General News Thread

Page 605 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Tour de Suisse
images
 
The Tour de Suisse has officially decided to stop being a proper WT race.

A sad day for a race full of history.

Definitely stinks of that OneCycling crap that want to give us a more elitist sport with less race days where only the big teams get opportunities to shine. And I still think that they would love to shorten the Giro and Vuelta to two weeks.
 
A sad day for a race full of history.

Definitely stinks of that OneCycling crap that want to give us a more elitist sport with less race days where only the big teams get opportunities to shine. And I still think that they would love to shorten the Giro and Vuelta to two weeks.
Apparently it is because the Tour de Suisse is in financial trouble and has been for the last few years.
 
it will keep it's official status. The posts were more about the race losing its soul, I think.

According to an article on Blick, the budget will be reduced from 9 to 6 million (CHF, I guess), by the way. This year's edition resulted in a six-digit deficit, and the race is unsure to survive. A potential merge with the Tour de Romandie is currently not possible.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
At the end of the day, I suppose it doesn't really matter what classification it'll be, as long as it's televised.

A much bigger concern - as I see it - is the risk that by running the races parallel, the women's race could "drown".
I think it's good they run it in parallel. Reduces the cost of hosting multiple races at different times, and they can sell the television rights as a package.
 
Big, historic teams in trouble, big, historic races in trouble. Anyone still claiming the sport is in good health is deluding themselves.
Teams are in trouble because of competition from other teams with increased budgets. That's exactly how good times look. With open entry, the more dysfunctional teams get outcompeted by better newcomers.

Tudor, Q36.5, Uno-X, Ag2r, and Astana are on the rise. Cofidis deserves to get squeezed with how they have performed.

Israel too has turned around from a retirement home to developing talents. Their problem is not how they perform relative to their budget.
 
Teams are in trouble because of competition from other teams with increased budgets. That's exactly how good times look. With open entry, the more dysfunctional teams get outcompeted by better newcomers.

Tudor, Q36.5, Uno-X, Ag2r, and Astana are on the rise. Cofidis deserves to get squeezed with how they have performed.

Israel too has turned around from a retirement home to developing talents. Their problem is not how they perform relative to their budget.
Would you say that Alpecin, Intermarché and Lotto have been outcompeted in this cycle? Because all three are struggling to find sponsors, which is why the latter two are merging. Arkéa's performances also did not really dip prior to both sponsors pulling out. The only team in acute financial trouble where you can level the dysfunctionality criticism is Total.
 
Would you say that Alpecin, Intermarché and Lotto have been outcompeted in this cycle? Because all three are struggling to find sponsors, which is why the latter two are merging. Arkéa's performances also did not really dip prior to both sponsors pulling out. The only team in acute financial trouble where you can level the dysfunctionality criticism is Total.
My impression is that they struggle to increase their budgets as other teams bid up riders' wages.

In the aggregate, sponsors invest more in the sport and the wage of riders increase in real terms. So stagnant or modestly increasing budgets get a team fewer good riders than before, so the more tight sponsors are driven out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
My impression is that they struggle to increase their budgets as other teams bid up riders' wages.
All teams listed are/were facing a drop in budget because of one or multiple sponsors pulling out and no replacement being found. That's a very different story than 'struggling to increase their budget'. Post-formation of Tudor and Q36 ahead of the 2023 season, there have simply been fewer sponsors stepping into the sport than quitting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece
All teams listed are/were facing a drop in budget because of one or multiple sponsors pulling out and no replacement being found. That's a very different story than 'struggling to increase their budget'. Post-formation of Tudor and Q36 ahead of the 2023 season, there have simply been fewer sponsors stepping into the sport than quitting it.
And yet ... RedBull, Ag2r et al. more than make up for it. It's a dynamic system and some will lose out and make way for others.
 
And the answer is to give teams money from TV income? Yeah, that will work, less money for the organizers! Maybe the opposite is necessary? Have the team-sponsors pay a fee to the organizers for the advertisement!
You are assigning an opinion to me that I do not hold. At all.

In my view, the primary issue is that the massive inequality between the haves and the have-nots is sucking the sport dry. A big part of that is because the gap between the best riders and the rest is unprecedentedly massive, and that's not really something you can do much about. However, it does mean that a) it's harder for everyone else to get big results at big races and thereby harder to give your sponsor the same level of exposure as before, and b) viewership numbers are falling in a lot of countries which further drives down exposure. So the value for money of sponsoring any but the biggest teams has decreased.

And then the issue is compounded by the second string of riders (let's say 6th through 30th/40th best in the world) increasingly being concentrated in the biggest teams, which means there is a second layer to the inequality. It makes it harder still to get the results sponsors want and it makes everything even more predictable which further hurts viewership numbers. And this is something that can absolutely be addressed - there are very few companies that can compete with the sovereign wealth funds of a rich petrostate, so even without getting into moral reasons you should ban sponsorship by such a state on sporting grounds alone. It's nowhere near a panacea, but it would at least push things back in the direction of balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ilmaestro99

TRENDING THREADS