is doping killing cycling sponsorship

[Benotti69]

BroDeal made a comment in another thread

The main problem is that cycling is a sponsorship based sport and few companies will want to give money to a "top fuel" racing series. Cycling already has sponsorship issues. Riis had a heck of a time finding sponsorship for the arguably best team in the world. The sport would not be able to survive at its current money level with legalized doping.

is doping killing the big sponsor or was the increase in the sport directly linked to the 'american' way of doing business.

the italian mode of sponsorship is based on the company owner having a love for the sport and a connection to it. that is why there are a lot of small italian teams. big sponsors who want or need a big return for their sponsorship go to football and F1.

is cycling demanding too much from potential sponsors in money, which considering the amount of doping cases that rear there heads over the course of a season can be seen as bad publicity. it takes a strong character to say that their company will benefit from the publicity good and bad. noting that Festina has not sponsored a team since 1998, if i am not wrong, yet their sales increased after the '98 TdF.


PS do we know how positives including Blood passports (pellizotti) came out in 2010?

 

[Nederick]

. noting that Festina has not sponsored a team since 1998, if i am not wrong, yet their sales increased after the '98 TdF.

Festina may not sponsor a team anymore, but are they not still the timing sponsor to the tour?

 

[Benotti69]

Festina may not sponsor a team anymore, but are they not still the timing sponsor to the tour?

edit;Team - Founded 1989, Disbanded 2001. The sponsor Festina continued in professional cycling by being the official timekeeper at the Tour de France, the Giro d'Italia, the Vuelta a España and several other stage-races.

 

[Roland Rat]

Yes. Just this winter there was a new team being set up until the Contador scandal broke, causing the sponsor to withdraw. Can't remember which it was though - it might be Backstedt's "Team UK Youth", as I'm sure I read that Nigel Mansell stepped in with some cash, and that's the one Mansell is involved with.

Anyway, point is, yes.

Unless you work for the UCI, in which case it's "doping scandals are killing sponsorship".

 

[Benotti69]

Yes. Just this winter there was a new team being set up until the Contador scandal broke, causing the sponsor to withdraw. Can't remember which it was though - it might be Backstedt's "Team UK Youth", as I'm sure I read that Nigel Mansell stepped in with some cash, and that's the one Mansell is involved with.

Anyway, point is, yes.

Unless you work for the UCI, in which case it's "doping scandals are killing sponsorship".

Scandals yes but no doping, no scandals no matter how much the uci tries to prevent the leaks

 

[luckyboy]

In terms of scandals increasing brand awareness, I will certainly remember the companies Saunier Duval, Gerolsteiner, Phonak, Festina, Kelme and Liberty Seguros more than I will Credit Agricole, Milram or RAGT Semences.

 

[Ferminal]

A centralised organisational system featuring TV rights etc would solve most of the sponsorship issues.

Currently each individual race organiser negotiates the rights for their event(s) separetely, and takes the revenues and if they wish redistribute them in the form of prize monies. Your largest ones would be the ASO, RCS and the UCI (World Champs, World Cup events etc).

If you had some structured system you could combine all the rights into one package, making it much more lucrative for bidders and make the distribution of revenues much easier. However, this may conflict with the cultural and historical values of cycling, and might be not be fair on all teams. Race organisers would lose a significant chunk of their power.

It would also require a strong tiered system of race/team classes. The teams in the top class get the most back, and of course there is still some prize money left over. If the money coming in from the central body was the most important, it would take the pressure of teams to find sponsors every 1, 2, 3 years in order to survive. Of course sponsors would still play a key role, but it wouldn't (nor should they) make or break a team.

In cycling teams go out of business because their main source of income dries up (which they have little control over), it shouldn't be like that.

That said, such a system has many flaws, and there isn't one person in cycling you would trust enough to give them many times more power than the UCI has today. The whole process around team licenses and race organisers would have to be completely transparent and governed by rules not discretion.

I have no idea how much they could earn from the TV rights and whether or not it would be enough to sustain current budgets. Like I said, it might not be the desired path for cycling and I certainly don't get excited by it, but maybe it's an option to ensure greater financial stability in the sport.

Oops, I forgot to answer the actual question...

I don't think doping helps, but overall it's not "killing" sponsorship throughout cycling. If somehow we had zero positives and zero scandals over the next 3 years, would money come pouring in from all corners of the globe? Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

[fatandfast]

Lots of sponsors are industrial based..flooring,steel fab,manufac. If you have ever seen one of the Mapei plants or the production yard at Quick Step not much to do w healthy lifestyle. Lampre-ISD, Astana forgettaboutit. The doping door is constantly revolving. With no real cycling union sponsors have to just cross their fingers and hope that their brand doesn't get associated with a drug scandal . I remember going on a training rides near a PDM factory..huge smoke stacks..I always wondered if they sponsored the team out of guilt.

 

[Polish]

BroDeal made a comment in another thread



is doping killing the big sponsor or was the increase in the sport directly linked to the 'american' way of doing business.

the italian mode of sponsorship is based on the company owner having a love for the sport and a connection to it. that is why there are a lot of small italian teams. big sponsors who want or need a big return for their sponsorship go to football and F1.

is cycling demanding too much from potential sponsors in money, which considering the amount of doping cases that rear there heads over the course of a season can be seen as bad publicity. it takes a strong character to say that their company will benefit from the publicity good and bad. noting that Festina has not sponsored a team since 1998, if i am not wrong, yet their sales increased after the '98 TdF.


PS do we know how positives including Blood passports (pellizotti) came out in 2010?

No doubt that Big Sponsorship Money is a major cause of doping.
Might be THE major cause of doping. Fame is important too.
But for the most part, More Money=More doping.

Could it be that doping is just "Nature's Way" of telling the sponsors to go spend their money somewhere else?

"Dudes, are you stupid?? Go spend your Big Bucks elsewhere"
"Preferably at a Charity, stupid"