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

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Belgian radio station interviewed CEO of SOQ about it. Not a lot of new information, just trying to explain why they want a different approach.

 
I think the marketing campaign for the presentation of OneCycling has started. On Tuesday there was a podcast with Richard Plugge on “In De Waaier” where he discussed the sport, safety, financials. Now he did the same with a Belgian newspaper. He's setting the stage for why OneCycling is needed.

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Sandisfan
I like this

"Jayco-AlUla team owner Gerry Ryan is said to be against the One Cycling project, with a source recently telling Cyclingnews that Q36.5 billionaire team owner Ivan Glasenberg is "200% against the One Cycling business model. Glasenberg owns ProTeam, the Q36.5 clothing brand and Pinarello bikes and is apparently becoming more involved in the governance of professional cycling. He could become a thorn in the side of those driving the One Cycling project"

 
  • Love
Reactions: Sandisfan

UCI provisionally rejects OneCycling project​


The UCI has provisionally rejected the OneCycling project for inclusion in the UCI Women's WorldTour and UCI WorldTour. The international cycling federation announced this in a press release. However, the UCI is open to further discussions with the initiators.

Although the International Cycling Union remains positive about the growing interest of investors in cycling, the Management Committee unanimously judged – after a vote by the Professional Cycling Council – that the proposal in its current form does not fit within the administrative and regulatory framework of the UCI. In addition, the plan would show 'a lack of sporting coherence'.

However, the UCI does not rule out further cooperation with the initiators. The international cycling federation indicates that it is open to talks with the representatives of OneCycling, with the aim of 'further internationalisation of both the men's and women's calendars and strengthening the economic structure of cycling'.
 
why will it keep shrinking? this off-season will see changes in teams and the new WT 3 years cycle will begin.

maybe the minor races will be shrinking due to funds shortage, but the minor races are not even taken into consideration by One-Cycling and Plugge. big sponsors like Shimano will keep backing the UCI, and ASO will take care of many races. no new races in Asia or Middle East will help cycling get bigger. fck me, even the gravel movement gets more clicks than any One-Cycling future ideas
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
It’ll keep shrinking compared to other sports until it’s as big as CX, and no one really cares anymore. Which is already happening the past decades, it’ll only go further like this
Compared to which other sports ?

Tennis is about to exit its golden era and is based around a single event like cycling, athletics only happens once every four years and rugby is bankrupting itself trying to become a rival to soccer instead of admitting it is small.

I will take a niche sport played in it's true heartlands over some vacant nonsense raced in some desert like Formala 1 is quickly becoming.

Anyone advocating for sportswashing needs to take a serious look at themselves.
 
For me, the mere fact that the name of that snake Richard Plugge is attached to this project is enough to make all the alarm bells ring.

I read this news as a good one.
You may not like the guy, he correctly points out that the economic model of cycling is deeply flawed and tries to do something about it. Participating in the biggest races on the calendar means a net loss for a cycling team. How is that sustainable? Only teams with unlimited money from shady sources like petrostates in the Middle East can survive in such an environment. That's good news to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece
Participating in the biggest races on the calendar means a net loss for a cycling team.
Unlike other sports, cycling teams literally carry the names of their main sponsors. Every time a cycling team is mentioned, it's direct advertising for the sponsors. So let's look at this the other way round. It's not the team that loses money, but the sponsors who pay to appear for hours on television and be mentioned in any publication or television programme devoted to cycling. How much money would such exposure cost them in TV spots, for example?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Unlike other sports, cycling teams literally carry the names of their main sponsors. Every time a cycling team is mentioned, it's direct advertising for the sponsors. So let's look at this the other way round. It's not the team that loses money, but the sponsors who pay to appear for hours on television and be mentioned in any publication or television programme devoted to cycling. How much money would such exposure cost them in TV spots, for example?
I don't even know which point you're trying to make. Yes, cycling has quite a high return on investment. For the money Quickstep puts into cycling they'd maybe get to be shirt sponsor of some low level football team. But the point is that unlike in basically every other major sport, the teams themselves don't earn anything from participating in the biggest events. They just have to be happy they get the chance to participate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E_F_
I love Jorgenson, Brennan, Tulett, Yates, Gloag, Campenaerts, McLay, I cheer Vingo. but I dislike Plugge, yes.
It doesn't matter if you like him or not! That's not the issue here. Since when are ideas and plans about the likeability of the person making them. It's like modern elections where people vote because they dislike the opponent, regardless of the platform, and against their own interest.
 
It doesn't matter if you like him or not! That's not the issue here. Since when are ideas and plans about the likeability of the person making them. It's like modern elections where people vote because they dislike the opponent, regardless of the platform, and against their own interest.
Since everything about Plugge cries intellectual dishonesty. It's not about not liking his beige trousers.
 
I don't even know which point you're trying to make. Yes, cycling has quite a high return on investment. For the money Quickstep puts into cycling they'd maybe get to be shirt sponsor of some low level football team. But the point is that unlike in basically every other major sport, the teams themselves don't earn anything from participating in the biggest events. They just have to be happy they get the chance to participate.
I don't think cycling not being like every other major sport is an issue. Other major sports have their own problems. I am sure Plugge's idea have consequences that go beyond simple financial balance. I believe in people gathering for free along the roads. And I am not sure Plugge shares this point of vue.

To sum this up: I have a bad feeling about this.
 
I don't think cycling not being like every other major sport is an issue. Other major sports have their own problems. I am sure Plugge's idea have consequences that go beyond simple financial balance. I believe in people gathering for free along the roads. And I am not sure Plugge shares this point of vue.

To sum this up: I have a bad feeling about this.
Cycling not being like any other major sport in terms of it's financial sustainability is very much an issue. Why should the money from the tv rights of the Tour go to some French family rather than to Tadej Pogacar and to his team? Please explain.