Financial Fair Play

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
If it's not it will drive fans away. Why do you think the NFL and the other major US based (north American based) sports ensure that TV revenue is equal? It is to ensure the leagues are doing what they can for equality within the sport to keep the fans. If it's not equal it drives the fans away and will eventually drive the sport out of buisness, but if you think driving the sport out of business is a good idea, well that your choice. Yes national TV contract revenue is split in MLB as well. It's just that in MLB due to the number of games large market teams have a much higher revenue source than small market teams, which in some cases ARE driven out of the sport.
Again, you claimed that it HAS to be equal for teams to get TV revenue. It doesn't. This isn't a discussion about whether uneven splits are fair, it's a discussion about whether teams (in cycling, NFL, NASCAR, tiddlywinks...) get TV revenue. They do.
 
It's an interesting point of discussion (which we should probably continue to drag this out of the rabbit hole). Should performance be a measure or should contribution? Take a one off FA Cup game and pretend we're going to split the money made from that. If Manchester City play and lose to Burton Albion, in front of 55,000 fans, of which 52,000 are Manchester City fans, who should get the most money? Performance wise you might say Burton Albion, however more people paid to come and see Manchester City play.
Is this a neutral site game or is one team the home team?
 
Is this a neutral site game or is one team the home team?
Does it matter? The supporters have travelled to support their team. Is it important where the game is played? If it is, I should point out that Manchester City have a stadium of a far, far greater size than Burton Albion, so if home field matters you're instantly biasing it towards richer teams.
 
This "real revenue" is your get of reality free card, isn't it? "Ok, yes, other teams may have been doing merchandising before I realised DQS were doing merchandising, but they weren't doing merchandising to get real revenue!"

Question: how much revenue (net of costs) is being raised by DQS's merchandising? I've aldready shown you the ballpark for Sky's merchandising revenue, now you show what you've got.
You want the information you figure out where it is. At least they have a lot of different items that are NOT cycling related. Most teams don't. DQS has cell phone cases, key chains, wallets, things you can use in everyday life. More teams need to do this. I know NASCAR teams make a good amount of money with merchandising. If cycling teams aren't a part of the reason is that they aren't producing a lot of items and aren't ensuring people know about them. Plus do they even sell the stuff AT actual races where the fans are? When we went to the Worlds the biggest thing I was disappointed in was the horrible LACK of merchandise. There were like 4 T-shirt options and 2 hat options that was about it. I wasn't fond of any of the options either. Sorry, but I used to having about 15 options for t-shirts and at least that many options for hats, plus all kinds of other things. We both decided if we wanted something we'd just go our local T-shirt shop and have something we liked better made ourselves.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
It's an interesting point of discussion (which we should probably continue to drag this out of the rabbit hole). Should performance be a measure or should contribution? Take a one off FA Cup game and pretend we're going to split the money made from that. If Manchester City play and lose to Burton Albion, in front of 55,000 fans, of which 52,000 are Manchester City fans, who should get the most money? Performance wise you might say Burton Albion, however more people paid to come and see Manchester City play.
As a general principle, I would say that revenue sharing deals should be a mix of a fixed share, with a performance-related element on top. In the Premier League, they add an extra kink, which is that the highest earning team can't earn X% more than the lowest earning team.

IIRC the Concorde Agreement, it isn't as fair and has built-in advantages for certain teams. If there's any petrol-heads herabouts perhaps they could add detail.

In cycling, as well as the basic UCI-mandated appearance fee ASO pays out at the Tour, they add in an extra sum based on how many riders each team gets to Paris. So there's a performance-related bonus on top of the fixed fee all the teams get.

The revenue sharing numbers in cycling at the moment are tiny, but the principle of revenue sharing has now been entrenched. As I say, it is not all that long since teams were paying to race, now they are being paid. The numbers would probably have grown quicker in the last decade had race organisers not been hit by austerity and massively growing security costs.
 
Does it matter? The supporters have travelled to support their team. Is it important where the game is played? If it is, I should point out that Manchester City have a stadium of a far, far greater size than Burton Albion, so if home field matters you're instantly biasing it towards richer teams.
Actually it does make a HUGE difference. If one team is the home team they get the majority of the ticket sales. If it's a neutral site game ticket sales are split evenly. Fans know if they go to an away game, the home team is getting their money from ticket sales. The home team needs the money for stadium upkeep. Pittsburg Steeler fans are well known for going to games anywhere in the country, but know that if they are going to a Steeler game away from Pittsburgh the money for buying the ticket goes to whoever the home team is.
The top 5 largest stadiums for football are college stadiums and 4 of them are in the Big Ten and I promise aren't large market areas. Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State and Wisconsin. The 5th is a large market of LA, however it's USC and where the Raiders played when they were in LA. However, the city of LA owns the Colosseum and they actually take a percentage of ticket sales for upkeep of the stadium. Thus you don't need a big market to have one of the largest stadiums. Most of the NFL stadiums are actually close in seating regardless of what market they are located in.

