As the sport of cycling kicks off into the 2016 season, one of the talking points is the imminent arrival of the UCI's WorldTour reforms for 2017, and the Amaury Sport Organisation's (ASO) strong-arm tactics to oppose them. But where does this leave the sport and what would my solution be?
The UCI WorldTour (UWT) reforms have been a work in progress for two-and-a-half years. The plans were presented after some revisions and consultation in June 2015, and the key points on a sporting level are as follows:
- Fixed three-year licences to the teams. This is designed to create stability about a team's future, by attracting sponsors to the sport knowing that their investment will have three years worth of exposure at the highest level.
- Eighteen teams in the UWT, with an unrestricted number of teams in what is currently the ProContinental and Continental Tours. These 18 teams will take part in all existing UWT races, with new races included in the UWT calendar optional.
- Expanding the UWT to include more races - up to 170 race days in total from 148.
- Reducing the maximum number of riders per UWT team from 30 to 25.
- Create a rolling ranking in the same mould as tennis, where points are retained for 52 weeks. This eliminates the annual overall winner in favour of a form guide for the past 12 months.
For years, ASO and the UCI haven't seen eye-to-eye on a range of issues, most notably the UCI inviting all of the WorldTour teams to ASO's parties. ASO have been gracious hosts once the guests arrived, but ASO want total control of their guest lists. In objection to the reforms, ASO have taken their events (including the Tour de France, la Vuelta a Espana, Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, Paris-Nice and Criterium du Dauphine among their most prominent) off of the UWT, and registered them as Hors Category.
Which means what exactly? Well, the UWT events are mandatory for the UWT teams. Hors Category rules dictate an upper limit of 70% of the teams competing to be WorldTour. ASO also wants to reduce peloton sizes from 22 teams to 20 on the grounds of safety (which is a good idea, I mean, have you seen how many crashes happen in the first week of the Tour these days?!?!), which then means no more than 13 UWT teams can be - and I stress - INVITED to the Tour. This achieves ASO's goal of complete control in regards to teams competing and the number of teams. This might sound like great news - more competition for places, smaller fields, a return to the years past where a Henry Anglade or Roger Walkowiak-type rider from a small team can create a surprise, French presence in French races etc., but there are definite downsides.
Three-year licences are intended to create stability. The Tour is the most well-covered race on the planet (and almost always has been, even founder Henri Desgrange was aware that his Tour was the biggest drawcard for the sport, which is why he reluctantly switched from national teams to trade teams well after most other races), and therefore presents the greatest opportunity for sponsors to get return on investment. Why would someone fund a team for three years only to risk not being invited to the biggest shop window in the sport merely because someone doesn't like someone else who happens to be within the team organisation? I'm sure it wouldn't get that petty, but it would be ASO's prerogative.
And where would this leave the UCI WorldTour? Does anyone genuinely think that previous winners Alejandro Valverde or Joaquim Rodriguez will skip le Tour, la Vuelta and Liege to consider their season rankings by picking up points at the Tour of Poland instead? For sure, they might miss these races, but I doubt it'll be to focus on the ranking points. Removing what amounts to over 40% of the race days from the current UWT would undermine the entire premise of the UCI's system and the prestige associated with it. The rankings system is already struggling for exposure when compared to that of the tennis or golf models, where being #1 is a huge honour in itself. Losing the biggest races will put an invisible asterisk next to the leader's name. In a time where UCI president Brian Cookson is trying to restore credibility, losing ASO's races and undermining his WorldTour is a big blow.
So what do I think of the issue, and what would I do differently? Firstly, I think that the UCI has gone the wrong way with regards to race days. Reduce the UWT to only the prestigious events with history, or better yet, weight them more significantly with points. John Degenkolb won two of the sport's five "Monuments" yet ranked 12th overall. Fabio Aru was second in one Grand Tour (the Giro) and won another (the Vuelta) to finish fifth overall. Weight the important races that riders base their seasons around more heavily. That way, those at the top of the ranking are there because they're winning the big races as opposed to riding consistently. Put the prestige back into the ranking. I'd prioritise the Grand Tours and the Monuments, and bring back a distinctive leader's jersey. Alternatively, remove the smaller races to a second tier, but in terms of revenue for the races and long-term stability, this would not be a step forward.
Secondly, if you are going to have more race days, don't reduce the team sizes! If the teams are stretched to be at every race with fewer riders and more race days, it reduces the possibility of a big-name rider turning up to give a small event some publicity. The UCI wants to "create a stronger pyramid," but it appears to be stacking the top too heavily - give the smaller races a chance to draw big names! Admittedly, this could leave races like the Tour of Catalonia (which is already struggling financially, but in the middle of such a pyramid) short of quality riders, but the requirement to have UWT teams participate is still there, so riders good enough to be in the WorldTour will still be present regardless.
Make no mistake, this is a power struggle between the two most powerful bodies within cycling - the one that organises and administrates the sport, and the one who puts on the biggest show. ASO have stated that they plan to continue the European heritage of the sport driven by publicity and where "sporting criterion" are the most important, yet the UCI is trying to globalise the sport and bring in sustainable commercial pathways. The two goals sound mutually exclusive, but I'd like to see a scenario where both are possible. The longer it takes someone to blink and subsequently concede some of their power, the more uncertainty will surround the sport, which places the investment into teams in jeopardy, which in turn weakens the sport in the long term. ASO are protecting their own interests from the stronger position (if nothing changes, they get what they want in the short-term while they have more than 13 UWT teams), but I'm struggling to see a long-term winner from this scenario.
The Tour de France will continue, people racing bikes will continue as they always have, WorldTour or not. But while most other sports are moving forward, if the WorldTour disbands and races take responsibility for themselves, it would be more akin to cycling in the mid-twentieth century. There is a bigger picture, and this may be a case of winning the battle, only to claim a mound of scorched earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment