The World Tour might not have existed 2008-10, but the ProTour did, and you also had the problem of the UCI/ASO feud over the fact that they agreed the licences issue based on the teams that were in the ProTour at the time, then UCI didn't award the licences to a couple of teams that were in the original agreement so were able to do the GTs (Bbox, for example), while simultaneously awarding them to new start-up teams which came in after the ProTour agreement with the race organisers, so weren't guaranteed invites (Katyusha and Radioshack each missing a Vuelta for example), plus you had some teams handing back invites for races that they had no interest in (Euskaltel at the 2009 Giro for example).
The World Tour removed the subjectivity issue that meant teams who slaved away and got results at the second level (and did well when given major invites) like Vacansoleil were unable to progress against new start-up big money squads like Leopard Trek and Radioshack, plus given the ProTour contract didn't guarantee the GTs meant teams like Cervélo and BMC would just take a ProConti licence, spend the money they saved on the licence on higher profile riders, and get invited to any race they like without having to pay the ProTour licence costs. UCI closed that loophole, but it has created a new issue, which is that in order to make sure that the WorldTour is more attractive than the ProConti level, they have almost killed off the strong ProConti team, which has meant the wildcard teams are increasingly break fodder irrelevances. Back in the late 2000s/early 2010s, there were almost no wasted invites at any GT. Italy had people like Garzelli, Scarponi, Pozzovivo, Sella, Paolini, Petacchi, di Luca and Visconti all on ProConti teams, Spain had Mosquera and the Relax-GAM guys, France had 2011 Europcar with Voeckler and Rolland, Agritubel with Moreau and the Feillus, plus there was Cervélo with Sastre, Hushovd, Haussler and others. Even Andalucía-Caja Sur, probably the nearest thing the era had to today's nondescript ham-and-eggers, had Xavi Tondó one year (although he crashed out early). Elsewise you had teams that have grown into modern WT teams from that level but started out as wildcards, like Slipstream Sports, NetApp and Skil-Shimano.
Where are those teams now? That's why UCI is locking off yet more of the flexibility organisers have to select their teams and give their race a distinctive flavour. If Burgos, or Euskaltel, were the only also-ran team that functions more or less only to provide break fodder, like Andalucía-Caja Sur back in the early 2010s, then it wouldn't be so conspicuous. However, the wildcards are the only means by which the organisers can provide sops to local sponsors, and as mentioned they are the lifeblood of the second tier teams in those countries. The Giro and Vuelta also have a greater need to energise local support than the Tour, because they cannot compete with the Tour for global stature, so they have a greater need to depend on local talent and interest. Unfortunately at the moment, those countries' second tier teams are, by and large, completely uncompetitive and there is not the steady stream of decent stagehunting talent and second-tier quality riders moving to those teams that there was 10-15 years ago because there is not the money in the ProConti level anymore; riders are better served becoming veteran domestiques at a top team than being a leader at a smaller team, and increasingly the only riders at the ProConti level are prospects who will move on to the higher levels upon showing sufficient promise, and mediocre pros and journeymen without sufficient weapons to fight for wins and who simply ran out of space for contracts at the top, and the financial crisis depleted much of the national pro racing scenes from which those second tier teams derived a lot of income.
I personally feel that it is already too restrictive that the organisers only get 4 wildcards and would like to see the WT level reduced down in numbers, but the UCI is definitely intent on Premier League-ification. Adding two compulsory wildcards is kind of, you know, not a wildcard at all, because there is no choice in the matter for the organisers, and is liable to become a self-fulfilling prophecy given those two teams have the best chance at scoring the results needed to perpetuate that position. If we're going with the system as it stands with 18 WT teams, I feel that forcing teams to pick wildcards from the top 50 is a positive step - if they allow all four wildcards to be at organisers' discretion. I think this is a reasonable compromise, giving the organisers a bit of flexibility but preventing them from picking total cannon fodder because, as Devils Elbow says, a ProTeam should have little trouble reaching that amount and if they do then they probably shouldn't be a ProTeam. At the same time, in that case the UCI needs to really sort out the stupidity of the points system which massively overvalues one-day races at the lower level and disproportionately therefore favours teams from France and Belgium whose calendars are chocked full of these flat to rolling one-dayers that are why Arnaud de Lie is more important on the UCI ranking than Richard Carapaz in 2022.
Of course, this does provide the problem of new teams, because one of the reasons for the issue that led to the creation of the WT in the first place was handing out ProTour contracts to new start-up teams based on the riders for the following season rather than the preceding, which resulted in the existing teams making rather ridiculous desperate points signings of nobodies from the Asia Tour in order to protect themselves in 2012-13. I am very much of the opinion that it is best to force a new team to be a wildcard team for year one at best, in order to prove there is stome stability to the investment, as the last thing we need is more dollar-store Tinkoffs like Rick Delaney who bail on the team and hang the riders out to dry as soon as they come up against any obstacles. So I would argue that organisers should be allowed to pick any four teams from non-UCI WT licenced teams so long as they are scored in the top 50 (40 would suffice, but 30 I think is too restrictive to allow all races to have the individual characteristics and flavour which they need) OR are a new team whose riders' points for the previous season would have placed them in that top 40 or 50.
Although historically I have argued for a much more straightforward system of, the previous year's top 15 ranked teams are the WT and have to be invited to all WT races (but don't have to take up the invite), the teams ranked 16 to 40 are the wildcard rankings and can be invited to any WT race so long as they are biopassport compliant (organisers have full flexibility to pick the remaining selection) and any team ranked 41 or below cannot be invited to WT races (or at least GTs and Monuments - perhaps it should be top 50 for WT races but top 40 for GTs/Monuments to try to ensure a bit higher quality field there but allow a lesser team to make a splash at other races to earn the chance to step up). If a team is not biopassport compliant but ranks top 40, the status is passed down to the next eligible team. If a team at the cusp of the WT/Wildcard level then dedicates its season to crushing the Continental Tour like Vacansoleil in 2010 and finds its way to the top level, then that's fine.
And if that means Astana or DSM have to do more Continental Tour events or earn wildcards cos they sucked in 2022, or Sakarya-BB or Team Ukyo become eligible for WT invites because of crushing a limited scene, then so be it. The downside is that of course it doesn't get rid of the problem whereby it will favour countries that have a lot of small races and one-day races - and we might end up with a lot of pop-up style races late in the season to protect teams artificially, like those women's one-dayers that appear on the calendar late organised by national federations to help their countries qualify riders for the Olympics - or we'll suddenly see the Burgos and Euskaltel types going and racing things like those Turkish one-dayers with very small, mediocre fields to boost their score and try to retain eligibility.
Afraid there is never going to be a way that we can maintain some level of protection for the teams that depend on their national races for survival without abandoning meritocracy and rewarding mediocrity with the way the ProTeams have been neutered after the Cervélo-BMC loophole was closed; and there is no way to force selection of the strongest ProTeams without sacrificing some of the identity of the biggest races and further increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots and threatening the existence of a lot of the teams that depend on those races and also help prop up their domestic calendars with their participation.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram