Recently there was an article written by Al Hinds that
compared and contrasted the drama and intrigue of the English Premier League (and
lower tiers) to the structure of cycling. It gave readers the highs and lows of
the season, revoked memories for those who have followed it; and illustrated
the appeal of the game to those who don’t follow it. The basis of this argument
was the relegation battle, which (for the teams who survive it) is worth
millions of pounds, and a great amount of exposure and prestige; and the
comparison to cycling, which has a structure that rewards cash, not results. As
an example, Team BMC are assured a WorldTour place, despite one Grand Tour win
and zero Monuments. However, BMC have the money. Katusha have the money. Oleg
Tinkov has the money for Tinkoff-Saxo (though the Russian economic crisis
briefly cast doubt over that); and all of these teams are missing Monuments or
Grand Tour victories in the last few seasons. Astana have the money and a
WorldTour licence, despite a dubious doping record. Wildcard teams for Grand
Tours and Monuments are fairly predictable each year. So went the article. This
led me to consider the practical implications of such an idealistic concept.
Firstly, let us assume that each team riding in 2014 (you’ll
see why I haven’t used 2015 soon…) is a recognisable brand that has stable,
substantial revenue; and brand longevity. Most cycling teams are short-term
affairs in terms of world sport (think Milram, Barloworld, Unibet, and so far,
Greenedge) when compared to the 100+ year histories of Manchester United, Real
Madrid, or even Collingwood and Carlton. The NBA has teams nearly 70 years old.
Conversely, cycling’s oldest well-known team structure is the Reynolds team
from Spain, created for 1980. You might not recognise the Reynolds name, but
they delivered Pedro Delgado and Miguel Indurain to six Tours de France under
the name ibanesto; Valverde to a Liege-Bastogne-Liege as Caisse d’Epargne, and
more recently Nairo Quintana to a Giro victory as Movistar. Even one of the
elder statesmen of teams in Etixx-Quickstep is only 12 years old this year.
This is a consequence of the lack of money available in cycling as a world
sport when compared to football, or local interest in the NBA or AFL. But,
let’s ignore this and assume that each cycling squad is indeed defined as a
team that merely has sponsorship, as opposed to a sponsorship defining the
existence of a team.
If a relegation/promotion system was in place for the 2015
season, based on the 2014 UCI points rankings, it wouldn’t be a totally
different ball game. If the bottom three WorldTour teams were relegated and
replaced by the highest-scoring three ProContinental teams, we would have lost
Europcar (who are ProContinental anyway due to a lack of financial guarantees),
Cannondale (due to Sagan moving away and who have merged anyway; hence my
reluctance to assume 2015 teams for my analysis), and FDJ.fr, who delivered a
rider onto the podium of the Tour de France and stage wins in the Giro d’Italia
(though Bouhanni’s points wouldn’t have counted once he moved to Cofidis). The
promoted teams would be Topsport-Vlaanderen (who are focussed on the Flandrian
region), Wanty – Groupe Gobert (they almost won Paris-Tours, right?) and
Cofidis. While the teams hypothetically relegated haven’t made a massive
difference to the 2015 WorldTour; with all due respect, I don’t consider the
promoted teams a strong set of additions to a calendar that includes races in
Australia and Canada, where interest in Flandrian teams is minimal. The highest-ranked
Asian team is Tabriz Petrochemical Team, while MTN-Qhubeka (one of the more
exciting ProContintal teams) would have been ranked 42nd in line for
promotion – a reflection on the races contested in the local region more than
outright ability. IAM Cycling were fifth on the list, for those wondering. The
stacked and prestigious European schedule is perpetuating the balance towards
European teams; but the simple fix is to open up points to teams competing in
all categories on all continents (so MTN-Qhubeka takes points for Milan-San
Remo despite being African-registered, for example). This creates more problems
as teams might enter as many races as possible around the world and over-reach
their budgets; but does eliminate the bias towards the European teams. This is
certainly an issue that would need to be looked at in more detail were such a
system implemented.
The loss of points associated with Sagan and Bouhanni from
their 2014 teams indicates that a points restructure is needed; however also
that for the teams to be sustainable, this restructuring (which is before the
UCI now) needs to reward teams for points, not individual riders. The current
climate, which has base salaries and endorsements as opposed to criterium and
track contracts earning the majority of a rider’s salary; and a rider’s value
being judged on points alone does little to warrant loyalty to riders, and
subsequently riders to teams. But, can you reward riders who finish 20 minutes
back equally to those who win? Should you ignore the domestique’s role in the
team? It’s a conundrum.
If a team was promoted, and was afforded a windfall in the
same manner as an English football team, it would certainly increase the
quality of the racing overall. More money will lead to better riders and a more
competitive free agency system than is currently in place. It will become more
of a “seller’s market” as opposed to some riders (like Jani Brajkovic or Steele
von Hoff) scratching for a ride in the WorldTour. A team gets promoted; they
will need riders who have proven themselves at WorldTour level. This will lead
to better working conditions for the riders. However, this relies on the cash
being in the sport to recruit and pay the riders, and for a team like Topsport
to send their riders outside of Flanders and France; and all the way to Canada
or Australia. This is a big, big sticking point, and it comes back to the
idealism of the concept. If the money was there, the race to sign
out-of-contract super-domestiques to be leaders would be aggressive, and I
believe that it would incentivise riders to show just how super they can be as
domestiques, in the vein (no pun intended) of Roberto Heras or Floyd Landis,
who landed contracts to lead their future teams on the back of their
performances in service of Lance Armstrong. The doling of money to promoted
teams would be the responsibility of the UCI, however I’m not even convinced
that any money that the UCI can stockpile should be spent on the elite, so much
as the local levels around the world.
Before this is implemented in the WorldTour, the first step
is to test it on the Wildcard places for the Grand Tours. This relies on ASO,
RCS Sport, or any other promoter agreeing with the UCI, which hasn’t always
been the case. RCS already has a spot lined up for the highest-ranked Italian
team for the Giro, but it has gone to the same team (the Androni set-up) for
the past few seasons. The obvious problem with this is the prestige associated
with the biggest races; and the patriotic nature of the organisers, who wish to
give French teams a place in French races (which, given the globalisation of
the sport is fair enough). And this is where it gets sticky again. The big
races were created for publicity. They still exist for publicity. The promoters
run the races, the UCI runs the sport. The division of revenue has created
political standoffs previously, and for the UCI to fund a system that may
remove local teams from their local races will likely cause more disagreements;
as well as maybe prompting sponsors to baulk at the prospect of missing their
preferred races several times in a multi-year contract. This is certainly another
issue that would need examining.
I honestly believe that the promotion/relegation system is a
fantastic concept. Honestly, I really do, despite the negativity that I have
outlined here. Such a system would create interest at the lower end of the
WorldTour, in races such as Paris-Tours or the Tour of Lombardy which have lost
some of their appeal in the past decade but are situated at the end of the
season; and would be a great stepping stone to a “relegation battle”. It would
allow free agent riders to remain at the top level, instead of having so few
places for so many riders, which would allow for better sporting contests. I
love it as an idealistic concept. (Incidentally, the lack of places for riders
won’t get any better if the new reforms come in for 2018, which limits teams to
22 riders instead of 30).
However, the sport needs to change. Firstly, it needs teams
to be recognisable brands (and devoted fans who will follow their team,
regardless of which division they’re in); which will reduce the exposure and
therefore sponsorship value for companies such as Movistar or Cannondale, who
have had naming rights. Secondly, it needs money for promoted teams from the
UCI to cover the potential shortfalls of getting to races around the globe.
This and my previous point seem fairly mutually exclusive, which will be a
serious problem that I don’t see being overcome anytime soon. Thirdly, the
points system needs a major overhaul. Fortunately, the UCI is in the process of
doing this now, and it is up to them to decide which direction the sport is
heading in (as an elite set of teams; or a tiered system, which is looking the
likely option for 2018). Fourth, the promoters and UCI need to play ball and be
on the same page in terms of compromising wildcards on sporting merit and
patriotic choices.
So while I love the idea and the concept; maybe it is only
appropriate for football. Cycling is still not a mainstream sport for too much
of the world; and is not localised enough to cash in on the interest that it
has in some areas (for example, Flanders or Brittany). It is in a transition between
the two. Maybe one day a viable system will work, but for the moment, I think
we should be happy to watch what teams we know have a secure budget competing
against each other. The last thing that the sport needs is more elite teams
withdrawing due to a lack of guaranteed exposure if a star rider is injured or
ill for a big race that would have collected big points.
And cycling itself doesn’t work like football – you can’t
practically and economically hold qualifiers for the Tour in the same way UEFA
does for the Champion’s League; and different riders target different races,
rendering the WorldTour ranking a low priority for many riders and fans. So, a
concept with a lot of merit, but one which sadly probably shouldn’t be
implemented until the sport has a considerable amount of further money and
popularity. Which is truly disappointing, because anyone who disputes the drama
of a title or relegation battle need look no further than Manchester City at
QPR in 2012. But then again, maybe a stage race unfolds in the same way and
cycling fans are treated to several “title races” each year? Promotion system
or not, I’ll still be watching.
The link to the original Al Hinds article is below:
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/al-hinds/blog/129488/where-results-are-inconsequential-the-uci-worldtour
No comments:
Post a Comment