Now when it comes to say a college home and away series and one school has a small arena they will do a neutral site game where the school with the smaller stadium is designated the home team. The "home" team does get a higher percentage, but it's more equal than if it was played at their stadium as the revenue is higher due to being in a larger stadium. Also why Division 1 A (or bowl subdivision or whatever it's now called) has a minimum number of seats required to host a game for that division.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Actually it does make a HUGE difference. If one team is the home team they get the majority of the ticket sales. If it's a neutral site game ticket sales are split evenly. Fans know if they go to an away game, the home team is getting their money from ticket sales. The home team needs the money for stadium upkeep. Pittsburg Steeler fans are well known for going to games anywhere in the country, but know that if they are going to a Steeler game away from Pittsburgh the money for buying the ticket goes to whoever the home team is.
The top 5 largest stadiums for football are college stadiums and 4 of them are in the Big Ten and I promise aren't large market areas. Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State and Wisconsin. The 5th is a large market of LA, however it's USC and where the Raiders played when they were in LA. However, the city of LA owns the Colosseum and they actually take a percentage of ticket sales for upkeep of the stadium. Thus you don't need a big market to have one of the largest stadiums. Most of the NFL stadiums are actually close in seating regardless of what market they are located in.

Now when it comes to say a college home and away series and one school has a small arena they will do a neutral site game where the school with the smaller stadium is designated the home team. The "home" team does get a higher percentage, but it's more equal than if it was played at their stadium as the revenue is higher due to being in a larger stadium. Also why Division 1 A (or bowl subdivision or whatever it's now called) has a minimum number of seats required to host a game for that division.
You realise it was an abstract point don’t you? I know what currently happens I’m most sports I care about and I’m capable of using Google to find out about other sports if I need to.

Maybe this is simpler. If I pay to go and support my team, why should the other team get any of that money? Why can’t my money, and the money of the other fans of my team, go to my team and the other team gets the money from their fans?

If I buy merchandise from my team should every other team get a cut? If not why are tickets to see Games any different?
 
You realise it was an abstract point don’t you? I know what currently happens I’m most sports I care about and I’m capable of using Google to find out about other sports if I need to.

Maybe this is simpler. If I pay to go and support my team, why should the other team get any of that money? Why can’t my money, and the money of the other fans of my team, go to my team and the other team gets the money from their fans?

If I buy merchandise from my team should every other team get a cut? If not why are tickets to see Games any different?

You do remember that visiting teams get a certain number of tickets to sell to their fans, correct? Why shouldn't they then get a percentage of the ticket sales since they get some of the tickets to sell? It's also fairly well known that the home team will not have the entire stadium as exclusively their fans. However, the home team does get all money from luxury box sales which is more than what ticket sales for regular seats are going to come to, especially in the newer stadiums. This is revenue cycling will never have.....well road cycling. Obviously track cycling is a different story. Which leads me to a question about the Tour of California using Laguna Seca raceway to finish a stage. They could sell tickets for the stands at the finish line as a source of revenue for the overall race or specifically for that stage.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
This is revenue cycling will never have.....well road cycling. Obviously track cycling is a different story. Which leads me to a question about the Tour of California using Laguna Seca raceway to finish a stage. They could sell tickets for the stands at the finish line as a source of revenue for the overall race or specifically for that stage.
You do realise that this already happens at races, don't you?
 
Each NFL team receives $255 miilion from tv revenue. Pretty easy to be successful with that money
Ask the NY Jets about that. What it does is levels the playing field so the large market teams don't have a huge advantage that small market teams have no way of making up. A level playing field is exactly what pro cycling does NOT have.
 
By the way, I am surprised that Richmond didn't construct temporary stands in certain locations and sell tickets for those.
From the Richmond website:
Total direct visitor spending was estimated to be $74.6 million in the Richmond market and $75.7 million in Virginia. (The figure excludes visitor spending that was paid to Richmond 2015 organizers, such as ticket and merchandise sales.)
 
Reactions: Koronin
Worth watching for the Yorkshire fanzones over the next week and how busy they are.
So, it turns out that all bar one of the Yorkshire fanzones are free. The one that's not free? The finish line. Deets here:

https://bookhospitality.com/collections/select-your-package

Packages running from £95 to £795.

Edit: For American readers, Richmond had two ticketed fanzones, at the finish and on Libby Hill, with prices running from $150 to $475

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/experience-the-uci-road-world-championships-tickets-17172522477#
 
Last edited:
Ladies and gents, you all know the forum rules, they aren’t too difficult to understand.

One member has been banned, Any further issues I have no problem giving other people some time off and even locking the thread if we continue to have problems.
 
Reactions: Koronin
You do remember that visiting teams get a certain number of tickets to sell to their fans, correct? Why shouldn't they then get a percentage of the ticket sales since they get some of the tickets to sell? It's also fairly well known that the home team will not have the entire stadium as exclusively their fans. However, the home team does get all money from luxury box sales which is more than what ticket sales for regular seats are going to come to, especially in the newer stadiums. This is revenue cycling will never have.....well road cycling. Obviously track cycling is a different story. Which leads me to a question about the Tour of California using Laguna Seca raceway to finish a stage. They could sell tickets for the stands at the finish line as a source of revenue for the overall race or specifically for that stage.
You’re not even reading posts now are you? The answer to your first question was literally in my post which you quoted.
 
Ask the NY Jets about that. What it does is levels the playing field so the large market teams don't have a huge advantage that small market teams have no way of making up. A level playing field is exactly what pro cycling does NOT have.
Even the Jets make money though. And that is what it's all about in NFL.
 
So, it turns out that all bar one of the Yorkshire fanzones are free. The one that's not free? The finish line. Deets here:

https://bookhospitality.com/collections/select-your-package

Packages running from £95 to £795.

Edit: For American readers, Richmond had two ticketed fanzones, at the finish and on Libby Hill, with prices running from $150 to $475

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/experience-the-uci-road-world-championships-tickets-17172522477#
To continue this as it's the most sensible line of discussion. Hopefully fmk_RoI will correct any mistakes I make in reading the accounts, I'm not great at it:

The Richmond World Championships (and all of the other WCs, I can't find a breakdown of them based on discipline) netted the UCI ~10 million USD. This seems like a reasonable amount, but in reality it's a tiny amount if it's going to be shared. This is also not the full story, as in 2015 the UCI operated at a loss of ~1 million USD. While it's possible that the RRWC made some of that 10 million it's hard to break down, especially as several of the other events will be 100% ticketed (track WC, MTB XC and DH, BMX and so one). It's also likely that the road WCs are significantly more expensive to organise, they may even run at a loss.



To try and get the discussion back on track. We have discussed the following:


TV Revenue sharing - This already happens in many cases. Teams are paid appearance fees, accommodation costs are picked up etc. No one has ever been able to show that there is a big enough market to make more money this way. In fact, the data shows the opposite with races being part of TV bundles not being shown by the channels that buy them.

Ticketing - This already happens (whether events use grandstands or not...) and still doesn't make much money. If people won't watch races on TV they're unlikely to pay to watch 15-30 seconds of action on the finish line.

Merchandising - This already happens. The team with the largest backroom management were able to contribute a small but fairly significant amount to Rapha's bottom line. The money they got from it isn't known as far as I'm aware, but it's probably not large. No one has shown that there is a market for this. One Pro cycling attempted to build a team based on a model where supporters, similar to team sports, were meant to get involved which would have provided a lot of merchandising opportunities. They folded. Team names are dependent on sponsors, I can't see many people wanting to walk around in an AG2R La Mondiale t-shirt, or any other t-shirt which makes you look like you're an employee of that company for that matter.

Sponsorship - This was actually a really interesting discussion, mainly because someone who actually sponsors a team involved themselves, and we found out that, to their knowledge, there is only really 1 team that does this properly and they get the most sponsorship. Results don't really matter (which is very interesting) and it would seem that this is the most likely way of bringing more money into cycling.

Budget/Salary caps - These have been discussed and I've seem no evidence that this increases competition in the leagues cited, results don't hold up to scrutiny.



There have been many more discussions in here, hopefully we can get back on track.
 
To a very, very, very small extent. Unless of course you could put an entire race inside an actual race course, or construct stands on a circuit course.
Apart from the purpose-built cycling circuits at Krylatskoye Ring and Izu, however, I can't name any that were built fully for cycling, and safety concerns and changes in logistics have meant that the sprawling, extensive motor racing circuits of sufficient length to make a cycling circuit that isn't going to see half the field lapped are few in number now.

There are a number of occasions in the past where the World Championships have used motor racing venues - I may have missed one or two but I think this is comprehensive:
Where a motor racing venue comprised the entire course: 1927 Nürburgring, 1954 Solingen (Klingenring), 1960 Karl-Marx-Stadt (Sachsenring), 1965 San Sebastián (Circuito Lasarte-Oria), 1966 Nürburgring, 1969 (amateurs) Brno (Masaryk Ring) and 1978 Nürburgring.
Where a circuit incorporated the motor racing venue for start/finish but also used surrounding roads to extend course/add obstacles: 1958 Reims-Gueux, 1959 Zandvoort, 1968 Imola, 1969 (professionals) Zolder, 1970 Leicester (Mallory Park), 1973 Barcelona (Montjuïc Park) and 2002 Zolder.
Where a circuit did not start/finish at a motor racing venue but nevertheless incorporated part of it within the course: 1962 Salò di Garda and 1982 Goodwood.

Of those courses where a motor racing venue comprised the entire course, the Nürburgring is the only one which is a permanent road course, not one which utilized public roads. The Klingenring and Circuito Lasarte-Oria have long since passed into disuse, while the Sachsenring has been reprofiled like Spa-Francorchamps into a shorter course, and a brand new permanent facility has been built in the 1980s within the confines of the old Masaryk-Ring, so the roads are still there but the amenities have all gone to the new course. Of the courses where the motor racing venue was incorporated, Reims-Gueux and Montjuïc Park were street circuits which have since passed into disuse, Salò di Garda was a motorcycle street circuit which was different to the Worlds course but included some of the same stretches, while Zandvoort has been significantly shortened and extensively reprofiled since, leaving just Imola, Zolder and the two British venues (neither of which are in regular use anymore for competitive motorsport, though the latter retains its stands for the Goodwood Festival of Speed, a heritage event). The Imola circuit has been resurrected twice in the Giro in recent years and Zolder can raise money from selling stand seating for its cyclocross events to supplement any interest in road.

Purpose-built motor racing venues are simply not of sufficient length to host major event type bike racing other than as a stage finish, and I'm not sure you could really justify the expenditure of paying for grandstand seating if you're only going to see the riders come by once for a sprint finish such as, say, Motorland Aragón in the Vuelta in 2012; Laguna Seca at least got some time gaps, but even so the action was at the top of the hill, into the Corkscrew, not at the finish line. Everywhere else that paid stands and paid fan zones have been implemented - Richmond, Box Hill and so on - the riders have passed multiple times and the sites have either been the known decisive part of the course or the finish (and realistically if we're getting fans to pay for stadium seating at a motor racing venue, it's going to be the finish). I know that the Ronde van Vlaanderen has had some success with getting paying customers for only seeing the action two or three times on the Paterberg and Oude Kwaremont, but that's in a race with >100 years of history and those being already-established iconic locations. Similarly to Laguna Seca, you could have finishes at circuits with significant elevation change that has the opportunity to create an exciting final few kilometres, such as İstanbul Park, Autopolis, Portimão, Red Bull Ring or Road Atlanta - the latter of which was also used in the Tour of Georgia to host a time trial - which is also frequently what motorsport courses are used for in stage racing, such as Miller Motorsports Park in the Tour of Utah or TT Circuit Assen in the Vuelta in 2009 - though both of these have their drawbacks as options for driving the profitability potential of staging a race (if the stage just finishes at the circuit, it's hard to justify the expenditure if you only see the riders once, and while a TT lets you see all the riders, it's also the most limited as a spectacle for the audience when it is viewing from a distance as it would be up in the stands).

Reasonably-speaking, to host a stage race you would not want to have a circuit so short that people are getting pulled from the course for getting lapped (imagine surviving a 40-minute time cut in the mountains, then being eliminated for being lapped on a 3km circuit in a flat stage), and likewise to host a one-day race of the highest level you'd want a reasonably long circuit (I think for a championship of any real level, 11-12km is the minimum), and there are no fully permanent motor racing courses of that length nowadays. The Nürburgring is the exception, as it always has been, but everything else is either incorporating a mix of permanent and temporary facilities, such as the Le Mans Circuit de la Sarthe, temporary in extremis, such as the Isle of Man Mountain Course, or has either been reprofiled into a shorter course (Sachsenring, Spa-Francorchamps, Schleizer Dreieck, Charade) or fallen into disuse (Reims-Gueux, Pescara, Schottenring, Solitudering). Interlagos might hold the Copa América de Ciclismo, but there we're talking a pretty small-scale event. Likewise, short flat circuits are not such a problem in short stage races that don't really have any history or prestige, such as the Yas Marina Circuit in the Tour of Abu Dhabi, at least if they're the final stage. We have seen them in some longer ones, but not with any great effect (Barcelona-Montmeló in the Volta a Catalunya, for example).

As a result, you'd have to look at that second group, courses where you could incorporate part of the current permanent facility along with the roads surrounding the area to create a challenging course. Spa is a perfect opportunity because while the course was reprofiled in the late 1970s, it was still partly public roads from Stavelot through Blanchimont to La Source, and then from La Source through Eau Rouge-Radillon and down the Kemmel Straight until the mid 2000s, and so the connection to the old Spa course is still there, and you could have a Worlds/Euros championship race on the old Spa circuit as a result. Imola, as we know, still offers those opportunities and with differing numbers of circuits provides different results - the two winners in recent Giri there have been Ilnur Zakarin and Sam Bennett, not especially similar rider types! Another great example would be the Mount Panorama Circuit in Australia, although that's technically fully a street circuit; it's just over 6km long, but connects fully to the town of Bathurst outside it - however the section of circuit that you'd skip would be the home straight, with the stands in it, which rather limits the usefulness of the course for driving income from sale of grandstand seating! Circuit de la Sarthe would work for this, as the full course is 13,6km in length, but it is however predominantly flat. The Circuit de Charade is perhaps more suited, but even then, while we could extend from the present 4km circuit to the old course which was very hilly and technical in the Puys of the Auvergne, it was still only 8km in length and would require some extension - after all, there do remain some legacy circuits which are up in the 7-8km range which could feasibly be options if we were going to accept that as a distance - Spa's new layout is 7km, Road America is 6,5km, and Potrero de los Funes is 6,3km, all of which feature significant elevation changes and could produce some interesting racing, what with Road America's uphill dart to the line, and Potrero's set of switchbacks finishing 1km from the line.

Other options are of course being explored elsewhere - the 2020 Olympic Road Race will incorporate Fuji Speedway, postponing the Super GT 500miles of Fuji for the season, meaning there will be no "true" endurance race in the Super GT season next year, unfortunately, with the 1000km Suzuka falling out of their jurisdiction now. The circuit designed looks interestingly hilly, although the unnecessary and somewhat insulting disparity between the complexity of the men's and women's races has drawn much-deserved criticism, with the organisers and the UCI falling on the old Tour of California trick of claiming that the height metres compensates for a lack of selective obstacles - though I'm not sure why they wouldn't just use the Izu facility as that always generates good racing and would certainly merit the entrance fee to sit in the grandstands more than the speedway, which will only see the men twice mid-race and then once at the finish.

A lot of modern facilities do not have the direct connection to the outside roads that enable them to be used with that connectivity that Imola, Zolder, Goodwood and so on have had, but there are definitely possibilities out there. Le Castellet (Circuit Paul Ricard) could make an interesting stage finish in Paris-Nice or the Tour, located as it is in hills between La Ciotat and Toulon, and Mugello's location in the Apennines with its proximity to the Passo del Giogo, the Passo della Futa and Colla di Casaglia among several smaller climbs makes it a very enticing proposition also. In Britain, the Brands Hatch circuit in Kent would be close enough to London to attract a good crowd and presumably be much cheaper than closing central London roads for the Tour of Britain - the circuit is short but it has tarmacked entry and exit points and is in a range of small hills similar to those used in the London Olympic Road Race. Spain held stages of the Volta a Catalunya at Montmeló, and Circuit de Navarra at Los Arcos has hosted the Vuelta a couple of times, but both are in relatively geographically uninteresting areas of otherwise promising race locations. The Autodromo Internacional de Algarve in Portimão would be promising for the Volta ao Algarve or maybe a Portugal (I did consider it for a prologue of the Vuelta in a prospective Race Design Thread design) because it has a lot of elevation changes - all only 200m or so in length but it's a real rollercoaster of a motor racing circuit, worse than Sonoma or Inje Speedium. It could also appear as a finish directly off a descent of the Serra de Monchique/Foia climb that has been used in the Volta ao Algarve in recent years - though a circuit introducing that would be around 40-50km in length.

