Globalisation

[simo1733]

As a British cyclist living in Asia I can see many benefits to the mondialisation of the sport.I am impressed by the progress made by the Malaysian program,and have enjoyed watching a British team compete in the protour for the first time.Despite that I am worried.Maybe the day is not far off when there are no french or Italian teams in the protour, and wouldn't that be a terrible thing?

 

[Marcus135]

No that would not be bad at all. Yes the sport may have started there but it is good for the sport to develop. It should be a challenge for all teams to make the proteam level not just a given because of the country of origin. If they have a good enough team they will be pro its other countries time to stand up and move into the sport.

 

[simo1733]

Well sport is survival of the fittest so I suppose you are right. I wouldn't want cycling to end up like F1 though.In F1 even countries with absolutely zero motorsport background can come straight into the sport at the highest level as long as they throw enough money at it!

 

[brianf7]

Instead of the old 8 month season now it is 12 months so it all needs extra planning .
But it is getting good with some great classic races in all countries.
New Zealand just finishing a big tour and the Tour down under ready for January. not much time to get into the Cristmas Pud.

 

[Marcus135]

Well sport is survival of the fittest so I suppose you are right. I wouldn't want cycling to end up like F1 though.In F1 even countries with absolutely zero motorsport background can come straight into the sport at the highest level as long as they throw enough money at it!

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

 

[rhubroma]

As long as the biggest races remain in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Holland, I don't think you need to worry much.

 

[Marcus135]

As long as the biggest races remain in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Holland, I don't think you need to worry much.

I think a lot of big races will move out of europe (as in new ones starting overseas) but the big 3 GT will stay there...

 

[ak-zaaf]

I think a lot of big races will move out of europe (as in new ones starting overseas) but the big 3 GT will stay there...

How is a race like Liege-Bastogne-Liege going to move out of Europe?
Or Milan - Sanremo?
How would that even be possible?

These races will always be the biggest because of their history.


This sport will stay predominantly European. The fans are here, the races are here, the history is here.

 

[simo1733]

As long as the biggest races remain in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Holland, I don't think you need to worry much.

France may not have a pro tour team as early as next season.

 

[rhubroma]

I think a lot of big races will move out of europe (as in new ones starting overseas) but the big 3 GT will stay there...

I don't see overseas races replacing the Classics either. The core of the sport will remain in Europe, I think, or else it will loose its traditions and therefore soul.

 

[rhubroma]

France may not have a pro tour team as early as next season.

I think France may be the exception because they haven't produced top riders since the 80's, with the exception of Virenque, Dufeaux and Le Blanc.

Italy, Belgium, Holland and Spain are still forming teams. Inevitably, however, with the globalized corporate world more overseas sponsors will replace the Euro ones. This doesn't mean, though, that they will all be replaced.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

As long as kids in Europe and elsewhere are being inspired by cyclists, they'll want to emulate their heroes' achievements. What races did their heroes win? The classic European races. Even when this next generation grow up with races like California and the TDU, they'll grow up to a péloton that only cares patriotically about races like this, and in which the classic European races are still considered the most important. Look at F1 for evidence - yes, classic European races are disappearing from the calendar in favour of new venues that have no character, history, that provide dull racing and that no fans turn up to... but what do the DRIVERS want to win? They value a race win at Monaco, Monza, Spa, Silverstone or Interlagos more highly than those at Sakhir, Abu Dhabi, Shanghai and the like. The races at the classic venues are better in quality and attract more fans, while the sport's main infrastructure is in Europe and as a result so are most of the drivers.

I see cycling as being rather similar; the sport's base is, and will forever be, in Europe; as long as the monuments, GTs and most of the teams are based there (even the US ProTour teams have operating bases in Europe). The main thing with globalisation is about improving race infrastructure to create 'flyaway' top races like the way the Japanese and Australian GPs did in F1, and about improving the continental scenes outside of Europe in order to better be a) self-sufficient like the South American scenes and b) better feeder series, for want of a better word, for the big leagues. The big leagues may have more 'flyaway' races than they did in the past (California, Colorado, Quebec/Montréal, TDU etc) but the core of the season will forever be based around San Remo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liège, Giro, Tour, Vuelta, Worlds, Lombardia. All of these races have their relevant warmup events, and those will continue to thrive - Tirreno, Omloop, Scheldeprijs, Flèche, Trentino, Dauphiné, Suisse, Burgos, Emilia - because it's much better to practice for a race in a similar environment and over similar territory, than in wildly different territory. This is why California may work in May but would not work in mid-June, because the Dauphiné is much more viable as Tour training since it's using the same area.

The other thing is that new races seldom have any character and unique charm; they have to find something that works and stick to it. California is a perfect example; it has so much potential to be a good race, but instead of showcase what California has to offer, it wants to ape the Tour. The Tour has become what it is because a) it has the most history and prestige, and b) it is in France, the geography and history of which has caused it to have the characteristics that it has. This is another thing that we should learn from F1 - a lot of the new tracks have come in with certain faddish ideas - "we want a harbourfront section like Monaco, an Eau Rouge-like corner, etc etc". They think that by aping things that people like about other races, this will instantly make them acceptable to the fans. But it doesn't; we want new circuits to have their own character, to be unique, not to be pale imitations of an older, better, more prestigious circuit. And so it is with the "mini-Alpe d'Huez", "similar to Alpe d'Huez", "as tough as Alpe d'Huez" garbage put out about climbs for the Tour of California. The Tour of California should concentrate on being the best possible Tour of California, not on finding things to compare to the Alpe. You know why the Alpe is like it is? Because it's in France. These passes and roads were built at a different time, in a different style, by completely different people. Why does everything have to be a version of something in the Tour? Why would people want to watch a pale imitation of the Tour? California should offer something that is uniquely Californian, that only California can offer. Make the race tougher, not be afraid of not having such huge names, and utilise the geography of the state. There's a ton of potential there, it's just not being used.

My biggest gripe with "globalisation" to date is that it hasn't been globalisation at all, it's been "expanding into the Anglophone markets". The current growth in Colombia and Brazil is their own making, not the UCI's, and Asia and Africa still lag far behind. Where's the golden egg treatment for Langkawi or Qinghai Lake? Why haven't THEY been given the California treatment? Another major problem with that is that a lot of the expansion into the Anglophone markets has come with the boom associated with the rise of Lance Armstrong. Not that that's a bad thing - if you have something hot, then you market it. But we have no idea how the sport will cope when he's gone. In France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands... we know the sport will continue at the same level. Those guys have always loved their cycling. But cycling in the "new" lands (which of course are not new as cycling nations, but in terms of the current boom period are) has been very willing to rely on the Armstrong factor. Look at the TDU. Getting Armstrong in in 2009 caused a huge spike in attendance and viewing figures. But the improvement from 2009-10 was negligible. And so much of the marketing and focus was on Armstrong, that they've neglected to really make much of the audience care about anybody else in the péloton. What then happens when Armstrong retires? Do they drop back to their previous attendance and audience figures? Will that lose them sponsors? These are questions that have to be asked. Is the growth of California as a race a byproduct of the Armstrong factor bringing in sponsors? Hopefully it isn't, and the race can survive and thrive. Much like Germany and Great Britain, interest in the sport seems to be rather contingent on American successes, so if we go through a period where success is hard to come by (say van Garderen or Phinney doesn't live up to his potential - since there's nobody of the same kind of level in the middle age group between Lance's generation who will all retire soon and their generation of youngsters), will the fans still show up to see foreign stars coming around and - unless the race changes somewhat - not really giving a damn?

 

[Marcus135]

I don't see overseas races replacing the Classics either. The core of the sport will remain in Europe, I think, or else it will loose its traditions and therefore soul.

Core will always be Europe no doubt

 

[The Hitch]

Finally a thread about globalisation which talks about places like Asia, where the sport does need to be expanded. The orient is where this thing of ours could be succesful.

Usually these threads just talk about Australia. This despite the fact that Australia is already far more globalised with regard to cycling than most european countries and the fact that its population is quite small compared to that of say, Asia and Africa put together.

Predictably those threads are all started by Australians.

 

[The Hitch]

As long as kids in Europe and elsewhere are being inspired by cyclists, they'll want to emulate their heroes' achievements. What races did their heroes win? The classic European races. Even when this next generation grow up with races like California and the TDU, they'll grow up to a péloton that only cares patriotically about races like this, and in which the classic European races are still considered the most important. Look at F1 for evidence - yes, classic European races are disappearing from the calendar in favour of new venues that have no character, history, that provide dull racing and that no fans turn up to... but what do the DRIVERS want to win? They value a race win at Monaco, Monza, Spa, Silverstone or Interlagos more highly than those at Sakhir, Abu Dhabi, Shanghai and the like. The races at the classic venues are better in quality and attract more fans, while the sport's main infrastructure is in Europe and as a result so are most of the drivers.

I see cycling as being rather similar; the sport's base is, and will forever be, in Europe; as long as the monuments, GTs and most of the teams are based there (even the US ProTour teams have operating bases in Europe). The main thing with globalisation is about improving race infrastructure to create 'flyaway' top races like the way the Japanese and Australian GPs did in F1, and about improving the continental scenes outside of Europe in order to better be a) self-sufficient like the South American scenes and b) better feeder series, for want of a better word, for the big leagues. The big leagues may have more 'flyaway' races than they did in the past (California, Colorado, Quebec/Montréal, TDU etc) but the core of the season will forever be based around San Remo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liège, Giro, Tour, Vuelta, Worlds, Lombardia. All of these races have their relevant warmup events, and those will continue to thrive - Tirreno, Omloop, Scheldeprijs, Flèche, Trentino, Dauphiné, Suisse, Burgos, Emilia - because it's much better to practice for a race in a similar environment and over similar territory, than in wildly different territory. This is why California may work in May but would not work in mid-June, because the Dauphiné is much more viable as Tour training since it's using the same area.

The other thing is that new races seldom have any character and unique charm; they have to find something that works and stick to it. California is a perfect example; it has so much potential to be a good race, but instead of showcase what California has to offer, it wants to ape the Tour. The Tour has become what it is because a) it has the most history and prestige, and b) it is in France, the geography and history of which has caused it to have the characteristics that it has. This is another thing that we should learn from F1 - a lot of the new tracks have come in with certain faddish ideas - "we want a harbourfront section like Monaco, an Eau Rouge-like corner, etc etc". They think that by aping things that people like about other races, this will instantly make them acceptable to the fans. But it doesn't; we want new circuits to have their own character, to be unique, not to be pale imitations of an older, better, more prestigious circuit. And so it is with the "mini-Alpe d'Huez", "similar to Alpe d'Huez", "as tough as Alpe d'Huez" garbage put out about climbs for the Tour of California. The Tour of California should concentrate on being the best possible Tour of California, not on finding things to compare to the Alpe. You know why the Alpe is like it is? Because it's in France. These passes and roads were built at a different time, in a different style, by completely different people. Why does everything have to be a version of something in the Tour? Why would people want to watch a pale imitation of the Tour? California should offer something that is uniquely Californian, that only California can offer. Make the race tougher, not be afraid of not having such huge names, and utilise the geography of the state. There's a ton of potential there, it's just not being used.

My biggest gripe with "globalisation" to date is that it hasn't been globalisation at all, it's been "expanding into the Anglophone markets". The current growth in Colombia and Brazil is their own making, not the UCI's, and Asia and Africa still lag far behind. Where's the golden egg treatment for Langkawi or Qinghai Lake? Why haven't THEY been given the California treatment? Another major problem with that is that a lot of the expansion into the Anglophone markets has come with the boom associated with the rise of Lance Armstrong. Not that that's a bad thing - if you have something hot, then you market it. But we have no idea how the sport will cope when he's gone. In France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands... we know the sport will continue at the same level. Those guys have always loved their cycling. But cycling in the "new" lands (which of course are not new as cycling nations, but in terms of the current boom period are) has been very willing to rely on the Armstrong factor. Look at the TDU. Getting Armstrong in in 2009 caused a huge spike in attendance and viewing figures. But the improvement from 2009-10 was negligible. And so much of the marketing and focus was on Armstrong, that they've neglected to really make much of the audience care about anybody else in the péloton. What then happens when Armstrong retires? Do they drop back to their previous attendance and audience figures? Will that lose them sponsors? These are questions that have to be asked. Is the growth of California as a race a byproduct of the Armstrong factor bringing in sponsors? Hopefully it isn't, and the race can survive and thrive. Much like Germany and Great Britain, interest in the sport seems to be rather contingent on American successes, so if we go through a period where success is hard to come by (say van Garderen or Phinney doesn't live up to his potential - since there's nobody of the same kind of level in the middle age group between Lance's generation who will all retire soon and their generation of youngsters), will the fans still show up to see foreign stars coming around and - unless the race changes somewhat - not really giving a damn?

I think creating big races in Asia could and does work. In f1 drivers are told that all races are equal and worth 10 points or whatever. If they want to win the championship, they have to ride and compete all those races. As a result a win is a win. Race prestige is evened out.

The problem with our thing is its extreme difficulty. In f1 Drivers can easily drive a car on 1 continent 1 day, and drive it again 3000 miles away a few days later.

In football they can easily play a match in Paris on a Sunday in Almaty on a Wednsday.

In tennis they can easily play a match in Argentina 1 day and in London the next.

In cycling you cant. Its too difficult. The races break you. The stamina required is simply too great. Long trips by air will take out of you as well. Therefore it seems doomed to stay in Europe.

The solution is to find spaces in the calendar.
Also fit some of these nice Canada like races into the calendar. There are spaces in June- for the not doing Tour crowd, in May for the not doing Giro crowd and Septemeber for the not doing Vuelta crowd. Not July because the world is focused on the Tour.
There is also a space at the end of the season. Have a few races in the US maybe in September (after Canada) or May (after TOC). Give 1 or 2 of them 80 UCi points to motivate riders to try them. It will also mean more riders might ride Cali, as they can justify a 2 week trip to the US.

I think the way to do it is like Canada with 1 dayers, NOT stage races.

i would support UCI giving races like Canda importance through UCI points, and phasing out Paris Tours and Paris Nice(too many races start or finish in PAris, better this than TDF or ROubaix).


Do a similar thing in Asia. Have a Tour of Japan stage race with 100 UCI points, give 80 UCI points for a 1 day Seol classic, and 2 1 dayers in Beijing and Shangai.

Do this in August. Starting around 7-10th August up to about 25th. Scrap the eneco tour. Vuelta hopefuls might not do it but everyone else might. Even though it would hurt me, I would say scrap Poland too, but that is globalisation as well, and a succesful one at that.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

All that would do is to increase the expenses of teams already on a very limited budget. Colnago are not registered in Ireland, nor Carmioro in UK, because they have those as key markets or recruitment bases.

I find it difficult to state how little significance I attach to the nominal nationality of teams. Discipline of riders is determined by their own registered nationality, nationalistically inspired fans follow riders of their nationality. Does it really matter to anyone whether Geox are registered as Spanish or Italian next year? Is ACF94 really bothered whether BMC are US or Swiss? Did Astana have totally different fan bases when their nationality was transferred from Swiss to Luxembourgish and then to Kazakhstani? Would Spain have been appreciably more proud of Contador's Tour wins if he had been with Caisse d'Epargne? Has Andy Schleck been ignored by the Luxembourgish public all the time he has been with a Danish team?

 

[ingsve]

I don't think the objective of globalization needs to be to have the very top riders competing in every continent. It would be enough if a higher percentage of PT riders rode there. If a handful of PT teams sent their C-squads to a race like Qinghai Lake it would be a significant boost in the level of the competition and probably also in exposure. And that wouldn't be that hard for the teams either since those riders wouldn't be the ones preparing for the top races. An incentive could be for the UCI and organizers to help with equipment transport and cars etc so the burden on the team to take these trips is minimal. I think that's the way for globalization to slowly move forward. I don't see the need for a hardcore imperialist type of expansion. Just let it come naturally stage by stage but make sure to stimulate it at the same time.

 

[ingsve]

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

No, that's not a good idea. It puts an artificial preassure on teams that limits where they can get registered and might affect their chance of getting sponsors.

There will always be italian or spanish or belgian top riders etc and that means there will always be teams and sponsors from those countries. It might just be that instead of being 4-5 teams from one country in the top level it will be one or two instead and I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[The Hitch]

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

In other words, you are saying to the Spanish cyclist looking for a contract with Movistar, that because he was born in Spain, he cant have his proffesional contract.

 

[Anonymous]

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

and how would you decide that. THe country the team is registered too often out of convenience? The nationality of the sponsor? So many teams now are basically lacking a country. There are british registered italian teams, etc etc

 

[roundabout]

They should have a rule (unless they do already as i dont know the UCI rules well at all) that a team must have at least 10 riders of the max of 30 from their country that they are registered to. That could help to stop that happening...

as far as i remember, a few years ago that was the case. a team couldn't register say in Ireland without Irish riders being the most represented nationality on the team

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It comes down to the regulations of the individual national authorities. Rock Racing couldn't register in Mexico last year, for example, because Mexican registration rules require 50% the team's roster to be Mexican. Ireland has no such rule, nor does Britain, hence Colnago, De Rosa, Ceramica Flaminia and CarmioOro can register in those countries without having a single Irish/British rider between them.

