surgeonstone

Not really. There is a decided capriciousness about what is shifted that seems to have as much to do with the personalities involved as with the subjects. Ever notice how some individuals are left entirely alone with posts that if posted by another are quickly moved.

TommyL

I propose a new sub-forum for the Road Cycling forum: "Professional Cycling For the Fans that want to stay in the Road Biking Forum"

Problem solved.

caloso

What the hell? I just bought an Incredible 2 phone!!!!

kabex

So what would be the solution for pro cycling revenue?

The nature of the sport is just this. The only big race is the TDF and it has been that way for many years. World-wide few people care for the Vuelta or the Giro let alone any stage race/classic.

You can't have year-long seasons like the Formula 1 with the top-20 cyclists battling it out year long. The best cyclist would dominate everything but he can't ride that much so only a few races would be given importance, all the others would become 2nd rate.

IMO the best option if we started from the ground up would be a LOT of pro-team level 1 week/2 week races, no "Grand Tours" but all smaller races, maybe 1 a month and that's it. Classics/criteriums stay as is.

InReverse

I actually think we'd finally be useful as BFers if we started a thread on this.

IMO, a lot of fans that try to figure out this conundrum are looking at it wrong. Fans try to become business geniuses and talk about money. Getting money is easy... if you have a fun sport to watch. Some of you don't like to hear it, but this is a really boring sport to watch. Out of the 86 hours, 12 minutes, and 22 seconds that Cadel rode, you could have reduced it to about three hours of entertainment for me (like ABC used to do when Greg Lemond used to race.)

My perspective on spectator sports, is if you can't be entertained by the actual game/race/action, if you need plot lines to make it "spectator-able," then it's not sustainable. You can supplement with plot lines, but not sustain. If I have to "know" the players or teams, you don't have a spectator sport.

kabex

As I said:
Imagine if cycling like you know it doesn't exist.

ProTeam stays as is, and there are ~20 ProTeam stage races world-wide, every year; full season.

Races go from 7 to 10 days (no rest day) and they take place in different countries (tour of england/germany/france/japan/china/mexico/argentina) they are all the SAME level and the 20 races are picked upon certain criteria by the UCI; no permanent picks and a big pool of hosts to choose from (US/Colorado, US/California, France/Pyrennees, France/Alps). They alternate year to year(this year tour of canada but not next year, its spot will be taken by colombia).

Winners and podium finishers are given points and the single objective is to reach the most amount of points by end of season, team rankings are also hugely important and they get huge bonuses from UCI.

Tons more action because races are tightly packed, few dull stages. Lots of internationality because many countries represented, tons of ad revenue/tourism. More spotlight on Cycling (imagine when the 200 tdf riders visit some place like Japan).

GT contenders have a wider season because they don't have to ride 3 week races with insane competition, but rather more relaxed 1 week races and lots of rest, they can choose to ride more races or fewer races that net you bigger points (they're rated by difficulty etc).

I think this would make cycling a world-wide sport with tons of money and exposure. It'd be 100x more accesible to the average joe.

Cat4Lifer

teams folding and merging...
the pool of talent is shallower.
what a shame.

chasm54

There are millions of cycling fans in Europe who care very much about the classics and the other GTs. The world looks different from outside the Americas. It would be just as true - maybe more true - to say that world-wide very few people care about the World Series. Baseball seems an incredibly slow dull game to me, I can't understand why anyone watches it. And it's riddled with dopers. So all this stuff about the cycling business model being bust, needing to change the format etc. is largely an American perspective. And as we know, very few Americans give a damn, so I suspect that making radical changes would attract very few new American fans while alienating many of those in Europe who follow the sport now.

InReverse

But this is the type of thinking that I'm suggesting to AVOID. To me, the question is more basic: why would someone watch for 3 hours if they didn't care who the riders were. Specifically, when I sit down at a computer or TV, what will I see (literally)that makes me refuse to watch anything else for those 3 hours? Both currently, and in your scenario, it's the same: I will see a pack of grown men in spandex pedaling down the street for 3 hours. Exciting.

Cat4Lifer

Well, a lot of people like to watch buff and sweaty grown men in spandex roll around on the ground with one another for hours at a time.
They call that WWF, maybe you've heard of it. I hear it's very popular with men, both young an old. Maybe cycling could tap that market?

InReverse

The thread is about why the best team in the sport is broke. What makes you think this "business model" is effective? Also, I can dig up some facts I have about viewership for cycling globally. Do you have any facts to support the notion that it's a good business model? So far, we have one fact in this thread: the best team in the sport is broke. Apparently, globally, cycling isn't that big of a deal.

Cat4Lifer

Gee, that would be awesome!
I'll be waiting for those uncovered facts.

InReverse

You aren't even a good troll. That's a failure on a whole new level.

Cat4Lifer

Neither are you.
Dbl failure on a whole new level

Marauder9

I can't help thinking that it will be a bad move for Sky as they already have Wiggins and Thomas who are GC contenders and they say the team will need to ride on the flat stages aswell as the other stages that they will be targetting preventing team members from keeping Wiggins out of trouble.

