• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Distribution of revenues (TV rights) to teams

Who agrees with Johan?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-on-contador-armstrong-and-le-mondes-accusations

Moving on to the sport’s financial issues, Bruyneel commented: “I would bring in a financial model similar in Formula 1, tennis or football. In order to boost the profile of a sport you shouldn’t have everyone going off in different directions: the teams, the organisers, the federations. For example, look at television rights. In other sports there is a system in place that ensures these are shared out. But in this sport, the teams and the organisers are always dependent on sponsors and if they pull out then teams and races disappear.”

How often have teams in the past kicked up a fuss about distribution of revenues? I seem to remember hearing about it occasionally but not too sure, anyone know the exact time line?

The best example is Formula 1 -

They have the FIA (governing body) F1 Administration (Owners) and FOTA (Teams). The Concorde Agreement binds them together and says you race, we pay you. The structure of cycling is obviously a bit different in that the UCI run the sport overall but most races are operated by independent organisations.

What changes need to happen in cycling in order to establish a system where the teams get something and take the absolute dependency off sponsorship?

I'm sure all the teams have threatened not to ride in the past, without success it seems. Is it the UCI's fault? Or is there simply not enough money in the sport?
 
Ferminal said:
Who agrees with Johan?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-on-contador-armstrong-and-le-mondes-accusations



How often have teams in the past kicked up a fuss about distribution of revenues? I seem to remember hearing about it occasionally but not too sure, anyone know the exact time line?

The best example is Formula 1 -

They have the FIA (governing body) F1 Administration (Owners) and FOTA (Teams). The Concorde Agreement binds them together and says you race, we pay you. The structure of cycling is obviously a bit different in that the UCI run the sport overall but most races are operated by independent organisations.

What changes need to happen in cycling in order to establish a system where the teams get something and take the absolute dependency off sponsorship?

I'm sure all the teams have threatened not to ride in the past, without success it seems. Is it the UCI's fault? Or is there simply not enough money in the sport?

http://www.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/Forschung/Diskussionspapiere/dp-345.pdf
 
Jul 1, 2009
226
0
0
Visit site
Thank you for this. I look forward to reading through it.

The $$ continues to be cycling's biggest challenge. Quick Step is also now feigning struggles with money.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
Who agrees with Johan?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-on-contador-armstrong-and-le-mondes-accusations



How often have teams in the past kicked up a fuss about distribution of revenues? I seem to remember hearing about it occasionally but not too sure, anyone know the exact time line?

The best example is Formula 1 -

They have the FIA (governing body) F1 Administration (Owners) and FOTA (Teams). The Concorde Agreement binds them together and says you race, we pay you. The structure of cycling is obviously a bit different in that the UCI run the sport overall but most races are operated by independent organisations.

What changes need to happen in cycling in order to establish a system where the teams get something and take the absolute dependency off sponsorship?

I'm sure all the teams have threatened not to ride in the past, without success it seems. Is it the UCI's fault? Or is there simply not enough money in the sport?
Nope, this is what Armstrong wanted to do, to buy the sport, and bring in this model.

How will this bring organic growth.

Anyone heard of Midi Libre (Languedoc)?

Setmana Catalana?

Niederschsen Rundfahrt?

GP Zurich?

Leeds?

won't do nought to broaden the pie. It would only change market power dynamics, to the owner.

The TV rights as it exists, work fine, it is a market transaction. Remember, I dont think Bruyneel and Armstrong finished highschool.
 
blackcat said:
Nope, this is what Armstrong wanted to do, to buy the sport, and bring in this model.

How will this bring organic growth.

Anyone heard of Midi Libre (Languedoc)?

Setmana Catalana?

Niederschsen Rundfahrt?

GP Zurich?

Leeds?

won't do nought to broaden the pie. It would only change market power dynamics, to the owner.

The TV rights as it exists, work fine, it is a market transaction. Remember, I dont think Bruyneel and Armstrong finished highschool.

Own what? It's not like F1, no one owns it, anyone can ride, race and host an event, under the name of Cycling.

The UCI "owns" the licenses, the race organisers own their events and the teams own the athletes. Did Lance try and buy the lot? I'm not suggesting that power should be united under one body if that's what you think.
 
Ferminal said:
Oh thanks, will read :D

I wouldn't bother; first year undergraduate economics which lead to no insights whatsoever.

The initial thought of a study is interesting, but they don't seem capable of producing one which can offer anything of much worth - this is just standard oligopoly derivations with the variables renamed - you could copy and paste it from any textbook.
 
Waterloo Sunrise said:
I wouldn't bother; first year undergraduate economics which lead to no insights whatsoever.

The initial thought of a study is interesting, but they don't seem capable of producing one which can offer anything of much worth - this is just standard oligopoly derivations with the variables renamed - you could copy and paste it from any textbook.

I guess. I read bits and skimmed bits.

5. Efficiency improvements
5.1. The introduction of a promotion/relegation system
5.2. The implementation of an open league in UCI Pro Tour

That wouldn't change much at all.

It's more of an analysis of the UCI Pro Tour too, which isn't a complete idea and not part of any solution.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Visit site
remember the UCI /ASO war

I think this was one of the major root causes of the feud over Pro Tour Between the UCI and ASO. TV rights. The UCI wanted a share and ASO did not want to share.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Master50 said:
I think this was one of the major root causes of the feud over Pro Tour Between the UCI and ASO. TV rights. The UCI wanted a share and ASO did not want to share.

Actually Verbruggen wanted to become Bernie Ecclestone. He wanted to put all the TV rights for all races into a holding company that HE OWNED. Give a little to the teams, a little to the races, and keep the majority for himself.

Needless to say his ridiculous plan did not succeed and only served to reinforce the UCI's image as corrupt and inept.