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

[YellowSocks]

Like what for example? I don't even like the guy, a lot of what he says is a bit too technocratic for my liking, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.

For example, as he's the boss, I blame him for the way the team handled its image after Vingegaard's interview about CO rebreathing in the newspaper Le Monde.
Honesty: contacting Le Monde to obtain a right of reply (which Le Monde would have given them if they thought they were in the wrong - credibility is Le Monde's core business).
Dishonesty: telling a foreign rag that Le Monde published nonsense and that they mistranslated what Vingegaard said, and wait for it to spread into social media.
Plugge comes from the press, he knows how things work. He deliberately chose the dirty way (disinformation). That says it all about his consideration for the cycling public.

 

[Berniece]

why will it keep shrinking? this off-season will see changes in teams and the new WT 3 years cycle will begin.

Compared to which other sports ?

Here is a list of sports that grew way more since the 70s than cycling: Football, NFL, MLB, NBA, Cricket, NHL, Formula 1, Golf, Rugby, Nascar, Tennis, MotoGP, and Volleyball.

All those sports grew faster than cycling, which means their market share is growing compared to cyclings.

And why is this happening? Because free roadside access limits ticket income, and team models rely on transient title sponsors rather than equity‑rich franchises. That last part means the success of sponsor-naming teams doesn’t drive fan loyalty or merchandising.

Not to mention cycling is just difficult. Someone who knows nothing about cycling isn't able to follow a season, and needs an explanation. I mean look at this forum. We are more interested in who is going to relegate, than who would actually win a season.

So yeah the sport is going to keep shrinking compared to others if we don't make changes.

 

[YellowSocks]

than to Tadej Pogacar and to his team?

Or to the towns or villages which spend a lot of money to host a tour stage, hoping for some touristic benefits? Or to French people whose taxes are also used to maintain the roads that cyclists use? I don't know how it should work, I am not an economist. But I fear Plugge's project is not a humanist one.

 

[theyoungest]

For example, as he's the boss, I blame him for the way the team handled its image after Vingegaard's interview about CO rebreathing in the newspaper Le Monde.
Honesty: contacting Le Monde to obtain a right of reply (which Le Monde would have given them if they thought they were in the wrong - credibility is Le Monde's core business).
Dishonesty: telling a foreign rag that Le Monde published nonsense and that they mistranslated what Vingegaard said, and wait for it to spread into social media.
Plugge comes from the press, he knows how things work. He deliberately chose the dirty way (disinformation). That says it all about his consideration for the cycling public.

Well, given the French media's history of bogus stories regarding that team's credibility (French public television about Roglic' motor in Strade Bianche springs to mind) I'll give him a pass on that Basically everyone is fair game, unless they're French.

Or to the towns or villages which spend a lot of money to host a tour stage, hoping for some touristic benefits? Or to French people whose taxes are also used to maintain the roads that cyclists use? I don't know how it should work, I am not an economist. But I fear Plugge's project is not a humanist one.

But aren't the main players supposed to be the ones who profit the most? You want your idols to be rewarded, and not be last in line... I assume.

 

[Berniece]

Or to the towns or villages which spend a lot of money to host a tour stage, hoping for some touristic benefits? Or to French people whose taxes are also used to maintain the roads that cyclists use? I don't know how it should work, I am not an economist. But I fear Plugge's project is not a humanist one.

Why would the towns who already get a benefit by people visiting their locations to see the riders get more money because they are hosting? Does Paris get money because they hosted the Olympics, or did they pay for it? It's the latter.

 

[Netserk]

Participating in the biggest races on the calendar means a net loss for a cycling team. How is that sustainable?

By being financed by sponsors whose exposure in said races is far more valuable than the costs of participation.

 

[Samamba]

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?

Even if this is true (I don't agree completely but ok not going into that discussion again), you want them to fix it by running a competition financed by those same petrostates? Huh?

 

[Potomac]

Not to mention cycling is just difficult. Someone who knows nothing about cycling isn't able to follow a season, and needs an explanation. I mean look at this forum. We are more interested in who is going to relegate, than who would actually win a season.

What do you mean by "win a season?"

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

But aren't the main players supposed to be the ones who profit the most? You want your idols to be rewarded, and not be last in line... I assume.

The main players, meaning the big stars like Pogacar, Vingegaard, MVDP, Remco etc are making BIG money.

 

[Berniece]

What do you mean by "win a season?"

Indeed. No one cares which teams gathers the most points or which riders There is no big nice event to celebrate a winner at the end of a season. There are just separate races, with different riders, that can win it, and then it's over already. And most of the consumers focus is on the TDF.

 

[YellowSocks]

Why would the towns who already get a benefit by people visiting their locations to see the riders get more money because they are hosting?

I'm not at all sure that this profit offsets the expenses. And you absolutely can't compare Paris, which is in any case overwelmed by tourists, with, let's say... Combloux.

 

[Berniece]

I'm not at all sure that this profit offsets the expenses. And you absolutely can't compare Paris, which is in any case overwelmed by tourists, with, let's say... Combloux.

That's true, but that's also why we should have more circuit races. It could generate more money for the towns that host the race. And it would be safer since there's less road to cover so easier to invest the money in making it safe for the riders.

Doesn't mean every race needs to be a circuit. But we also don't need 250km's of seeing every town only once. There are combinations of circuits and run ups to be made.

 

[Potomac]

Indeed. No one cares which teams gathers the most points or which riders There is no big nice event to celebrate a winner at the end of a season. There are just separate races, with different riders, that can win it, and then it's over already. And most of the consumers focus is on the TDF.

