Interesting WSJ article

iainf72

It's about Armstrong attempting to buy the TdF and things like that

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811112300753043.html

Kléber

It sends shivers down my spine. The idea of concentrating race ownership and more into one company just sounds bad practice.

Handing it some private equity investors looks even worse as they will not look to run the 100 year old sport for the long term, they will look to construct a monopoly and then sell the sport on to another buyer after rigging it. I'd fear the creation of a Formula-1 style series which imposes a monopoly onto the sport, where the prime objection is money.

Now pro cycling is a business, riders are advertising hoardings for laminate flooring, currency brokerages and anti-snoring products but at the same time the sport has deep roots as a social and cultural event, whether the Tour de France or the 3 Days of De Panne.

The Pro Tour idea was a good one, it was just bungled by the UCI which haplessly sold licences for a lot of money and pretending this would guarantee a Tour entry slot when there was no legal basis for this, ASO and RCS had never signed up.

This is exactly where the governing body should step in, to provide a framework to support the sport.

Besides, I'm not sure the French would allow it, when rumours came out that PepsiCo could bid for French yoghurt maker Danone, the government told the US company to get lost. If yoghurts are strategic national interests to the French, the Tour de France is sacred.

andyp

I think it's inevitable that cycling will adopt a season long race series akin to Formula 1 at some point in the not too distant future. The Pro Tour could've been it if Verbruggen had waited until he had the teams and the race organisers lined up for it but he wanted tit to be his legacy so pushed it through before it was a done deal. The lack of buy in from the race organisers ultimately led to it's demise.

The bulk of the races that would make up the series are owned by two organisations now, ASO and RCS, so a scheme such as that proposed by this Armstrong backed consortium is becoming easier to achieve as you'd only need to convince the shareholders of two companies.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a bad one. I can understand the point Kleber makes above about the involvement of private equity firms. However, personal self interest, which is how the UCI is run, suffers from the same pitfalls.

Yorkman

The arrogance of the Americans is staggering.

The tour is bigger than Armstrong, he is not central to it or world cycling.

andyp

Why is it arrogant to think that cycling is ripe for being turned into a professional and well run sport rather than the shambles it is today?

markwalker

Andy,

This is NOT a dig at you.

The sport is in some or even many respects a shambles but the essence of the spring classics especially races like paris roubaix is part due to the rugged unforgiving and at times shambolic histories, successes and at times failures of the events and the riders.

The biggest shambles though seems to be the self serving dishonesty that goes on in some parts of the UCI. We already see exemptions being made for influential riders for the benifits of financial expediancy and were ASO to lose completely its own identity and independence we might find ourselves with a tour of unbelievable "athletes" akin to WCW. There is a huge difference between top end motor sport and cycling where top end money meets leading edge engineering development and the drivers skill is a small but important part of a much bigger picture.

Mark

Yorkman

andyp wrote:

Why is it arrogant to think that cycling is ripe for being turned into a professional and well run sport rather than the shambles it is today?

With the American approach to professional sport, we'd soon have it franchised, with teams such as the Belgian Bruisers and the Flanders Flash. Possibly the Italian Injectors, also.

Paris Roubaix would end up being staged in San Francisco, probably in summertime. And at a time to suit prime time US Tv.

Summit finishes of the TdF would be missed due to "a word from our sponsors".

The motive of these men is not to organise or sort out cycling.

It is about the dollar; no more, no less.

Kléber

The UCI has made a mess of things but partly because it has tried to be too commercial. I'd leave ASO and RCS to set the TV rights. They already have a good bargaining position, for example saying "if you want the Tour de France rights, you must show Paris-Nice" etc.

Like I say, a private equity firm will be in to fix up the sport, monopolise the TV rights and flip the package onto new investors in due course. I don't want a sport like this, with it's history, to end up like this.

iainf72

I'm not too sure the fact there are Americans involved is anything to worry about in particular. AEG's hook up with ASO is already in place.

Look at the mad-cap Tour of America (www.thetourofamerica.com) It's gone nowhere, anyone sensible knows the history is an important aspect of the sport. That's why you can just create a new race in California or Australia and expect it to have the kudos.

If the Eroica was created anywhere but Italy would it have the attraction it has to the fans of the sport?

Anyone who was hoping to make money at it would take these things into account and not change it significantly.

Birillo

From the article:

He eventually commanded an annual salary in the $3.5 million to $4 million range, while some of his teammates made as little as $15,000 a year.

Cycling might need sorting, but this doesn't give me any confidence that "Mr. Armstrong" is the man to do it.

afx237vi

Yorkman wrote:

andyp wrote:

Why is it arrogant to think that cycling is ripe for being turned into a professional and well run sport rather than the shambles it is today?

With the American approach to professional sport, we'd soon have it franchised, with teams such as the Belgian Bruisers and the Flanders Flash. Possibly the Italian Injectors, also.

Paris Roubaix would end up being staged in San Francisco, probably in summertime. And at a time to suit prime time US Tv.

Summit finishes of the TdF would be missed due to "a word from our sponsors".

The motive of these men is not to organise or sort out cycling.

It is about the dollar; no more, no less.

You've just described professional cycling as it is right now, and has been since the 1900s.

- Franchises already exist. You got the cash, you buy a license, you are allowed to enter races. No need to think up twee little team names, just name yourself after a laminate floor company or a telephone credit service. Run out of money, your franchise gets sold to the next in line.

- Races are already sold to the highest bidding locations. Okay, P-Rbx is not going to San Francisco any time soon, but the Tour de France goes to London, the Giro goes to Belgium, the Vuelta goes to the Netherlands.

- Same with summit finishes, sponsored by a French supermarket. We have a points competition, brought to you by PMU, a young rider's competition, presented by Brandt... smaller races are even worse. Everything is sponsored. Even actual races. Amstel Gold? Eneco Tour? Omloop Het Nieuwsblad?

To say that cycling is in danger of becoming "too American" and that "it is about the dollar; no more, no less" is quite funny. The only reason the sport exists is for advertising purposes! When Desgrange first came up with the idea of the Tour de France, the sole purpose was to give L'Auto newspaper a sales boost. The bike race was much less important than the circulation figures!

andyp

Yorkman wrote:

With the American approach to professional sport, we'd soon have it franchised, with teams such as the Belgian Bruisers and the Flanders Flash. Possibly the Italian Injectors, also.

Paris Roubaix would end up being staged in San Francisco, probably in summertime. And at a time to suit prime time US Tv.

Summit finishes of the TdF would be missed due to "a word from our sponsors".

The motive of these men is not to organise or sort out cycling.

It is about the dollar; no more, no less.

How about the NFL/AFL? They may franchise teams but they also ensure that there is a level playing field by imposing a salary cap and a draft system for the best young talent. This keeps the league competitive and means you don't have the richest teams winning year after year.

There are some negative aspects to the marketing of sports in the US but there are also some positive ones. Cycling might benefit from some of these.

DaveyL

http://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/1401716991

"Love the TdF but not looking to buy it plus it's not for sale. http://online.wsj.com/artic...

leguape

afx237vi wrote:

Yorkman wrote:

andyp wrote:

Why is it arrogant to think that cycling is ripe for being turned into a professional and well run sport rather than the shambles it is today?

With the American approach to professional sport, we'd soon have it franchised, with teams such as the Belgian Bruisers and the Flanders Flash. Possibly the Italian Injectors, also.

Paris Roubaix would end up being staged in San Francisco, probably in summertime. And at a time to suit prime time US Tv.

Summit finishes of the TdF would be missed due to "a word from our sponsors".

The motive of these men is not to organise or sort out cycling.

It is about the dollar; no more, no less.

You've just described professional cycling as it is right now, and has been since the 1900s.

- Franchises already exist. You got the cash, you buy a license, you are allowed to enter races. No need to think up twee little team names, just name yourself after a laminate floor company or a telephone credit service. Run out of money, your franchise gets sold to the next in line.

- Races are already sold to the highest bidding locations. Okay, P-Rbx is not going to San Francisco any time soon, but the Tour de France goes to London, the Giro goes to Belgium, the Vuelta goes to the Netherlands.

- Same with summit finishes, sponsored by a French supermarket. We have a points competition, brought to you by PMU, a young rider's competition, presented by Brandt... smaller races are even worse. Everything is sponsored. Even actual races. Amstel Gold? Eneco Tour? Omloop Het Nieuwsblad?

To say that cycling is in danger of becoming "too American" and that "it is about the dollar; no more, no less" is quite funny. The only reason the sport exists is for advertising purposes! When Desgrange first came up with the idea of the Tour de France, the sole purpose was to give L'Auto newspaper a sales boost. The bike race was much less important than the circulation figures!

Exactly. At its most ridiculous it's sold stages to promote ferry routes and farmers.

The men's cycling season badly needs focus and for the big names to race the majority of the big fixtures like they did before Greg Lemond's shooting accident. The women's does in the World Cup Series and the fact that its top tier race both stage and one-day.

nathanbloke

I've never knowingly read any Wall Street Journal articles before, but with comments like:

Professional cycling could use a bailout. It lacks a central organizing body, like the National Football League or National Basketball Association. Individual races compete for sponsors and don't have bargaining power in deals for broadcast rights; they don't centrally negotiate.

I realise why. It's as if the U.C.I doesn't exist, and the american sports business model is the only real one. With that sort of arguement, they'd dismiss athletics and football (though they'd give them new names, track and field and soccer).

mclarent

from a business perspective

CVC remains interested in a deal, though any deal is probably a long way off, a person familiar with the matter said.

says it all really. Think CVC have enough on their plate with "core" investments without branching out into something that would be considered specialised / unique / high risk. In the current environment, why buy the TdF when you can hit your target returns buying distressed manufacturers, service companies etc etc?

iainf72

mclarent wrote:

says it all really. Think CVC have enough on their plate with "core" investments without branching out into something that would be considered specialised / unique / high risk. In the current environment, why buy the TdF when you can hit your target returns buying distressed manufacturers, service companies etc etc?

You mean like buying, oh I don't know, iShares?

leguape

nathanbloke wrote:

I've never knowingly read any Wall Street Journal articles before, but with comments like:

Professional cycling could use a bailout. It lacks a central organizing body, like the National Football League or National Basketball Association. Individual races compete for sponsors and don't have bargaining power in deals for broadcast rights; they don't centrally negotiate.

I realise why. It's as if the U.C.I doesn't exist, and the american sports business model is the only real one. With that sort of arguement, they'd dismiss athletics and football (though they'd give them new names, track and field and soccer).

It's completely accurate though. The UCI is a governing body - it sets the rules of the sport and administers it, despite its best attempts to pretend otherwise. All things like Eneco have done is put them at odds with the people who they should be trying to work on the behalf of.

ASO is going to burn your wallet for TDF sponsorship but the only people seeing that money is the pocket of the Amaury family, not cycling. If cycling had a central organising body then perhaps fewer races would have folded as sponsorship value would be diffused across the spread of events rather than concentrated on a few narrow pieces of real estate.

You think the NBA and NFL got to be among the most ridiculously lucrative sporting franchise operations by indulging in petty infighting over who gets the conch every year?

micron

That might hold true if the ASO didn't run a whole raft of races and didn't have a longstanding commitment to developing cycling in Africa through their commitment to the Tour de Fasso.

I like cycling because I get to watch enough of it on TV and the Internet and when I go and watch it by the side of the road it's an incredible free spectacle. Will that remain under the franchise plan? Will we still see the cheesy caravans with their representatives from the local gendarmeries and cheese makers? Just exactly who does this type of model benefit? An expensive TV rights package nets those who own it plenty and means that I have to fork out for yet another PPV channel, with maybe premium rates for the GTs and Classics. It means that I don't get to stand on the finish line or within the last km for free because that's where the lucrative corporate hospitality stands are. I no longer get to access riders because somebody has to protect an investment.

I don't see riders leaving the peloton in droves because they get paid peanuts or hate their working conditions. Isn't there an expression 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'? What, fundamentally, needs fixing in the sport (except perhaps the leadership of the UCI)? This isn't about making the sport better, it's about making money on their investment - these kinds of deals aren't put together by great philanthropists but businessmen, looking to make a profit. Any idea that these kinds of deals are put together for the 'good of the sport' are just naive.

[/i]

leguape

micron wrote:

That might hold true if the ASO didn't run a whole raft of races and didn't have a longstanding commitment to developing cycling in Africa through their commitment to the Tour de Fasso.
[/i]

Tour De Fasso could equally be seen as a very narrow commitment to the French-speaking market, given that it is a former French colony. ASO sponsor money benefits ASO events, which represent a relatively small but significant part of the calendar, not cycling as a whole.

Last time I went to an ASO event you couldn't get a spot down one side of the finish because that's where all the press and sponsors get to hang out and the riders barely had to pass the public between finish line and the team buses. Looks a lot like lucrative corporate spaces are already here to me.

micron

Of course they are - but ASO also understand that you need the fans to be standing along the barriers in the last kilometre - think your Armstrong led US consortium will want to leave the last km prime vieweing spots to the fans - for free? Do you know how much courtside tickets cost for NBA games?

The problem with the sport is not how the RCS and ASO run their races but the fact that the UCI tried to do a land grab to line its own pockets. Now you'd prefer that the pockets that get lined are Americans with little respect for the history and tradition of these races. So stages have been sold to ferry companies and the like? So what? They have also been the scene for mass protest - think you'd see any of that under an American owned race?

I have no desire to see the NBA - or more likely the WWF - on wheels. And do you seriously think that the extra money generated by franchising the sport would go anywhere but into the pockets of the investors?

Kléber

ASO is a commercial interest but its interests - high TV viewing figures and a large roadside audience - are assured by a cleaner sport and entertaining racing. It seems to have recognised that the sport needs to be cleaned up. At times this has contrasted with the UCI, which ironically has preferred to put money first and leave ethics behind, for example on the Pro Tour, where the UCI was raking in money from selling licences but ASO wanted control over the selection of teams.

The ambiguity here makes things odd, that a business is now doing more to guarantee the clean up of sport than the governing body which seems to protect commercial interests.