• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders The Bora - Hansgrohe team thread

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Matschitz was known to oppose the left mainstream. Their TV station is pretty much the opposite of the far left state controlled ORF .
How will this work in terms of name and jersey colors? At first glance those three companies dont really fit together all that well. Just So different in terms of colors, Produkts, target Group, Image....
Ok, referring to an anodyne European state broadcaster as “far left” is traumatic brain injury territory, but presumably this means that the dead plutocrat who used to own Red Bull was an outspoken right winger? Does the company still have unusual political affiliations?
 
I was more thinking about football, where they were among the first (together with Abramovich) to establish the current investment models.

But sure, it's a development that's not going to stop anymore, and cycling has long gone that path anyway. Them taking over a team or not doesn't change much at this point.

that was very early on in their history wasnt it? they took over a team and then basically turned it into corporate united changing club name, badge, traditional colours etc, so the fans all went and set up their own club to mimic the old one.

not sure theyve done much lately to offend people that much, theyve obviously been sponsoring the xtreme sports side of cycling for a while, and they must think theres a route to market their drink to road cycling fans, which maybe Pidcock & Wout have shown them there is a desire to see more of.

the have the budget certainly to change the game abit.
 
Ok, referring to an anodyne European state broadcaster as “far left” is traumatic brain injury territory, but presumably this means that the dead plutocrat who used to own Red Bull was an outspoken right winger? Does the company still have unusual political affiliations?
Yeah I think Mateschitz was quite openly right wing or at least he sat up a media company trying to be a conservative alternative to the rest of the Austrian media. But then again
a) He is dead
b) Servus TV is conservative but still not exactly fox news.
c) He was the owner of a multi billion mega company. No sh*t he wasn't exactly a left winger.

As a left winger myself I would obviously still prefer new sponsors of cycling to come from a different background altogether, but as far as big money takeovers of sports teams go I honestly think Red Bull isn't that bad. As I said, anyone thinking the people behind other huge sponsors are supporting drastically different politics is fooling themselves.
 
Last edited:
Matschitz was known to oppose the left mainstream. Their TV station is pretty much the opposite of the far left state controlled ORF .
How will this work in terms of name and jersey colors? At first glance those three companies dont really fit together all that well. Just So different in terms of colors, Produkts, target Group, Image....
A yes, ORF who tries to force everyone to use gender neutral language since the Greens are part of the Austrian goverment...
 
I think we use all use products produced directory or indirectly by many cycling sponsors.
I drive a car, probably used Gulf sponsors, Total or Ineos fuel.
I have Quick Step floor, I used Soudal sealant yesterday.
Theres an Ineos hand gel bottle in my bathroom.
But as an oldie I've never got beyond smelling RedBull.

I only picked up some Ineos hand gel because they were handing out free at an event I went to,and fwiw I dont think its that good so Id probably not buy it... but I would drink segafredo coffee if it wasnt so expensive to buy in the UK, and Ive never drunk Red Bull as an energy drink, though I did used to use it as a mixer, split a can with a friend, in vodka in my younger late night partying days, great stuff kept you dancing for hours :D
 
Red Bull was created by someone who thought Coca Cola wasn't sugary and caffeiny enough, and tripled all the ingredients. It's good if you really need to stay awake. It doesn't belong in a healthy sports diet. That's why it's always ridiculous to see these athletes after a race sipping from the obligatory Red Bull can which we all know doesn't contain Red Bull.

Their sports sponsorship is, in a way, a kind of greenwashing... call it healthwashing. But it's good that they're not just wasting their money on F1 and football.
80mg caffeine is far less than any coffee and 110 cals is pretty tiny, especially for endurance athletes who need sugar. For endurance sport it’s actually somewhat healthy.
 
the dead plutocrat who used to own Red Bull was an outspoken right winger?
I wouldn't go that far, to be honest. He was not outspoken, as he rarely gave interviews. Definitely a conservative - he funded ServusTV, Addendum, and Pragmaticus, all conservative media outlets. However, I don't recall him making statements that could be considered really right-wing or extremist.

In my opinion, they have a negative image for multiple reasons:
  1. Football: Their approach of taking over clubs and changing names and club colors has made them quite unpopular in Germany and Austria.
  2. Formula 1: As a "non-traditional" team, they have stirred things up. To be fair, I also think Horner and Marko are not the most sympathetic figures in the sport.
  3. Business Practices: They are secretive; they don't do their bottling, making them arguably the most successful marketing company globally. They prefer to keep their strategies private and have opposed labor unions within their company and subsidiaries.
  4. "Healthwashing": As some users have termed it, their product is not the healthiest, and their association with sports is clearly a marketing strategy. There have also been claims that their focus on extreme marketing has led to athlete fatalities.
  5. COVID-19: ServusTV was accused of spreading misinformation by inviting questionable "experts" to their discussions.
  6. Inheritance of Mateschitz Jr.: In Austria, it was a major topic when he became the richest person in the country by inheriting the Red Bull empire after the death of Mateschitz Sr.
If I were to defend them, I'd say some points are exaggerated:
  1. Football: The rebranding of teams is tough, and fans are sensitive to that. However, calling them "corporate" and "artificial" is a bit hypocritical, considering the state of many other teams.
  2. Formula 1: While I'm not a fan of Horner, I somewhat respect Marko. A fair amount of trash-talking is typical in Formula 1 and should not be overinterpreted. They are just the "newcomers" in some sense.
  3. Business Practices: They offer high salaries in Austria, have created many jobs, and haven't moved offshore for tax reasons. This is supported by their consistent ranking as one of the Best Places to Work for Austrian graduates. So is it hierarchic? Probably, but for most employees that choose to go their it still seems to be a cool opportunity.
  4. "Healthwashing": This is a valid point, although I believe the extreme stunts they sponsor would have occurred in some form or another without Red Bull's involvement anyway.
The other two points are highly political, and everyone can form their own opinion.

In general, I'm not a big fan of the company, but I also don't think they're as evil as sometimes portrayed. They are not involved in activities like selling weapons to terrorist groups or whatever. In many areas, they have contributed positively - funding the largest charity for curing paraplegia, supporting a medical university in Austria (Paracelsus), investing in top-notch sports infrastructure in Salzburg (Red Bull Performance Center, Youth Academy), and revitalizing the Spielberg region in Styria, including owning hotels and restaurants, reportedly often run at a loss but to invest in Mateschitz' home region.

So, I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sorry for this lengthy off-topic post. I actually think the negatives one could discuss concerning a cycling sponsorship are whole different ones -but that's a story for different parts of the forum (seemingly not having too much fear of contact with doping-linked Dr. Pansold, for example).
 
Yeah I think Mateschitz was quite openly right wing or at least he sat up a media company trying to be a conservative alternative to the rest of the Austrian media. But then again
a) He is dead
b) Servus TV is conservative but still not exactly fox news.
c) He was the owner of a multi billion mega company. No sh*t he wasn't exactly a left winger.

As a left winger myself I would obviously still prefer new sponsors of cycling to come from a different background altogether, but as far as big money takeovers of sports teams go I honestly think Red Bull isn't that bad. As I said, anyone thinking the people behind other huge sponsors are supporting drastically different politics is fooling themselves.


yup, ownership is pretty consistent in their leanings




210123-tom-brady-donald-trump-al-1453.jpg
 
I wouldn't go that far, to be honest. He was not outspoken, as he rarely gave interviews. Definitely a conservative - he funded ServusTV, Addendum, and Pragmaticus, all conservative media outlets. However, I don't recall him making statements that could be considered really right-wing or extremist.

In my opinion, they have a negative image for multiple reasons:
  1. Football: Their approach of taking over clubs and changing names and club colors has made them quite unpopular in Germany and Austria.
  2. Formula 1: As a "non-traditional" team, they have stirred things up. To be fair, I also think Horner and Marko are not the most sympathetic figures in the sport.
  3. Business Practices: They are secretive; they don't do their bottling, making them arguably the most successful marketing company globally. They prefer to keep their strategies private and have opposed labor unions within their company and subsidiaries.
  4. "Healthwashing": As some users have termed it, their product is not the healthiest, and their association with sports is clearly a marketing strategy. There have also been claims that their focus on extreme marketing has led to athlete fatalities.
  5. COVID-19: ServusTV was accused of spreading misinformation by inviting questionable "experts" to their discussions.
  6. Inheritance of Mateschitz Jr.: In Austria, it was a major topic when he became the richest person in the country by inheriting the Red Bull empire after the death of Mateschitz Sr.
If I were to defend them, I'd say some points are exaggerated:
  1. Football: The rebranding of teams is tough, and fans are sensitive to that. However, calling them "corporate" and "artificial" is a bit hypocritical, considering the state of many other teams.
  2. Formula 1: While I'm not a fan of Horner, I somewhat respect Marko. A fair amount of trash-talking is typical in Formula 1 and should not be overinterpreted. They are just the "newcomers" in some sense.
  3. Business Practices: They offer high salaries in Austria, have created many jobs, and haven't moved offshore for tax reasons. This is supported by their consistent ranking as one of the Best Places to Work for Austrian graduates. So is it hierarchic? Probably, but for most employees that choose to go their it still seems to be a cool opportunity.
  4. "Healthwashing": This is a valid point, although I believe the extreme stunts they sponsor would have occurred in some form or another without Red Bull's involvement anyway.
The other two points are highly political, and everyone can form their own opinion.

In general, I'm not a big fan of the company, but I also don't think they're as evil as sometimes portrayed. They are not involved in activities like selling weapons to terrorist groups or whatever. In many areas, they have contributed positively - funding the largest charity for curing paraplegia, supporting a medical university in Austria (Paracelsus), investing in top-notch sports infrastructure in Salzburg (Red Bull Performance Center, Youth Academy), and revitalizing the Spielberg region in Styria, including owning hotels and restaurants, reportedly often run at a loss but to invest in Mateschitz' home region.

So, I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sorry for this lengthy off-topic post. I actually think the negatives one could discuss concerning a cycling sponsorship are whole different ones -but that's a story for different parts of the forum (seemingly not having too much fear of contact with doping-linked Dr. Pansold, for example).
Thanks, really interesting info.
 
In football, they destroyed the identity of the teams they took over. They turned your local team into a US style franchise. If they control Bora like they do with their F1 teams, several youngsters are going to be sacked for not winning races by May. They can do a lot of good for the sport, but they can also treat their riders and staff like *** & bully the UCI & race organisers that would make Adam blush.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
In football, they destroyed the identity of the teams they took over. They turned your local team into a US style franchise. If they control Bora like they do with their F1 teams, several youngsters are going to be sacked for not winning races by May. They can do a lot of good for the sport, but they can also treat their riders and staff like *** & bully the UCI & race organisers that would make Adam blush.
What is a US style franchise?

US team sports franchises at least have a notional attachment to some geographic region and very minimal on-jersey advertisements.

Compare:

usa_today_10123539.0.jpg

declanrice1220.jpg


Nah, I think Europe is way ahead on the ridiculously over-commercialized sporting concerns. And if you want to distinguish between sponsor and owner: no Russian oligarch was recently forced to divest from a US sports franchise...

Bike racing teams (European sport) are already named after commercial interests and their clothes look like the yellow pages. I mean are you really complaining about Red Bull taking over control of a team named after a household appliance company?
 
Cian Uijtdebroeks made the right call leaving this little team with bad equipment & zero future for Visma Lisa Bike.

Right?
Of course he did the right call, now he is in the best team in the world, where he can be the best version of himself.

Emirates have more money than Visma lease a bike....Bora having more money doesn't mean they will turn in the best team.

Bora lost the most promising young GT rider in the peloton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece
In football, they destroyed the identity of the teams they took over. They turned your local team into a US style franchise. If they control Bora like they do with their F1 teams, several youngsters are going to be sacked for not winning races by May. They can do a lot of good for the sport, but they can also treat their riders and staff like *** & bully the UCI & race organisers that would make Adam blush.
I don't see how they turned Leipzig or Salzburg into something resembling US franchises at all. I think the main complaint about their approach is that their teams are succesful solely due to big investment and not due to natural growth through hard earned success. But I don't think it's usually the people in Salzburg or Leipzig making those complaints. And I also don't think this approach would be unusual for a cycling team at all. This sport has been all about what sponsors are willing to pay for decades.

And I don't think making a comparison to how they run their F1 team makes any sense. That's a completely different sport which is run completely differently by literally any team. I would somewhat understand the complaint if Red Bull was known for running their F1 team extremely badly, but in fact the exact opposite is the case.
 

TRENDING THREADS