Sounds like they will be doing too much to me.

chasm54

I tend to agree, and if you add Boasson Hagen to the mix (more likely than Thomas to become a GC contender, IMO) you have more stars than one team can easily accommodate. a few things occur to me, though:

1. There's a lot of talk about them being disappointed in Wiggins, not as a cyclist but as a leader of the team. He's too introverted. Thomas can't do it, he isn't very bright - just watch his tactics, if you can find them. Cavendish will give them a focus they have lacked.
2. It remains to be seen who they will get rid of over the winter.
3. Sky are closely allied to the British track team. They might keep a bloated squad for 2012 so they can release a couple of riders (Thomas? Swift?) to concentrate on the London Olympics and still have a powerful enough team for the Tour.

Bacciagalupe

Sorry, but that's pretty much an American view. Europeans are head over heels about pro cycling. Africans are apparently now getting into it as well.

The Superbowl is one of the premiere sporting events in the US, but barely registers abroad. Does that mean it's a "failure" and that it doesn't make sense to advertise on it...?


Er, what?

You genuinely believe the solution to promote the sport is to eliminate its biggest, toughest, most prestigious, most popular, and historic events?

That's like suggesting we should kill the Superbowl and declare the team with the best regular season record the "year's best," in the hope that it'll increase viewership of regular season play.


Congratulations, you basically described the new UCI World Tour setup that went into effect earlier this year. AFAIK its predecessor (the Pro Tour) was similar, but stricter for the event organizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_World_Tour

I don't think the UCI actually gives out monetary bonuses, but teams are still competing for points nonetheless. Otherwise, the biggest difference is that you want to kill the most prestigious events in the calendar.

goose70

I know nothing of pro cycling's business model, but the team’s headline sponsor is currently in a fight for its own survival. HTC is getting kicked in the teeth as it battles with Apple over patents (must be that Apple has better IP litigators!). Perhaps HTC is in no mood to be spending money on a cycling team, particularly one that is losing its signature riders. Or maybe the signature riders saw the writing on the wall when HTC lost its most recent court case. These things are often a vicious circle, just ask Transitions why it reduced its exposure to pro cycling.

Also, comparing a $45k salary to the "average" worker of any country is not particularly useful. Instead, you should compare it to the average pro athlete. That will tell you where pro cyclists rank from a business perspective. Equally enlightening might be to compare the business success of former pro cyclists versus former pros in other professional sports. That might be the real barometer of where pro cycling ranks as a career.

chasm54

I don't know where the $45k figure came from, that seems low as an average. The minimum for the pro tour teams (Sky, Garmin etc.) is €35k, possibly less for a first-year pro. The established domestiques are on closer to €100k and anyone who has won a stage of the tour will be on €150k and up. At the top end, Wiggins contract with Sky is worth €1m over four years, a basic of €250kpa.

EDIT: This doesn't include prize money, endorsements etc.

BillyD

Mr. surgeonstone, it's been the policy of these forums for the last 3 years or so to move pro cycling discussions to their own forum. Things work out better for all concerned that way.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact the administrators Siu or Tom.

Have a pleasant day.

Bacciagalupe

HTC is actually doing quite well; sales and revenues are both up. https://www.bgr.com/2011/07/29/htc-po...dsets-shipped/

Patent lawsuits are a competitive annoyance, not a mortal threat. HTC can almost certainly work around those particular patents if necessary.

I seriously doubt Cav pours over The Economist to see how the sponsor is doing on a daily basis, or that it figures into his calculations on whether or not to leave the team. Nor is HTC pinching pennies.

The more likely explanation is that HTC just doesn't think they are getting good exposure for their expenditures. Either that or there's some sort of personality aspect, e.g. some top guy who signed off on the deal left HTC, or they didn't get along with Stapleton... who knows.

Looks like riders on the Pro Tour (or World Tour, I think it's called now) teams are paid more like €200,000 on average. New and Continental team riders are probably getting closer to €60k. Budgets and pay are apparent up a bit in the last few years. (https://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeF...ed-part-3.html) I'm not sure if that includes bonuses for winning stages or races.

goose70

I think that HTC does, indeed, have some serious worries going forward and the patent issues are far more than an "annoyance," but as to the rest of your post, I suspect that you're correct (and I stand corrected). Also, thanks for the compensation clarification (I was surprised to read the $45k figure in this thread...what you've posted is more what I would have expected for pro/world tour teams).

InReverse

It wasn't about HTC. They thought they had a new sponsor.

rae

And also, many many more races? For example, 4 pro races that I can think of off the top of my head this week (of varying importance, I'll grant you that)

cuda2k

To second BillyD's statement, it is the general policy of the moderation team to move threads that are mis-categorized. Additionally, a reminder to everyone to keep a civil and respectful tone to both the moderation staff and all members as a whole. While we may have differing opinions, we need not take it to a personal level. Thank you.

-cuda2k, admin