Changing the Business Model of Pro Cycling

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
robertmooreheadlane,


What FoxxyBrown posted is very accurate.

I'll give you credit for being enthusiastic, but you are clearly new to the sport. Hang onto your enthusiasm and use it to learn how the sport's federation actually operates. The UCI has published a bunch of stuff on the changes they are implementing now. It would do you good to read them.

The media product will be completely unsatisfactory and corrupt rendering it more of a travel show for viewers than actual bike racing. It will look quite like what you are arguing for though!!
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
No it is not what I am arguing for at all
And if you read my posts I clearly state that the UCI is one of the problems with the sport so it is no surprise their new plan is no good to man nor beast.

Yes the tour is a big event
Yes the classics are great

No the sport is not mainstream, in 90% of the countries in the world
No the UCI, ASO, Sporting directors or anyone else care about the riders
No the television revenues are not going up in real terms and are not benefitting the sport
The riders average pay and the number of professionals would put the sport at nowhere near most professional sports.

Yes I have been around the sport for over twenty years and spent time with teams and riders and I am afraid that unless people start to realise that the sport is in crisis and the power brokers are ruining it then we will have a large amount of problems in the near future. because every time anyone comes with a new idea the traditionalists that have taken over this discussion do the same to every one else trying to do new things and shout that the world should not change and should not move forward and nothing needs to be done but stopping doping (which is the most ridiculous thing on the planet because you never will stop it.) But devoid of any other ideas we will shout down everyone else because we are afraid of change.

So according to Foxy we should ignore the fact that the world is changing and keep things the way they were 100 years ago, get rid of technology. Hell lets get rid of clip on shoes and carbon fibre while we are at it. Actually lets get rid of service cars and team cars they are not part of pure cycle racing.

Your an idiot, if you think that is the way to keep the sport progressing. And F1 is as much about the drivers as it is about the nerds - why are the drivers paid 23 million a year if they have nothing to do with the outcome of the race. And by the way without the nerds and formula 1 the cars we drive would have practically none of the technology in them that they have now. What has the UCI ever done for the betterment of day to day living.

My point about safety is that there are dangerous sports all over the world and in every one the governing body is trying to stop people getting killed or maimed or ending their careers - apart from in cycling where we just turn a blind eye and let it happen again and again. The ridiculous town centre finishes the crazy riding in weather that anyone can see is blatantly dangerous, the crazy car crashes knocking riders off their bikes and crashing into other cars that hit people.

Cycling has the second highest attendance of any sport worldwide according to the UCI and ASO - surprise - surprise. Because everyone on the mountains and along the roads for the tour de france is counted methodically every year aren't they. Give me a break, Soccer worldwide has more people attending weekly than the entire cycling attendance, hell college football in the USA get 90,000 per game in a stadium and they have 100's of stadiums full up every week of the season. and that is a college sport not even professional.
The range of people attending the british tour de france route from london to canterbury ranged in the media from 200,000 to 2.5 million so how can anyone say accurately what the attendance of cycling is.

As I said before the title of this thread is how to change the business model of cycling for the better.
It is obvious TONTON only thinks we need to get rid of doping (good luck on that)
Foxy states in his post that there is nothing that needs changing so no need for you to ever visit this thread again then is there.

And anyone who might have an idea will get shouted down, unless the idea is to leave well alone and not change a damn thing.
 
Re:

robertmooreheadlane said:
Yes I have been around the sport for over twenty years and spent time with teams and riders and I am afraid that unless people start to realise that the sport is in crisis and the power brokers are ruining it then we will have a large amount of problems in the near future.

....

And anyone who might have an idea will get shouted down, unless the idea is to leave well alone and not change a damn thing.
No, it's no being shouted down. I'm personally pleased to see such enthusiasm.

If the Armstrong scandal, and Festina before it weren't going to disassemble the UCI or even change the organization's behaviour, then the UCI will just keep on running a ridiculous simulation of sport. That probably seems like shouting down, but it's actually more just acknowledging reality.

Nothing is stopping you from implementing your ideas at the race level, outside the federation. And I'd encourage you to do just that.

The way the UCI's current reorganization is going, there will be plenty of elite athletes, some even clean, that would show up at an alternative event.

You've got big ideas. Put them into action at a race!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Re:

Bolded quotes of "robertmooreheadlane"

"No the sport is not mainstream, in 90% of the countries in the world"

Depends how you define mainstream. Exercising by people between 4 and 104... well, it´s as mainstream as it can get.
OK, serious... pro cycling is pretty much attended by loads of people, no matter where they race. It may not be No 1 sport in any country (that is usually soccer), but tons of countries have it as a top 10 sport. I say that´s mainstream, others not...
Whatever... you cited American Football as popular sport. Well, that one for sure isn´t mainstream in circa 95 % of countries. Even though they tried to sell it everywhere, with the usual "growing & change tactics" you love so much. You see, it´s not always working. It depends on the culture and tradition. Marketing experts who always look for the next dollar to suck out of people tend to forget and/or ignore that. That´s the arrogance of the "changers" who believe new is always better...

"The riders average pay and the number of professionals would put the sport at nowhere near most professional sports"


Oh yes, they would. I guess every WT team has at least one-million-per-year rider under contract. Others certainly have more. Thus we can guess an average of 2 per team. That means approx. 36 riders earn more than a million per year....
So "most pro sports" in your POV only include US pro leagues, and european soccer leagues? Because I can´t think of any other sport "producing" as much millionares as cycling & the mentioned leagues.
Before you come up with Tennis or Golf players. Who earns the big money? The top 20 max. Then you may have another 50 living a good life from the prize monies. The rest fights to survive to stay on their respective pro tours....