 

[Michele]

Do a similar thing in Asia. Have a Tour of Japan stage race with 100 UCI points, give 80 UCI points for a 1 day Seol classic, and 2 1 dayers in Beijing and Shangai.

Do this in August. Starting around 7-10th August up to about 25th. Scrap the eneco tour. Vuelta hopefuls might not do it but everyone else might. Even though it would hurt me, I would say scrap Poland too, but that is globalisation as well, and a succesful one at that.

Before to do this step, you need to have some decent riders (ala Arashiro) and then some sponsors from those Countries will invest some money into those events.

Years ago Lampre tried 2 stagieres from Hong Kong (the most famous one was Kin San Wu) but unluckily they werent able neither to finish the races.
UCI is trying from some time to get some asian rider from their Aigle Center, they had both chinese (Hajun Ma) and some korean (the most promising, like Sung Baek Park) but not yet close to european average level.

 

[hfer07]

Globalization in cycling is already a fact-but I think is a work in progress which is currently affected by the following:
1-European Races & organizers will use any means to impede any changes in status,riders participation,schedule & specially "TV Coverage & sponsors" in their races, so whether or not a new GT emerges, It will need to push away another races and have theirs untouched.
2-UCI & Pat have been trying unsuccessfully to push the idea of a series of top quality races around the world, just to realize that "investment & development" those competitions are more important than simply a rubber stamp from UCI and a mere status. ASO-on the other hand-understood it many years ago and begun "putting money & infrastructure" in those places & now they have Qatar, 50% ownership of the vuelta & coming up is San Luis in Argentina.
3-as many folks already mention-ASIA is the last frontier- and counting on the economical power of China-- I have no doubt in my mind they will attract the cycling world with crazy amounts of money & specially winning prices.
4-Cycling in Latin America is emerging again in countries less known for their history in the sport, such as Costa Rica Chile, Brasil & Argentina-which will be the big race in the south region. on the other hand, my country land Colombia & Venezuela-regions with world cycling reputation & history, and nonetheless the geography to become GT- will not get a "renaissance" until political stability & security is achieved, so foreign riders can feel safe to race there again, as many did in the 80's.
5-Unite States is still working on the "next GT" to challenge the European Races-as far as I know this project goes back to the middle 80's onwards-.. and yet nothing has happened-which is difficult to understand why-since every single aspect is in place to make it a reality. The TOC will reach a good level, but not the one to become a priority for the top Pro riders to be participating in every year.
6- Africa still decades away to obtain a great race worth the attention of the cycling world to be part of & generate quality participation

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Was Park the one who was 2nd to Rujano in the Genting Highlands stage in Langkawi? I know that it was a Korean.

hfer - the calendar is perhaps the biggest obstacle for North America.

March - Milan-San Remo, early stage races; nobody in form for a 3-week race yet
April - Classics
May - Giro
June - buildup to Tour, nobody who wants to ride the Tour will want to do a super-long event here
July - Tour
August - Tour contenders too tired
September - Vuelta, Worlds
October - Lombardia, season more or less over. Riders too tired.

Finding room for a top level event is going to be very difficult. There are some vulnerable races on the calendar - those without the history (Eneco), those with the history but not always at the top level (Poland) and those with lots of history but that have been shunted around the calendar, so could continue to be (Catalunya). But given that you'd have to take time out with jetlag and so on, it would be difficult to attract all of the top names to such a race, and if you could get all the top teams it would be a relatively middle-level ProTour race.

The UCI should increase race status slowly, not en bloc. Allow the races to grow organically, improving their field. Look at how Turkey is doing for a fine example of this.

And while the UCI's globalisation has mostly meant the US and Australia, look at how Brazilian cycling is really strong despite few UCI-sanctioned events and only two UCI-sanctioned Continental teams (now down to one). Help the countries' relevant authorities to build up a strong national scene that allows them to develop riders who can compete, rather than just sending the big guns to them and hoping that one or two can follow them while the rest just make the numbers up.