If we hold up the examples of the biggest sports, and see how they do it, we should be wary of the pitfalls of globalisation.
Soccer: big money has come in, and now the Champions' League is the most hateful tournament in the world, a prissy old boys' club where the same teams compete every year, because they've got more money than anyone else. All the while second and third division teams go out of business because they can't operate at a loss like the moneyed teams. I remember the days when Barcelona or Manchester United would fear an away tie at IFK Gothenburg. Not any more.
NFL: Amount of money has spiralled beyond the ludicrous. Salary caps have had to be brought in, limiting teams from just buying up the top talent.
F1: The big manufacturer's era has led to budgets spiralling out of control. Historic and traditional teams like Lotus, Brabham and Minardi have gone to the wall, and budget restricting measures are being phased in to prevent similar happening to the likes of Williams and Sauber.
If you are American, and your teams stand to benefit from making money the only criterion, then of course you think money should be the most important factor. Pat McQuaid applauds your capitalistic heart. But in Europe, we believe in social democracy. Europe is the home of cycling. Always has been, and always will be. It's where all the big races are, and where everybody wants to race because it's where they saw their heroes race.
You can throw in all the budget you like, but if you have no soul, the fans won't care. Look at how the fans have turned on Sky, and Radioshack. They've divided audiences. The casual fan they've brought in is transient; their interest will wane when Lance retires, when Bradley retires, when somebody starts to outpace Cav. The hardcore fans, they're divided on teams like that. Some are in favour, some are against. Plucky underdog teams who bring excitement to races have a certain joie de vivre that, no matter what, the big teams lack. I liked Tinkoff more than Katyusha. I like Vacansoleil more than Rabobank. I like ISD more than Liquigas. I like the French teams. These are the teams that make cycling what it is. Not the big HTCs and Garmins of the world; if they had their way every single stage would be a bunch sprint.
What's more, absolutely because they are the traditional homes of cycling, places like France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy... they have more of those hardcore fans, who'll still be watching in ten years when Cav's being outpaced by some brand new thing, Lance is but a memory, and Tejay van Garderen has either done a Danielson or brought a new generation of squealing US kids to the sport who'll forget it even exists the second they cross the line on the Champs Elysées. That's why they can sustain successful national calendars - because more fans will line the roadside to see the riders there. The budget isn't extreme, by any stretch of the imagination, but it brings the sport to the people who care about it. And as we learnt from the Tour of California, you can throw money at a problem but you can't make the people - or the riders - care. I'd be very surprised if there weren't as many people on the side of the Alto del Acebo, watching the Vuelta a Asturias in the wilderness outside Cangas de Narcea, as there were on the climb to Big Bear.
On another thread, I suggested that the Tour of California's biggest failing was that it didn't try to create its own identity, rather it tried to ape another race (the Tour de France) and transplant that into America. I suggested that races with history have developed something unique about themselves that makes them appealing. Now the Tour is noticeably less French than the Giro is Italian, or the Vuelta is Spanish, but it has something unique about it. The regionalism and the small teams often give the races that character, that level of interest. I suggested that because of this, the Tour of California should perhaps try to make itself more attractive by providing something uniquely American, making it different from every other race on the calendar.
Perhaps thinking that throwing money out there regardless of the parcours and shouting loud about its own importance would solve all of its problems was that uniquely American factor it was bringing to the table.
Now I know that not all Americans are like that, and we have plenty on this forum who are eminently sensible and would be upset by me making a slightly xenophobic joke like that. But a sport that wilfully bites the hand that feeds, as a plan like the one to make budget the sole defining characteristic undoubtedly is (at what point do you think the ASO, RCS, Unipublic and all the big organisers get upset? When there are 0 Belgian teams in the Ronde van Vlaanderen? When the only Italian teams in the Giro are there on wildcards?), is not something that I or in fact anybody else - even those advocating it - can honestly support. At best, it brings about another UCI/ASO turf war, and at worst it destroys the entire sport.
If budget was the defining factor in the ProTour, then you can bet your bottom dollar (that dollar which is so important to you) that all the big events will drop any agreement on inviting PT teams, and it'll be like 2007-8 all over again, only with about 10 different Unibets.