"Yes I have been around the sport for over twenty years and spent time with teams and riders and I am afraid that unless people start to realise that the sport is in crisis and the power brokers are ruining it..."

The ruin will only come if the sport is shaken up a la Tinkov/Vaughters "growing the sport" ideas. Until then, everything is fine. Since decades btw...

"we are afraid of change"

Why changing a good product? Only to serve the greed of a few? As I said before: Those guys give a shit about cycling...

"Your an idiot, if you think that is the way to keep the sport progressing"

What you wanna progress? Men are sitting on their bikes giving it all. No gadgets needed. The earpieces for example led to the boring stages we have now (when nerds calculate how much time the break can have).
Shorter stages & less races a la Tinkov ideas will suppress the poorer teams more, while riders win who aren´t meant to be. MTFs as mass sprints. I see it coming. What BS ideas.
And the JV idea of preventing teams coming up to WT level, while the others (no matter if being successful or not) have no fear to lose their WT status. Will lead to socialism a la NFL. What a load of crap...

"And F1 is as much about the drivers as it is about the nerds - why are the drivers paid 23 million a year if they have nothing to do with the outcome of the race"

Didn´t say the drivers have no influence at the outcomes. But it´s minimal. The top guys know where to break before a corner. The difference might be 0.2 seconds per round between No 1 and No 22... But the nerds caluculating the correct petrol use, the correct wheel changes, chasis, ... add in motor power... you have the people behind the cars deciding the races, not the drivers.
For further infos just have a look at Vettel last year of what he can (not) do with a bad car. And now look at Indy racing. They (AFAIR) produced 14 different winners last season (just 3 in the F-1 btw)....

"And by the way without the nerds and formula 1 the cars we drive would have practically none of the technology in them that they have now"

So what? Did the airplane industry need a pro tour to make aircrafts better?
If the nerds need a playing-field... good, they can have. But it´s too sad they chose to destroy the F-1...

"What has the UCI ever done for the betterment of day to day living"

That´s not for what they are there... As, for example, FIFA isn´t there to produce better day-living-goalposts...

"My point about safety is that there are dangerous sports all over the world and in every one the governing body is trying to stop people getting killed or maimed or ending their careers - apart from in cycling"

Oh ha. To enlighten you: For example, 2/3 of ex NFL players suffer from permanent pain. I guess ex cyclists are off way better...
Didn´t even start to talk about concussed hockey players, brain & body damaged ex soccer players, killed auto racers, and so on...

"where we just turn a blind eye and let it happen again and again. The ridiculous town centre finishes the crazy riding in weather that anyone can see is blatantly dangerous"

Cycling. Dangerous... as many other sports are. It´s just the nature of some sports. Nobody is forced to do them...

"Cycling has the second highest attendance of any sport worldwide according to the UCI and ASO - surprise - surprise. Because everyone on the mountains and along the roads for the tour de france is counted methodically every year aren't they. Give me a break, Soccer worldwide has more people attending weekly than the entire cycling attendance, hell college football in the USA get 90,000 per game in a stadium and they have 100's of stadiums full up every week of the season. and that is a college sport not even professional.
The range of people attending the british tour de france route from london to canterbury ranged in the media from 200,000 to 2.5 million so how can anyone say accurately what the attendance of cycling is"


45,671... that´s the official NCAA Div I average attendance (American Fotball).... Not the millions and über millions you counted in hundreds of stadiums...

"Because everyone on the mountains and along the roads for the tour de france is counted methodically every year aren't they"... exactly how stadium attendees are counted. So what´s your point?

And that soccer is No 1 in attendance I said already. And then comes cycling at No 2...

"As I said before the title of this thread is how to change the business model of cycling for the better.
It is obvious TONTON only thinks we need to get rid of doping (good luck on that)
Foxy states in his post that there is nothing that needs changing so no need for you to ever visit this thread again then is there"


Why? Some guys like to get informed about the bitter consequences that come with changes a la Tinkov/JV, and the yes-men behind them repeating their nonsense to the average fan.
 
To the "it's obvious Tonton only thinks we need to get rid of doping (good luck with that)" statement:

Anyone with half an ounce of brain matter can type "impact doping sponsorship" in his/her browser and read all the studies, articles, expert opinions published... all identify doping as the prime reason why businesses are reluctant to invest in cycling by fear of a doping scandal that would harm the image/brand of the company.

That's not just me: it is people who make a living in the sports industry (i.e. IMF Sports), people much smarter than us who came up with that conclusion. Examples abound of race or team sponsors who quit because of the poor image of the sport.

And, yes, in a way it is unfair: had other sports been serious about anti-doping and performed retroactive testing, for example, cycling wouldn't stand out. This explains why some want to ignore doping, pretend it doesn't exist, or sabotage any attempt to expose the Skys of the world.

Fighting doping is NOT the only thing, but it definitely is a prerequisite. Completely eliminating doping is impossible: I'm not that naive: there will always be knuckleheads. However containing doping is certainly possible, if as a rider:

1. you know you will get caught, sooner or later - retroactive testing.
2. you have something to lose - that's where my idea of a pension/retirement system like in the NFL came from many posts ago. You get busted, goodbye pension, pay back what you already got.

There are smarter people out there. If they cared half as much about cycling as they care for their wallet, they would figure it out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY