End of taking the High Road?

[Polish]

Well, perhaps Riis and Bruyneel are better at explaining away the doping in a way that fools the sponsors and that Stapleton simply wasn't as good at bull****ting.

No, it means sponsors do not have problems with Lance or Alberto as riders.
Would pay big bucks to have them on their team.

Sponsors have problems with all the leaks and negative publicity about Lance and Alberto.

HTC had problems finding sponsors because of 60Minutes/WSJ/SI/NYDailynews/SundayTimes/Floyd/Tyler/Novitsky/etcetcetc.
Scorched Earth Hater Landscape.

If you have a Witch Hunt - you can't really complain about the foul smelly smoke that scares away the sponsors

 

[Aleajactaest]

You know this from attending all of the negotiations that took place right?

Forbes estimates his worth at approximately $80 million which doesn't make him a billionaire and every sponsor is different and has different goals. SaxoBank and Radioshack could put more importance on brand awareness than brand image compared to Highroad's potential sponsors.

Besides, the Contador case is recent and solely relevant to this year's sponsors and the amount of allegations and investigations involving Armstrong have escalated during the past couple of years. Therefore the circumstances for new sponsors this year are different and should be treated as such.

The Armstrong stuff hasn't moved one tick this year. For that matter, neither has Contadors. And in the same time, leopard started a new team, and Radioshack completed new negotiations. What makes them immune?

 

[robtclements]

Could it be the reason everyone who only watches the Tour see them as HTC? I.e not HTC Highroad?

More likely, the bunch sprints in le Tour weren't being seen at all. The old saw about the race taking place in the mountains seems to have been particularly true this year

When you add the cost of having a sprinter who needs an expensive chain in front of him to be any good & who doesn't particularly offer a good pitchman for marketers anyway, Highroad may not have had the best of business plans to offer sponsors

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

The Armstrong stuff hasn't moved one tick this year.

Aside from all the news articles, magazine exposes, and video confessions of this teammates, I guess you are right. The news is coming from highly respected and well distributed news outlets like 60 Minutes, Sports Illustrated, and the New York Times. Just because Armstrong has not been perp walked into a police station yet does not mean the investigation has not exposed a rotten truth about cycling that turns off potential sponsers.

More likely, the bunch sprints in le Tour weren't being seen at all. The old saw about the race taking place in the mountains seems to have been particularly true this year

I think there are probably a lot of people like me who do not care for the sprint stages. I get the results first and then decide how much of the stage I will watch. It is not worth waiting for two and a half hours for the day's break to be caught and the sprinters' teams to wind up the pace during the last ten kilometers.

 

[craig1985]

Wait, there are individuals/sports management groups/sponsors in America that can cough up enough cash to pay guys like LeBron James $18m, or that dude that plays for the Oakland Raiders and recently signed a five year deal worth $49m, guaranteed at least $29m, so I don't see how there can be a shortage of corporate dollars out there, even with a screwed up economy.

You can go to 90% of all WT team managers and offer them a 3 year deal worth $29m to sponsor their team, and most will rip the pen out of your hand to sign the contract, what you pay for LeBron will get you two years with a WT team, let alone the wages of one man for a single year. For a race like the TdF, which is shown in more then 180 countries, and I would hazard a guess the majority of them would show it live and you usually get 3-4 live hours of coverage on your brand, everyday for three weeks, really, cycling sponsorship is really good value compared to the big American sports (and I bet it costs a pretty penny to sponsor a NASCAR team as well).

In my view though.

Que for somebody who has studied marketing/economics to tell me I'm talking **** in 5..4..3

 

[Fetisoff]

Craig - I'm fairly certain that most professional NBA/NFL/NHL/European football etc. teams get most of their revenues from ticket sales, not sponsor money, which allow for them to sign these player to huge contracts. I mean for NBA/NNL team it's 15000 people x 40 games x 70 bucks a ticket average = over 40 millions in ticket sales, and that's without playoffs.... Now add TV contract, sponsor money and merchandise sales....

Now, how much of the money does a UCI team get from ticket sales? Zilch, because there are none. How much do they get from the TV contracts (not sure on this one actually, but I'll guess none of it??)

 

[craig1985]

Craig - I'm fairly certain that most professional NBA/NFL/NHL/European football etc. teams get most of their revenues from ticket sales, not sponsor money, which allow for them to sign these player to huge contracts. I mean for NBA/NNL team it's 15000 people x 40 games x 70 bucks a ticket average = over 40 millions in ticket sales, and that's without playoffs.... Now add TV contract, sponsor money and merchandise sales....

Now, how much of the money does a UCI team get from ticket sales? Zilch, because there are none. How much do they get from the TV contracts (not sure on this one actually, but I'll guess none of it??)

Correct, and that is something I would like see changed. Whatever the UCI makes from TV ratings (or I assume companies like ASO get the money from other TV stations) a portion of it should be split evenly among all the WT teams, with some going to Pro Continental teams and so forth.

 

[Galic Ho]

So HTC made sprint stages boring?

Yeah, it would have been a pretty good strategy for them to say "we've got the fastest man in the world with a 80-90% hit rate guaranteed when on form, but let's just lose as much as possible cos that's bound to be good for the sponsors and there are some folk on CyclingNews forum who don't like us winning very much."

It's called predictability. Using the strike rate you've given, HTC have been a pretty mcuh solid bet. Cav's averaged 5 stages each year for the four most recent TdF's. That's boring. Only this year was it not totally cringe worthy, simply because Garmin and Lotto managed to figure out how to crack the HTC train. 2008, 2009 and 2010 watching the HTC train was monotomous. Nine out of ten times you knew who was going to win. Boring after you've seen it a few times.

The questions are, who can afford Cav and give him the assurances of competing for Green and also for next year a strong possability of leaving the Tour early for the Olympics?

Easy. Sky. Cav's pay cheque there will be tripled. This is old news. Cav was massively underpaid these past years at HTC. Stapelton didn't have the cash to pay him more. Wigans hopes of GC go down the crapper if Cav joins Sky and British cycling ruins the interesting way Sky raced in this Tour (done without a major sprint leader or GC rider). If Wigans is allowed to go for GC in 2012 (assuming he ignores the track for London) then Sky will choke big time. I personally can't wait! Gonna be one hell of a riot. Cav joins Sky, they should focus on him in 2012, tell Wigans to focus on the Olympics and then defer GC aims till 2013. Basically Wigans last guaranteed GC shot is at the Vuelta in a month.

Cav chews through far too many GC riders. Heck, I wonder who will now tow his rear end up the cols and moutains in GT's? Eisel? Another rider wasted IMO. Quickstep/Omega Pharma should have tried to get Cav. They've lost Gilbert, Cav would make up for that...well no, but he'd take a chunk out of the loss.

This has been brought up before and some of the Poms got upset. Cav joins Sky, the team chokes. It is inevitable. Some people tried saying months back Sky could support GC ambitions, win sprints and get in breakaways in a GT. Never going to happen. It will be Cav and Wigans and the later will get shafted because he's not a sure thing. The remaining roster get the scraps. Don't expect to see Flecha or EBH or any other rider for that matter busting out during the TdF if Cav joins the squad. It will be methodical, calculated and boring riding by them. A new train. Yippee!

 

[Eric8-A]

It's called predictability. Using the strike rate you've given, HTC have been a pretty mcuh solid bet. Cav's averaged 5 stages each year for the four most recent TdF's. That's boring. Only this year was it not totally cringe worthy, simply because Garmin and Lotto managed to figure out how to crack the HTC train. 2008, 2009 and 2010 watching the HTC train was monotomous. Nine out of ten times you knew who was going to win. Boring after you've seen it a few times.


Exactly

 

[Eric8-A]

It's called predictability. Using the strike rate you've given, HTC have been a pretty mcuh solid bet. Cav's averaged 5 stages each year for the four most recent TdF's. That's boring. Only this year was it not totally cringe worthy, simply because Garmin and Lotto managed to figure out how to crack the HTC train. 2008, 2009 and 2010 watching the HTC train was monotomous. Nine out of ten times you knew who was going to win. Boring after you've seen it a few times.



(

Exactly. Well put

 

[Galic Ho]

Wait, there are individuals/sports management groups/sponsors in America that can cough up enough cash to pay guys like LeBron James $18m, or that dude that plays for the Oakland Raiders and recently signed a five year deal worth $49m, guaranteed at least $29m, so I don't see how there can be a shortage of corporate dollars out there, even with a screwed up economy.

You can go to 90% of all WT team managers and offer them a 3 year deal worth $29m to sponsor their team, and most will rip the pen out of your hand to sign the contract, what you pay for LeBron will get you two years with a WT team, let alone the wages of one man for a single year. For a race like the TdF, which is shown in more then 180 countries, and I would hazard a guess the majority of them would show it live and you usually get 3-4 live hours of coverage on your brand, everyday for three weeks, really, cycling sponsorship is really good value compared to the big American sports (and I bet it costs a pretty penny to sponsor a NASCAR team as well).

In my view though.

Que for somebody who has studied marketing/economics to tell me I'm talking **** in 5..4..3

I've studied marketing and economics plus contract law. Your missing the finer details. Where is the money coming from? Dude, most team sports render most of their cash from the league or governing body of the sport after signing a contract with a telecommunications company or network who agree to the exclusive or shared broadcast rights. EPL and every football league in Europe do it. FIFA takes a cut. Baseball, Basketball and NFL in America do it. So too, Ice Hockey. Why do you think in Australia Gary Ablett jr get 1.5 million playing AFL yet the best NRL (Rugby League) players can only manage $500K at best? Because Demetriou can negotiate better than Gallop can. Who you have running the show will reflect in the cash flow into the sport. All sports are marketable, but some generate far more mulla than others. Heck the NRL limits outside sponsorship of players to maintain a salary cap. It's always about apples and oranges. You can't comapre the sports but you can look at the numbers they generate and the source.

When there is a dispute about the percentage of the funds earnt through the tv contracts, that each party gets, you end up with a situation like the Ice Hockey ******s in Canada and the USA had a few seasons back. Nobody plays for half a season. Then there is money to be made on the secondary market by exchanging contracts of sportsmen/women in the sport between interested parties. Does anyone here honestly think Christiano Ronaldo earns anywhere near what his Real contract cost to acquire from Man Utd? Nope, not even close. Compare to cycling. No open trading of contracts. Just a few cases recently. Evans and Wigans come to mind. One bought out his own contract, the other earnt Garmin a huge pay day.

These sports your comparing cycling to are structured in a far more proficient manner when it comes to generating cash. External sponsors fund the bulk majority of a teams annual operating budget in cycling. EPL teams when stepping up from the Championship first division to the Premier league reap somewhere around 56 million quid from tv rights alone. That's huge compared to what they get one division lower. Larger teams/brands have global recognition and earn more money from ticket sales and merchandise, but the tv rights are the big bucks. They are the one consistent source of cash flow. I'm not saying the systems team sports use are sustainable...IMO they are ludicrous, especially football, but you don't see top teams collapsing and shutting up shop. Some do run a few hundred million into the red on the books, but that's an issue FIFA/UEFA Platini can deal with. Any cycling team runs at a loss, the team is done. Cash dries up at season end because the sponsor isn't getting value for their dollar then the team is done in cycling. A guaranteed fee from the league through advertising and broadcasting rights...at least keeps you going, to a degree. Happened many times in Australia with the NRL

Sure a potential cycling sponsor will conduct marketing feasability studies, etc, but determing cash flow and earning via advertising isn't an exact science. A lot of it is guesswork and smart assumptions on simple stats. Does anyone here really think HTC got anywhere near the $400 million media generated advertising Stapleton has sprouted returned back in a similar figure in sales? Yeah that's right. They didn't.

To stop the demise of great teams like HTC that put both mens and WOMENS teams in a stable succsessful job, the UCI needs to negotiate better with race organisers and tv companies. The teams need a cut of the cash the ASO, RCS and other organisers are making. I'd like a nice audit to see what kind of revenue was generated from the top 5-6 racing events this year in advertising and tv. I'm guessing quite a bit and most of it won't be appearing in the wallets of the riders and teams. That's all up to their personal sponsors...most of whom rely on the cycling fans to buy their products. Great sponsorship system...NOT!

 

[greenedge]

It is a pity as HTC were a good team and the most successful. Teams with Cipollini also tried to do lead outs as well we can't fault Cav for being the fastest/ most intuitive placing in a sprint.

All the riders that might have to leave Sky ( wah )

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I'd like a nice audit to see what kind of revenue was generated from the top 5-6 racing events this year in advertising and tv. I'm guessing quite a bit and most of it won't be appearing in the wallets of the riders and teams.

My guess is that the TV and advertising revenue minus the event costs leaves a profit, perhaps a very small one, for only the largest events. All other events struggle. The large event organizers (ASO and RCS) subsidize their smaller events with money from the larger ones. In other words, the media revenue that Vaughters wants shared with the teams does not exist.

The only way for the teams to get a cut of the media revenue would be for the size of the pie to grow significantly. For that to happen there would have to be a season long series of races with media rights that could be sold as a total package, and the series would have to generate a lot more public interest that the Tour de France.

A series of events made up of disparate races will not work well because it is impossible to create a fair points system for individuals. The emphasis would have to be on teams winning the series instead of individuals, but this goes against the traditions of the sport.

 

[Galic Ho]

My guess is that the TV and advertising revenue minus the event costs leaves a profit, perhaps a very small one, for only the largest events. All other events struggle. The large event organizers (ASO and RCS) subsidize their smaller events with money from the larger ones. In other words, the media revenue that Vaughters wants shared with the teams does not exist.

Maybe the French and Italian govt's can let us know!

The only way for the teams to get a cut of the media revenue would be for the size of the pie to grow significantly. For that to happen there would have to be a season long series of races with media rights that could be sold as a total package, and the series would have to generate a lot more public interest that the Tour de France.

Which is essentially what is happening now in Australia with our two major football leagues. The AFL signed a deal a few years back just before Kerry Packer died worth $800 million. The NRL is poised to sign, for the first time in it's history, a comparitive deal, meaning they will finally get what their product is worth. It is rumoured to be about a billion dollars. Worth is considering the viewing population in the states in Australia that watch each sport are disproportionate. NRL is mainstream in states with a higher total potential market...although the AFL grand final figures are superior (but I know the stats they use to figure those garbage viewer ratings out and it's guesswork at best). The problem with cycling is all the separate parties are not united. UCI governs the sports. Teams sign riders. Race organisers geographically locked create the races and invite teams. UCI appoints classification to the races and decides the point system for ranking teams and riders in the Pro Tour. Too many roosters in the hen house each responsible for finding their own cash. Nobody wants to share. Heck the UCI appear to the distant viewer to want to hoard all they can acquire in some lofty bank in Switzerland.

A series of events made up of disparate races will not work well because it is impossible to create a fair points system for individuals. The emphasis would have to be on teams winning the series instead of individuals, but this goes against the traditions of the sport.

I don't agree with this. You are right though, such a system would never work because it is against the traditions and spirit of the sport. It would be nice to know the total cash streams cycling generates for all parties. Only then would we know if someone can be squeezed and feasibly give up a bigger cut. I don't think Vaughters is wrong about the financing. There is a reason that SBS only shows a limited number of races conducted during the season in Australia. Broadcasting costs to acquire footage are too high. There is money there...where it is going is the better question.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't agree with this. You are right though, such a system would never work because it is against the traditions and spirit of the sport. It would be nice to know the total cash streams cycling generates for all parties. Only then would we know if someone can be squeezed and feasibly give up a bigger cut. I don't think Vaughters is wrong about the financing. There is a reason that SBS only shows a limited number of races conducted during the season in Australia. Broadcasting costs to acquire footage are too high. There is money there...where it is going is the better question.

I think you're missing another factor why SBS, BBC or ITV do not stump up for the races outside of the Tour & Olympics. It's not a question primarily of money rather that audience levels for non-TdF races would be too low in relation to other events in football, Cricket or Golf etc. Outside of the loyal cycling fan-base there are very few Aussies, Brits, Kiwis or Americans who will actually watch. They're not switching on to see cycling but to see the Tour.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that is "swilling around" in cycling. In relation to Football or the US sports NBA, MLB & Gridiron cycling is the Oliver Twist of the sports world. The salary of David Beckham could pay for a Pro Tour Team and without really denting his lifestyle too much!! The top earners in that sport ALL earn amounts that make Armstrong's earnings look paltry. http://www.therichest.org/sports/highest-paid-football-players/

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think you're missing another factor why SBS, BBC or ITV do not stump up for the races outside of the Tour & Olympics. It's not a question primarily of money rather that audience levels for non-TdF races would be too low in relation to other events in football, Cricket or Golf etc. Outside of the loyal cycling fan-base there are very few Aussies, Brits, Kiwis or Americans who will actually watch. They're not switching on to see cycling but to see the Tour.

Also you have the problem that of those four groups you mention, only the Brits have the races on at a reasonable viewing time. People aren't getting up in the middle of the night in Australia and New Zealand unless they're extremely dedicated; most key races will be while Americans are at work. Heck, a lot of them are while Europeans at work, but they have the ability to follow them after work, watch highlight shows etc. and are better reported.

 

[Papparrazzi]

They wouldn't want any part of doping and cycling's bad image. Cavendish is a marketing dream. He's a winner and does so on a regular basis, he supplies journalists with quotes and his bad boy image is much better than the bland, boring image that some cyclists convey. Cavendish is cycling's version of Lewis Hamilton and he's one of the most marketable sportsmen in the world despite being petulant and whining when he doesn't win.

Exactamundo!!

 

[Anonymous]

I think you're missing another factor why SBS, BBC or ITV do not stump up for the races outside of the Tour & Olympics. It's not a question primarily of money rather that audience levels for non-TdF races would be too low in relation to other events in football, Cricket or Golf etc. Outside of the loyal cycling fan-base there are very few Aussies, Brits, Kiwis or Americans who will actually watch. They're not switching on to see cycling but to see the Tour.

but of course, ITV did stump up the money and buy the rights to lots of other races (it was all part of the ASO tour package).

They just chose not to show them at all, or not until a month after the race.

 

[oldcrank]

Much easier for ManU to find sponsors than Wigans.

 

[Four Winds]

For someone who is apparently a marketing nightmare he seems to get himself in quite a few advertisments. But then advertising companies know nothing about marketability and are used to throwing money away for no good reason.

 

[Galic Ho]

I think you're missing another factor why SBS, BBC or ITV do not stump up for the races outside of the Tour & Olympics. It's not a question primarily of money rather that audience levels for non-TdF races would be too low in relation to other events in football, Cricket or Golf etc. Outside of the loyal cycling fan-base there are very few Aussies, Brits, Kiwis or Americans who will actually watch. They're not switching on to see cycling but to see the Tour.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that is "swilling around" in cycling. In relation to Football or the US sports NBA, MLB & Gridiron cycling is the Oliver Twist of the sports world. The salary of David Beckham could pay for a Pro Tour Team and without really denting his lifestyle too much!! The top earners in that sport ALL earn amounts that make Armstrong's earnings look paltry. http://www.therichest.org/sports/highest-paid-football-players/

You shouldn't have used Armstrong as an example. Most of his earnings, were not from his UPS/Astana contract. His earning were enormous during his prime when compared to Contadors. Easily double if not triple what AC allegedly gets. He rode for free whilst at Astana. Armstrong was smart in a business sense. Contracts in place to get money left, right and centre. Controlling stakes in the management of the team and also that lovely charity with two arms. Want to take a stab at how much of that money he pocketed? Nobody does. Would you care to take a punt at how much money cycling related manufacturers make off of sponsoring of pro teams? Or how much the French govt takes from the Tour. It's about what the UCI can contractually get it's hands on. FIFA and other prime sports are simply better placed. David Beckham? Dude, he isn't the highest paid soccer player in the world. His income derived from his profession would be lucky to place him in the top 10 players. He's like Armstrong. Third party sponsors and endorsements. That isn't money coming from the governing body of his sport or the team he's contracted to compete for. Your mixing your apples and oranges. They cannot be compared.

BTW, I never said there was an enormous wad of cash someone was hoarding. I implied the percentage of all revenue generated from pro cycling races wasn't being spread in a satisfactory manner. I was in essence saying the teams do not get a respectable cut when looking at what other sports get. The problem? Geography. Pro cycling is in and out of many countries. We have a plethora of television networks and companies all taking their cut. Take the EPL or any American sport. One networks owns the tv rights. They then sell to everyone else the exclusive rights to the ENTIRE sport. Cycling, it changes with every location switch between races. As I said, only the French, Italian and Spanish govt's will have a real idea because the ASO, RCS and UniPublic are the ones first handling the money.

Ever heard of economies of scale? The French govt have. They benefit from it simply because millions of people hit the road to watch each TdF. Same with the Giro. More people at a live sport event spend more money. The problem? Geography again. Team sports are in an isolated venue, aka a stadium on the home teams property. The money comes in directly and they can claim it all minus expenses. Cycling...anywhere along the road it can be spent. Local economy benefits exclusively and the race organisers take a minimal cut of the money spent. Sure there will be some kickbacks from local towns lobbying and competing for a stage in a GT...but that's because their economy on that one day will sky rocket. They aren't handing that money over to the riders. Man Utd for example gets all the money spent at their home games. All of it. In one sold out game, they reportedly earn more than the lowest ranked EPL team gets in an entire season of home games.

Put in simple terms. Cycling is not organised efficiently in terms of generating cash for their product. There are too many hands between the flow of cash from the consumers (the fans) and the guys flogging themselves on the bikes. The people putting in the work do not get paid accordingly. Hence why soccer players, baseball players, basketball players etc get a bigger cut. Cycling related companies have to pay for the bulk of riders salaries. As I said, compare that to other sports...it's wrong and shows the inequalities and disparancies that exist. Those sports paying their big names more simply have better contracts in place to generate revenue.

Also mentioning SBS in Australia. Look at who sponsors all the ads. You might have one television manufacturer thrown in amongst a swarm of cycling exclusive related companies. Same deal every year. Those are the companies financing pro cycling. TV networks are getting a free ride for the most part (European ones pulling the strings). Take the 2010 SBS Giro highlights package. Grainy 240p footage ripped off a live stream with watermarks from the European telco they paid a pitance to obtain it from. This years Giro footage went up in quality, but don't kid yourself, it wasn't bounced off a satellite from a European broadcast directly to SBS and filtered back to the Aussie viewer. It was ripped from an online feed yet again...but this year the quality went up ever so slightly. SBS have and always will be about money. It's not about viewing numbers. They put it on...people will watch. Why? Take the Tour presentation Down Under 20 years back. People watch it now. Just like Wimbledon and the F1 when in Europe. Technology allows us to easily record the sports now if we cannot watch. We simply avoid the paper or news till we've seen the recording. People don't watch a sport because it isn't on any channel. The Giro would get increased viewing numbers here in Australia every year if they put it on. They don't want to pay for it. It's that simple. They're also in love with the fantasy of the Tour. Think I'm wrong? I had this debate with the clowns on the SBS cycling website in May. None of the people had even seen a Giro stage the past two years but they were dead set certain the Tour was better with only one valid reason...because it's all they could watch cycling related in Australia other than that training ride in Adelaide.

Heck one only needs to head to the Clinic to realise why cycling has contract and management problems. Doping galore. Why? Because other sports are united and look after their product. Fuentes Black Book in Puerto, Barca and Real players were mentioned in a paper once. Just once. It was shut down pronto. Why? Because UEFA and FIFA may be corrupt, dishonest and greedy, but they are organised and smart contractually. The effectiveness of their bodies overall structure and management can be seen in all facets of their sport, financial, team based and with their PR and overall sporting image/perception in the general public...just like cyclings failures reflect the mistakes the UCI makes. Cycling really needs a big change if teams like HTC don't want to go down. I don't think the mens team is the problem, they will find rides. It's the women that have been shafted by this incompetence at the sports highest level. They're the ones I feel sorry for.