20 odd years ago in the Lance era, NBC was trying to build hype with "the road to the TdF"

 

[Wyndbrook]

Indeed. No one cares which teams gathers the most points or which riders There is no big nice event to celebrate a winner at the end of a season. There are just separate races, with different riders, that can win it, and then it's over already. And most of the consumers focus is on the TDF.

You're right as things currently are. To some extent there used to be end of year honours.
I believe there should be, the system is already there, it just needs hyping up and promoting. End of year champions celebrated in a big bash awards do, lesser awards like individual performance if the year, best newcomers, best team etc. Big trophies, cash awards and at suitable grand venue, not difficult to obtain sponsorship surely.

 

[Netserk]

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.

Race organisers can capture more value because they create more value. ASO does more for the sport than any team and all riders.

 

[theyoungest]

The main players, meaning the big stars like Pogacar, Vingegaard, MVDP, Remco etc are making BIG money.

But not from the events! Their sponsors pay them. Also, it depends on what you call big money... again compared to other sports with similar exposure.

By being financed by sponsors whose exposure in said races is far more valuable than the costs of participation.

Visibility of the sponsors is not the problem. The sponsors are fine. It's when the sponsor's gone that this fincancial model crumbles. You can win all the races in the world, if your sponsor calls it quits your team still folds.

 

[Netserk]

Why would the towns who already get a benefit by people visiting their locations to see the riders get more money because they are hosting? Does Paris get money because they hosted the Olympics, or did they pay for it? It's the latter.

Same logic means that teams should pay ASO to get invited to the Tour.

 

[pastronef]

Race organisers can capture more value because they create more value. ASO does more for the sport than any team and all riders.

this

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

But not from the events! Their sponsors pay them. Also, it depends on what you call big money... again compared to other sports with similar exposure..

There are not a lot of events that actually brings in big profit. The Tour of course, but ASO are organizing a lot of events that are heavily subsidized from the Tour.

My problem is general with most of the ideas of revoluzionating the sport is:
1. I think people that are for these changes highly overestimate the potential in TV-deals and ticket income.
2. I think people that are for these changes deeply underestimate the need of goodwill from government, local police etc to close of roads, get help to organize it safe and to pave roads etc. etc.
3. I dont see how anything that OneCycling has proposed looks to create more attractive racing during the year.

To me it seems mostly like people want to see the money ASO get going to guys like Plugge instead.

 

[Berniece]

Same logic means that teams should pay ASO to get invited to the Tour.

They are already paid by the towns and their own sponsors.

 

[gavia88]

I'm not seeing the "revolutionary model" behind this one cycling project neither. None of the participants of the projects seems that they can explain while, other than saying "cycling needs a better model".

First 300 milioen oil dollars are necassary to get the project alive. What makes that a better financial system than team sponser now?

Second, is cycling as atractive if you going to work with formules. I mean, every race on a circuit, one week stages only 4 days in the same formula, flat, TT, hilly, mountain, shorter stages, ect. will be very predectible in the end. Some unpredictability, easy access and other charms will disappear. Does that really attract more (and) younger people?

 

[pastronef]

There are not a lot of events that actually brings in big profit. The Tour of course, but ASO are organizing a lot of events that are heavily subsidized from the Tour.

My problem is general with most of the ideas of revoluzionating the sport is:
1. I think people that are for these changes highly overestimate the potential in TV-deals and ticket income.
2. I think people that are for these changes deeply underestimate the need of goodwill from government, local police etc to close of roads, get help to organize it safe and to pave roads etc. etc.
3. I dont see how anything that OneCycling has proposed looks to create more attractive racing during the year.

To me it seems mostly like people want to see the money ASO get going to guys like Plugge instead.

I will side with ASO in any case

 

[Filippo_3467]

I'm not seeing the "revolutionary model" behind this one cycling project neither. None of the participants of the projects seems that they can explain while, other than saying "cycling needs a better model".

First 300 milioen oil dollars are necassary to get the project alive. What makes that a better financial system than team sponser now?

Second, is cycling as atractive if you going to work with formules. I mean, every race on a circuit, one week stages only 4 days in the same formula, flat, TT, hilly, mountain, shorter stages, ect. will be very predectible in the end. Some unpredictability, easy access and other charms will disappear. Does that really attract more (and) younger people?

It is the same model like with the FIFA club world cup this summer that is also exclusively bankrolled by the saudis. There's no inherite value in the competition. No one asks for it, the grass-root interest is zero and the teams are basically corrupted by the high upfront payment to take part. The goal is to then up the pressure in the existing competitions with intrinsic value (PGA Tour in golfing, GTs in cycling, the Champions League in football) so that they can get something (money, participation, status) because the old competition fear the money unslaught. FIFA is doing that with the saudis so that they can bring UEFA to the table. It worked in golfing. It could also work in cycling.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Visibility of the sponsors is not the problem. The sponsors are fine. It's when the sponsor's gone that this fincancial model crumbles. You can win all the races in the world, if your sponsor calls it quits your team still folds.

If your sponsor calls it quits, usually there is somebody to take over.

As for Cycling becoming less popular? Based on what? A Brit just won the Giro ahead of a Mexican ahead of a Ecuadorian. Guess how much of the Giro people saw there in the 70es? Guess how many watched it there this year? Cycling has been growing for years, the economic structure is pretty unique I guess, but it has been working.

 

[Berniece]

If your sponsor calls it quits, usually there is somebody to take over.

As for Cycling becoming less popular? Based on what? A Brit just won the Giro ahead of a Mexican ahead of a Ecuadorian. Guess how much of the Giro people saw there in the 70es? Guess how many watched it there this year? Cycling has been growing for years, the economic structure is pretty unique I guess, but it has been working.

Hasn’t grown as fast as other sports at all.