World Tour reforms

[Samamba]

So earlier today the UCI made a press release about the "new World Tour".

At yesterday’s meeting of the Professional Cycling Council (PCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, stakeholders of men’s professional road cycling agreed on the next steps of the reform and approved the 2017 UCI WorldTour calendar.

The calendar will comprise all existing UCI WorldTour races – including those in the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) portfolio.

In addition, the UCI WorldTour will welcome a number of other events in 2017 which will be awarded initial three-year licences. The full 2017 UCI WorldTour calendar, which will be announced shortly, features a wide range of top-level races that will further globalise the UCI WorldTour and strengthen the season-long narrative.

UCI WorldTeams will be given a two-year licence for the 2017 and 2018 seasons. The number of UCI WorldTeams will be set at 17 for 2017, with the objective to reach 16 a year later. From the 2019 season onwards, the number of UCI WorldTeams will be set at 16. From the end of the 2018 season onwards, there will be an annual challenge system, based on an overall annual sporting classification, between the last ranked UCI WorldTeam and the top Pro Continental Team to enter as a UCI WorldTeam in the following season. In the event that a UCI WorldTeam drops out of the top tier, that team will have the right to participate in all the following season’s UCI WorldTour events, meaning that UCI WorldTeams will have stability for the three seasons 2017 to 2019.

As of 2017 season, all existing UCI WordTour events will have all UCI WorldTeams participating and for new UCI WorldTour events, participation rules which will ensure that a minimum of 10 UCI WorldTeams take part will be proposed by the UCI for approval at the next meeting of the PCC.

UCI President Brian Cookson said: “This marks another important step in the reform of men’s professional cycling, and I am very pleased that we now have our stakeholders behind what represents the future of our sport. I am delighted that we can build on the heritage and prestige of the UCI WorldTour, while also welcoming newer but already successful events taking place in and outside Europe. We are committed to continuing the consultation with all stakeholders on various details of the reform.”

“I am very pleased that the proposed reform has reached a large consensus,” declared David Lappartient, President of the PCC. “Our stakeholders have agreed on a vision that will reinforce the globalisation of cycling, ensure stability for teams and organisers, while preserving the principles of an open system that will allow access to UCI WorldTour level based on sporting results. It is a great step in making cycling a more attractive and global sport, while respecting its roots and history.”

AIOCC President, Christian Prudhomme added: “I am delighted that an agreement could be found that will help the sport of cycling as a whole.”

Most important:
- ASO's races will be WT next year
- Some new races will be WT next year (including Dwars door Vlaanderen), but not all WT teams need to be participating in these races (will be proposed in the next meeting)
- Only 17 teams in the WT next year (IAM & Tinkoff leaving, Bahrein & Bora taking their place, which team will be the third team that's not gonna be WT next year?). In 2019 only 16 teams will be WT.
- UCI WorldTeams will be given a two-year licence for the 2017 and 2018 seasons
- There will be an annual challenge system, based on an overall annual sporting classification, between the last ranked UCI WorldTeam and the top Pro Continental Team to enter as a UCI WorldTeam in the following season.
- The team that drops out, will have the right to participate in the WT races the following year

What do you guys think about the "new World Tour"?
I'm wondering which team will be the third team to "drop out" the World Tour...

 

[Ricco']

I'm wondering which team will be the third team to "drop out" the World Tour...

There were rumours about Lampre stepping down to Pro Conti.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Idiotic that they did not spend time talking about, how to make cycling a viable pro sport for the teams.

ASO and other organisers still get all the TV money - it's ridiculous - no other major sport is like that..... and that is the reason so many teams fold all the time.... not because this or that race is on the calendar.

 

[Kwibus]

Re:

Idiotic that they did not spend time talking about, how to make cycling a viable pro sport for the teams.

ASO and other organisers still get all the TV money - it's ridiculous - no other major sport is like that..... and that is the reason so many teams fold all the time.... not because this or that race is on the calendar.

Are you aware that pretty much only the TdF is making huge amounts of money. Giro and some other top races earn money as well, but I doubt it's very much.

The costs of organising a road race is incredibly high.
I really think that people should stop thinking that pro teams can live of the television rights. I think they should earn some from the TdF, but that's probably the only race so also impossible to implement.
Most organisers have big problems keeping their races up and running at all. How can you expect to receive money from them?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Most organisers have big problems keeping their races up and running at all. How can you expect to receive money from them?

Races that don't make significant money from TV rights would be sharing little or nothing. Advocates of such a model are not asking for a set amount per race. For those races that are basically giving away TV rights or even subsidising the production of footage, they would be sharing nothing.

I'm curious about the 17 team issue and then the further reduction to 16. There are some teams which would be no worse off and maybe even better off as ProConti, but there are other teams which might well be killed by a sudden involuntary drop in division.

More generally, because different teams have quite different business models, promotion and relegation strikes me as problematic. It's not impossible and is even quite likely that you could see situations where a team that has no real desire to move out of the ProConti ranks is the best ProConti outfit, while a team that really needs WT status is at the bottom of the WT ranking.

It is not clear to me why this in particular should be such a big deal to the ASO. It's not hard to understand why they want fewer automatic race qualification slots and more room for discretionary wildcards, but why do they care about promotion and relegation or the length of WT licences?