 

[fatandfast]

Garlic lots of your post is on point. The product is not well managed. The large teams make seeing your favorite riders difficult from time to time. Collective pro points are not really followed by anybody so if a rider wins the Giro or the Tour that's it he is not asked to do 12 or 15 mandatory races to establish an overall that fans can follow throughout the season.
The next races with big press coverage will not have all the names and faces that new fans established during the TDf want to see. If you turn on Real Madrid, ManU .Red Sox or the Lakers and the team was 50% guys you didn't know you would turn the channel. They have a bright star in Cadel, a semi hero in Voekler pro cycling needs to have a schedule so those who are in demand can be followed in more head to head competition.

I could not disagree more about women's racing. It has slowly grown over the years. The talent pool is very shallow and top level athletes from other disciplines come in and out of women's racing getting good results. If David Beckham or Tiger Woods on a whim decide that they want to explore pro bike racing the results would be harsh and certain. Women's racing if contested by other women athletes is much more forgiving. The product they put to the road is consistent only 30-50 deep. HTC has the best women racing for them and all of them will find work someplace else. The teams that did not disband is who you should pity. With resume in hand any HTC woman that is looking for work will be superior to a large portion of riders from other teams. The cross over from technology, training, quality of coaches and managers that the HTC women were exposed to give them a leg up on most of the existing women racers.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I take umbrage with the opinion that HTC has the best women racing for them. I would imagine that most, if not all, will find rides for next year; a couple may have to drop to the NRC but all will have rides.

Nederland Bloeit, MCipollini-Giambenini (linked to Farnese Vini), Garmin-Cervélo and Diadora-Pasta Zara (linked to Geox) can all lay claim to having teams as strong as HTC's.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

BTW, I never said there was an enormous wad of cash someone was hoarding. I implied the percentage of all revenue generated from pro cycling races wasn't being spread in a satisfactory manner. I was in essence saying the teams do not get a respectable cut when looking at what other sports get.

The revenue is irrelevant. Only the profit matters. How much money can race organizers afford to give to teams without running in the red? If organizing bike races was consistently profitable then we would not have races folding and would have lots of new events being set up to get a piece of the action. Since that does not seem to be true, my guess is that there is very little money on the table that could be given to teams. What could be true is that many races are almost as dependent on sponsorship as teams are. That is certainly true for races in the U.S.

A counter argument is the world championship. The UCI makes a significant amount of its money from the worlds.

 

[Galic Ho]

I take umbrage with the opinion that HTC has the best women racing for them. I would imagine that most, if not all, will find rides for next year; a couple may have to drop to the NRC but all will have rides.

Nederland Bloeit, MCipollini-Giambenini (linked to Farnese Vini), Garmin-Cervélo and Diadora-Pasta Zara (linked to Geox) can all lay claim to having teams as strong as HTC's.

It isn't that HTC has the best women riding for them, but that HTC had both a mens and a womens team. How many other teams did this? Think about the additional support the HTC women receive that women only teams may not have access to. Do you think there isn't an advantage to being a woman on HTC simply because the team has a mens team, albeit the most successful mens squad on the Pro Tour? I do. Support and equipment wise, I'd easily wager they had a perceived advantage over other womens teams.

Also consider the mens teams have money...lots of it. Womens side of sports are always overlooked and when a huge team like HTC folds both their mens and womens squads ability to be reabsorbed by the remaining teams in these respective gender comps is not equal. As shown in this thread, it is questionable some of the older HTC women will even get a ride. The mens teams have more money, hence their ability to absord a free HTC male agent into their fold for 2012 is greater than any potential female teams to do the same for the equivalent free female HTC agent. Now even if the female teams can, HTC has a lot of talent, primarily because they had a larger budget than other teams. If a HTC female rider gets a ride elsewhere, someone on that team has to leave or take a pay cut simply because there is not as much money nor a fall back Pro Conti or domestic scene equivalent to the mens market. The pay cut they take if they do get a ride would be lucky to put food on your table and pay for rent. Hardly a financially promising outlook.

@fatandfast. I agree with what you say about the women pro cycling. You nailed it. HTC womens riders will be hard pressed not to find rides, leaving the other teams lower ranked riders in a tight spot. Someone will have to give up on their dream job. Not a good thing.