Some more complex street circuits could be incorporated into longer circuits around the surrounding area potentially, a bit like the Monaco ITT in the 2009 Tour de France. These areas frequently utilise temporary seating, although some, such as the Norisring in Germany, use existing stanchions. Even so, the infrastructure to bring in that temporary seating is there, so it would be relatively doable. The Pau street circuit includes a steep but short climb and is renowned as a technical challenge for drivers, while Macau's Guia Circuit is the stuff of legend. The recent fad for part-permanent, part-temporary circuits, borne out of (often oil-rich) countries trying to buy themselves some popularity with a glamorous location trying to feed off of what people love about other people's circuits, offers other possibilities, such as Singapore's Marina Bay Street Circuit and the Baku Street Circuit which has some similarities to the course used for the 2015 European Games Road Race.
 
Maybe this is simpler. If I pay to go and support my team, why should the other team get any of that money? Why can’t my money, and the money of the other fans of my team, go to my team and the other team gets the money from their fans?

If I buy merchandise from my team should every other team get a cut? If not why are tickets to see Games any different?
Because the other team is part of spectacle you are paying for. If you and your team don't want to share the money with other teams, the team can organise a match between two teams of their own players and sell tickets for it. But that wouldn't attract anywhere near as much interest, would it? Then you see that without the other team, the value of the sporting event would drop dramatically, so it's fair to reward the other team too.
 
Because the other team is part of spectacle you are paying for. If you and your team don't want to share the money with other teams, the team can organise a match between two teams of their own players and sell tickets for it. But that wouldn't attract anywhere near as much interest, would it? Then you see that without the other team, the value of the sporting event would drop dramatically, so it's fair to reward the other team too.
Did you read my post? The other team gets rewarded, by their fans.
 
Reactions: veganrob
As a general principle, I would say that revenue sharing deals should be a mix of a fixed share, with a performance-related element on top. In the Premier League, they add an extra kink, which is that the highest earning team can't earn X% more than the lowest earning team.

IIRC the Concorde Agreement, it isn't as fair and has built-in advantages for certain teams. If there's any petrol-heads herabouts perhaps they could add detail.

In cycling, as well as the basic UCI-mandated appearance fee ASO pays out at the Tour, they add in an extra sum based on how many riders each team gets to Paris. So there's a performance-related bonus on top of the fixed fee all the teams get.

The revenue sharing numbers in cycling at the moment are tiny, but the principle of revenue sharing has now been entrenched. As I say, it is not all that long since teams were paying to race, now they are being paid. The numbers would probably have grown quicker in the last decade had race organisers not been hit by austerity and massively growing security costs.
This seems fair, or at least a fairly accepted model.

They seem to vary quite a lot depending on the sport. The NBA has a system where each team gets given a share equal to the salary cap (or did, I'd have to check this is still up to date). The smaller market teams have to earn, I think, 70% of the average of all teams to get their full share. This means the performance as a business is what is incentivised, rather than performance as a team (although they are obviously intertwined). Of course, the claims that equal TV revenue sharing has made teams more competitive and more stable need to be investigated. In 2017 14 of 30 teams lost money before receiving their share of revenue, and 9 still lost money after getting it. I've not read much on it as I only bothered looking when American leagues were being thrown around as the be all and end all of stable, competitive sports management, but it seems that one factor is how the less well performing teams are run as a business. This goes directly back to what we have learned in this thread about cycling teams. It helps reinforce the idea that if a team wants to succeed it needs to get both the sporting and the business side right, and possibly points out that the business side is more important.

There's also a discussion to had about whether these small markets should even be trying to support teams at all. Would moving, say, the Grizzlies out of Memphis and into a larger Market make more sense? Would they then be able to make more money and support a better quality league elsewhere? Does this matter? Should bigger teams financially prop up the smaller ones and how does this relate to cycling? All our focus is on the WT at the moment, but should we be looking at some sort of model that sports the lower ranks of Pro-Conti, Conti etc?

I think you're right about the Concorde Agreement. I'm sure I read recently that Ferrari usually receive the most money, despite not winning the Constructors Championship for 10 years, or the Drivers Championship for 11 years.

I'd argue that the extra sum is more based on the added costs of getting extra riders to Paris, unless the amount paid varies based on where all riders finish in the GC?


Implementing the right kind of revenue sharing now would help teams develop as businesses and project earnings forward, making them more attractive to sponsors. Is this needed in cycling? Possibly not.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts