted in less appeal for people to follow cycling. But other sports don't have that issue. I'm saying that due to the amount of money in it, it's less interesting for people to invest in it, as well as to participate in it as a youth. And all of that trickles down and combines into the sport being less appealing.

Silly comparison, but NFL has less teams and races, and they don't have an issue with appeal in the US. It's their biggest sport.

 

[hrotha]

You want more kids to take an interest in the sport while you ensure most of them won't ever get to experience a race in person unless they're already interested and make the effort to travel. You see how that could be counterproductive?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why do we need more teams and races? The whole sport will be different. I get that in your opinion less races and teams resulted in less appeal for people to follow cycling. But other sports don't have that issue. I'm saying that due to the amount of money in it, it's less interesting for people to invest in it, as well as to participate in it as a youth. And all of that trickles down and combines into the sport being less appealing.

Silly comparison, but NFL has less teams and races, and they don't have an issue with appeal in the US. It's their biggest sport.

Seriously, "why do we need more teams and races"? So you think sending race organisers and teams to the wall is a good thing, because Richard Plugge can pick their carcasses for anything he wants to scavenge? Where are the top teams going to discover the talents they want to develop or sign, if we kill off all the smaller races and teams? If it's less interesting to participate in as a youth, why would you then make it even less interesting by restricting the opportunities by killing off smaller teams and races? It's like Florentino Pérez' argument that the reason football is stagnating in audience is too much poor quality football, so his solution is to bar anybody not considered elite enough from being able to play it.

NFL works because they have several decades' worth of tinkering with the system for parity enforcement, through the draft (something that the European employment laws would likely make impossible for cycling), a salary cap, restricted free agency that ensures teams can keep a talent through at least several peak years, and through a dedicated collegiate system that offers myriad alternative viewing options of varying standards. And even then, unlike other American sports, if you pass draft eligibility and don't get called up, or even if you do but get cut or bust out, what alternative routes are there? Every attempt at a WLAF or XFL type product has flamed out within a couple of years. There are no overseas leagues unless you count the CFL as the same sport owing to its similarity. Apart from Kurt Warner and maybe Tommy Maddox, none of those non-standard routes have ever produced anybody of note for the NFL, so if you don't make it at ~23, you're washed and retiring. Hockey, baseball and basketball all have a network of affiliate teams where veteran journeymen can play alongside young prospects and service small market audiences, or you can go to Europe or Asia and play in some decent standard leagues there.

 

[Rob5091]

I seem to have a similar arguement everytime I post something in the lesser known races thread (normally in response to a "sh*t races" comment).

 

[Berniece]

Seriously, "why do we need more teams and races"? So you think sending race organisers and teams to the wall is a good thing, because Richard Plugge can pick their carcasses for anything he wants to scavenge? Where are the top teams going to discover the talents they want to develop or sign, if we kill off all the smaller races and teams? If it's less interesting to participate in as a youth, why would you then make it even less interesting by restricting the opportunities by killing off smaller teams and races? It's like Florentino Pérez' argument that the reason football is stagnating in audience is too much poor quality football, so his solution is to bar anybody not considered elite enough from being able to play it.

Why wouldn't they be able to discover talents anymore? That's what youth categories, and youth races are for. Scouting is already present at junior/U23 level. Just because there are less races at adult level, doesn't mean this is the same for junior races.

 

[repre]

PARIS-NICE!! you forgetting one of the BEST races
and while checking, ASO also owns Alula-Tour, Muscat Classic, Tour of Oman, Hamburg Cyclassic, Tro-Bro-Leon

so the list would be

Alula Tour
Muscat Classic
Oman
Paris-Nice
Catalunya
Roubaix
Fleche
Liege
Gp Frankfurt
Tro-Bro-Leon
Dauphiné
Tour de France
Hamburg Cyclassic
Arctic Race Norway
Deutschland Tour
Vuelta Espana
Paris-Tours

a great list

And that's what is holding cycling back. ASO monopolized cycling and rejects all new. Only ASO is making money and they share money with nobody. Clown prize money for their races and teams don't care about them.

So not impressed by this and as a fan i don't care about huge profits of ASO...

 

[Brullnux]

Why wouldn't they be able to discover talents anymore? That's what youth categories, and youth races are for. Scouting is already present at junior/U23 level. Just because there are less races at adult level, doesn't mean this is the same for junior races.

Having a broader pyramid makes cycling a more attractive and secure career. More pro conti/conti races means that someone turning 18, who knows that World Tour might be a stretch, won't give up, and in turn means that parents/kids are happier to pursue it. Don't think we should underestimate that.