SirLes said:
I also think the increased commercial success which is based on a huge number of new fans for whom drug taking is unacceptable is of course another big reason. (I'm not sure the nationality is)
I'm sure Pro Cycling would love to be an "increased commercial success." Some numbers:
US ML Baseball teams had a combined 2009
payroll of $2.7 B (~800 players) with $7 B in revenue. NFL 2009 payroll totaled $3.4 B (~1,700 players) with ~$14 B in revenue. NBA salaries are $2 B (450 players) with $4 B in revenue. English Premier League salary is ~900 M Pounds (2005-6 was 850 M, ~800 players) with ~2 B Pounds of revenues.
The combined total PT team budgets total about 150 M euros (~500 riders). So, based on the above, the total possible PT "take" by promoters et Al is only 300-500 M euros. As far as the “state of the league” goes, Saxo, Caisse, Bouygues are pulling out after 2010, Lampre is on as temporary, Cofidis moved down, and only BMC and maybe Skil appear to want in. Without The Shack, Sky, and Footon, things would look pretty bad. It remains a beggar’s market, not foretelling systematic salary increases.
According to NBDA, the entire US cycling industry in the US was $6 B (I'm guessing Europe is at least equal to this, but can't find a reliable #). According to SGMA, US equipment for baseball/softball totaled $602 M; basketball $356 M; and soccer $304 M (American football was smaller than these "top three"). Add to this Team Uniforms totaling $1.2 B billion in 2008 (five largest categories for team uniforms were football, baseball, basketball, soccer, and volleyball).
If you're wondering about golf, 280 PGA professionals chased ~$300 M in PGA purses last year. This was up from $66 M in 1996 BT (Before Tiger). Now that’s systematic increase! This supported $3 B in US equipment sales (SGMA) and a total US industry greater than $60 B. The last $1B TV deal aimed to bring purses by 2012 to $600 M annually BTM (Before Tiger’s Mistresses). They are at least doing far better than cyclists.
So, people effectively spend more watching the top team sports (vote with eyeballs), while in cycling they spend more on cycling. Most manufacturers, fans, and many others it would seem get a virtual free ride on the backs of pro teams and riders who promote and prove new products, scramble and beg for sponsorship, often get $crewed over on transfers or contracts, while they get paid 1-3% of the total industry size versus up to 50% in other team sports. And for all that, riders have the sword of Damocles over their heads if they get caught doping by a governing body that’s proven itself incompetent in many circumstances. Mama’s, don’t let your babies grow up to be cyclists.
No excuses of forgiveness for doping here, but I think some context of riders' place in the industry is important to highlight. Also, no suggestion that more money means less doping, although it may not hurt since most riders actually can probably make more painting houses. Finally, forget the “In the States we're not much for shades of gray in our heroes.” Yankee fans had no problem watching A-Rod make $20 M and hit .365 with 4 home runs and 18 RBIs during their 27th World Series victory after he admitted past steroid use at the beginning of 2009.