This may not seem like a Clinic thread but it's hard to separate the money from the doping and really we do need to talk about the money in professional cycling, so expect the doping to be brought in here pretty quickly.
We need to begin with something simple so let's begin with the 1980s. But, before doing that, let's acknowledge something: what this is about is not a new problem, it's an age old problem. Back at the start of the twentieth century, Henri Desgrange time and again got the hump with the major manufacturers and the way their money influenced the outcome of his races through the original super teams (Alycon, Peugeot etc), which is why - in a fit of pique - he switched the Tour from trade teams to national teams in 1930. And in Italy, earlier in the 1920s, the Italian manufacturers had tried to blackmail the Giro d'Italia into paying them appearance fees, only to lose when one of their members broke ranks and when La Gazzetta hit upon a PR wheeze we're still talking about all these years later. There was an attempt to develop a strong riders' union in the 1920s, led by Henri Pélissier, but that faltered for all the usual reasons (interpersonal politics). There was a fresh financial boom in the 50s and 60s, that introduced the idea of sprint trains (Van Looy and his Red Guard) and re-introduced the idea of super-teams (Anquetil's Ford). What happened in the 1980s, it added new elements, but in reality it was just history repeating. And that is worth remembering.
So, the 1980s, then: cycling had a financial Big Bang in the 1980s. It was obvious in Italy, with all the sponsors there and especially with the way the money poured in to Francesco Moser's Hour project. And - of course - it was obvious in France with Bernard Tapie's La Vie Claire galácticos and the slightly exaggerated story of Greg LeMond becoming cycling's first million dollar man (not only was the million spread over a period of years, I've seen it said a few times that Panasonic had reached a similar deal with Phil Anderson - if anyone has any info on that one way or the other, please, do share). It was even obvious in minnows like ANC-Halfords and 7-Eleven.
The money arrived at a time when performance in cycling was easier to monetise: Hein Verbruggen brought in the FICP ranking system and points meant more than prizes. Your value - your salary - was based on your points. (This, obviously, is one of the important areas where doping intrudes: cycling's financial Big Bang, coupled with lax UCI policies on drug testing, encouraged more riders to dope more often. Couple that with a (relatively) inexpensive drug that democratised heretofore expensive and elitist blood transfusions and you're really getting a big bang for your buck.)
Salaries shot up. Budgets swelled to follow. Things got bigger, things got bolder. With more and more money being spent more and more money had to be spent, in order to ensure optimal performance and a return (wins) on investment. More money had to be spent on team buses, more money had to be spent on training camps, more money had to be spent on the appliance of science, in all areas.
Did the sport improve at the same time? Probably, but probably not as fast. New audiences certainly came in as the long cherished dream of mondialisation became the reality of globalisation. That, though, has arguably caused one of the problems we face today: quoting Daam Van Reeth of KU Leuven in The Economics of Professional Cycling
That's all a brief and overly simplified introduction. Let's turn to a couple of recent developments.
We need to begin with something simple so let's begin with the 1980s. But, before doing that, let's acknowledge something: what this is about is not a new problem, it's an age old problem. Back at the start of the twentieth century, Henri Desgrange time and again got the hump with the major manufacturers and the way their money influenced the outcome of his races through the original super teams (Alycon, Peugeot etc), which is why - in a fit of pique - he switched the Tour from trade teams to national teams in 1930. And in Italy, earlier in the 1920s, the Italian manufacturers had tried to blackmail the Giro d'Italia into paying them appearance fees, only to lose when one of their members broke ranks and when La Gazzetta hit upon a PR wheeze we're still talking about all these years later. There was an attempt to develop a strong riders' union in the 1920s, led by Henri Pélissier, but that faltered for all the usual reasons (interpersonal politics). There was a fresh financial boom in the 50s and 60s, that introduced the idea of sprint trains (Van Looy and his Red Guard) and re-introduced the idea of super-teams (Anquetil's Ford). What happened in the 1980s, it added new elements, but in reality it was just history repeating. And that is worth remembering.
So, the 1980s, then: cycling had a financial Big Bang in the 1980s. It was obvious in Italy, with all the sponsors there and especially with the way the money poured in to Francesco Moser's Hour project. And - of course - it was obvious in France with Bernard Tapie's La Vie Claire galácticos and the slightly exaggerated story of Greg LeMond becoming cycling's first million dollar man (not only was the million spread over a period of years, I've seen it said a few times that Panasonic had reached a similar deal with Phil Anderson - if anyone has any info on that one way or the other, please, do share). It was even obvious in minnows like ANC-Halfords and 7-Eleven.
The money arrived at a time when performance in cycling was easier to monetise: Hein Verbruggen brought in the FICP ranking system and points meant more than prizes. Your value - your salary - was based on your points. (This, obviously, is one of the important areas where doping intrudes: cycling's financial Big Bang, coupled with lax UCI policies on drug testing, encouraged more riders to dope more often. Couple that with a (relatively) inexpensive drug that democratised heretofore expensive and elitist blood transfusions and you're really getting a big bang for your buck.)
Salaries shot up. Budgets swelled to follow. Things got bigger, things got bolder. With more and more money being spent more and more money had to be spent, in order to ensure optimal performance and a return (wins) on investment. More money had to be spent on team buses, more money had to be spent on training camps, more money had to be spent on the appliance of science, in all areas.
Did the sport improve at the same time? Probably, but probably not as fast. New audiences certainly came in as the long cherished dream of mondialisation became the reality of globalisation. That, though, has arguably caused one of the problems we face today: quoting Daam Van Reeth of KU Leuven in The Economics of Professional Cycling
So, today, we have a sport caught between two worlds and unsure of where it belongs. And we have the age-old power play - for this is all the economics of it is all about, power - that Benjo Masso talked about in Sweat of the Gods, cycling's game of thrones in which the race organisers, the team owners, the riders and the governing bodies all fight to be the in charge, a fight that - historically - the race organisers have long been the winners in and the governing bodies have only recently (in the last three or four decades) become major players in.cycling at the top level has become too global (and thus too expensive) for smaller local sponsors but, at the same time, is not global enough for big multinational companies.
That's all a brief and overly simplified introduction. Let's turn to a couple of recent developments.
Last edited: