China to Host a Second World Tour Event

blazing_saddles

At least it's been put in the most logical slot in the calender and extends the season a little:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/season- ... r-calendar

Stone Glider

O T I notice on the link provided, that Saxo Bank may be deprived of their World Tour Licence. That would mean that they need not be required to attend either Chinese fixtures? A bit of a win-win if you ask me.

rick_chasey

Bore off.

Other than to make the UCI more cash, and potentially get a few bigger sponsors, wtf is the point of trying to make the top level "global". The 3 biggest races will ALWAYS be in Europe. The season will ALWAYS be decided by the European calendar.

Get over it. It's not F1.

mr_poll

At what point last year during the Tour of Beijing where literally 3 men and a dog turned up to watch (think I read they had to bus school kids in for the finish of a couple of stages), did someone think we need another race in China.

I know money talks but really?

inkyfingers

Bet the riders are delighted to have the season extended with a pointless borefest of a race that serves no purpose but to line the UCI's coffers and allow a few struggling teams to rack up some World Tour points. At least with Lombardy as last race of the season you are actually going to get some big riders there who really want to win it, now the season will end with a whimper rather than a bang.

dave_1

Hangzhou is one of the most beautiful place I've ever visited. Chinese sponsors are what the sport might need, hence taking racing there is good..let's see what sponsors pull out at world tour level in the next few years..maybe we will be grateful for Chinese sponsors in future teams. Time will tell

Jez mon

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model. One way of getting this is global sponsors, for this you need a sport with global appeal.

OTOH, it's there is a valid point about the calendar. It's one thing expanding the start of the season going for some Sheik's dollars in the middle East, they can serve dual purposes as warm ups and money spinning advertisements for the sport. Races in China, at the end of the season just feel poorly thought out...

Jez mon

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model. One way of getting this is global sponsors, for this you need a sport with global appeal.

OTOH, it's there is a valid point about the calendar. It's one thing expanding the start of the season going for some Sheik's dollars in the middle East, they can serve dual purposes as warm ups and money spinning advertisements for the sport. Races in China, at the end of the season just feel poorly thought out...

RichN95.

Jez mon wrote:

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model.

Absolutely. The one question that has to be asked about everything with cycling, whether it's the races or a doping investigation - or beyond cycling, is "who is paying for this?".

Some people will ask the UCI to drug test more or invest in women's cycling. But when they try and make money abroad they're wrong.

Italiano

It's wrong when a governing body is also organizing thing; that's a complete conflict of interests.

Nothing wrong with organizing a new race but why put it right away as WT?
Why should it have same points as ending on a podium of a 3 weeks Grand Tour?
Any logic behind it?
The only one I can think is obbligating the teams to take part otherwise they will risk their license (due to the ranking).

squired

If you are going to make teams travel all the way to China at the end of the season you might as well give them a good reason (i.e. by having a second WT race there are plenty of points to be won).

The "globalisation" of the sport isn't just about making it more sustainable. It is also about its Olympic survival. If most nations have no interest in cycling it will be edged out of the Olympics, which would be very damaging.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model.

Absolutely. The one question that has to be asked about everything with cycling, whether it's the races or a doping investigation - or beyond cycling, is "who is paying for this?".

Some people will ask the UCI to drug test more or invest in women's cycling. But when they try and make money abroad they're wrong.

Cycling's sustainable.

It's just small, and it's attractions limited to Western Europe (with the exception of the Tour).

This isn't a drive for sustainability. This is a drive for growth > and the wrong way to go about it.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model.

Absolutely. The one question that has to be asked about everything with cycling, whether it's the races or a doping investigation - or beyond cycling, is "who is paying for this?".

Some people will ask the UCI to drug test more or invest in women's cycling. But when they try and make money abroad they're wrong.

Cycling's sustainable.

It's just small, and it's attractions limited to Western Europe (with the exception of the Tour).

This isn't a drive for sustainability. This is a drive for growth > and the wrong way to go about it.

I am not sure it is sustainable at its current level. One of the most successful teams last year folded, and teams continually find it difficult to get sponsorship. Furthermore, (whilst I'm not pretending to be an economic expert) I think the Eurozone situation is making most companies want to tighten their belts.

Secondly, AFAIK, the pool of riders young is ever decreasing, cycling just isn't as popular in France as it once was and it's a similar story for most of Europe.

Expanding cycling's global appeal would help get sponsors from around the globe, and could also help broaden the rider base. Both of which are good for the long term health of the sport.

squired

Cycling is not glamorous and is HARD. That alone is enough to put its future under threat. While some sports are doing their best to kill themselves (like cricket) others, particularly American sports, are on a big global drive. The historical model must be broken for it to succeed. New things need to be tried. New markets need to be opened. Races need to be better designed.

I think a very important comment I once heard was from Dana White of the UFC. He said that if you just have a small following of hardcore fans you'll never be truly successful. What you need to do is attract the casual fan and retain them. You need to draw in young people too, as they are the future of the sport. The globalisation of cycling can only be a good thing and if the UCI has to engineer things to push that goal forwards, so be it. Having said that, if two new races in China are going to be in the World Tour, something like the Tour of California should definitely be.

rebs

Well I for one welcome our new Chinese Overlords! :P

mr_poll

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Criticise the UCI for going after money all you like, at the end of the day, pro cycling needs a sustainable business model.

Absolutely. The one question that has to be asked about everything with cycling, whether it's the races or a doping investigation - or beyond cycling, is "who is paying for this?".

Some people will ask the UCI to drug test more or invest in women's cycling. But when they try and make money abroad they're wrong.

Cycling's sustainable.

It's just small, and it's attractions limited to Western Europe (with the exception of the Tour).

This isn't a drive for sustainability. This is a drive for growth > and the wrong way to go about it.

I am not sure it is sustainable at its current level. One of the most successful teams last year folded, and teams continually find it difficult to get sponsorship. Furthermore, (whilst I'm not pretending to be an economic expert) I think the Eurozone situation is making most companies want to tighten their belts.

Secondly, AFAIK, the pool of riders young is ever decreasing, cycling just isn't as popular in France as it once was and it's a similar story for most of Europe.

Expanding cycling's global appeal would help get sponsors from around the globe, and could also help broaden the rider base. Both of which are good for the long term health of the sport.

Its a bit chicken and egg though isn't it - expand into a market to gain the exposure - or market the area (perhaps with more pro-tour's) and then build on the exposure.

For me given the perceived interest from the Tour of Beijing (ie none existent) then I am not sure why Chinese sponsors would be interested. Surely the UCI should be working on getting higher profile feeder events and looking to get some form of Chinese Team involved that could in time make the leap to WT status. Marketing money follows success not empty roads with top teams' (minus the real stars) being forced to turn up a couple of weeks a year.

symo

If it was a WT event proper with loads of points great but as was said before this is pretty weak. Obviously it is for the money and could be used to generate more interest in the sport as a whole.

Hoogerland's crash was an example of a great marketing opportunity missed. Other sports claim to be tough but how many premier league footballers would have landed on barb wire and got back up again? I think a lot of the problem is cycling's image worldwide, not the doping (Look at US 'football', Tennis or anything else without hard testing); but the fact the UCI is failing to cultivate an image of cycling being hardcore, which is what the kids today want.

Perhaps a campaign of the worlds top footballers falling over and writhing in agony after a mere brush followed by Hoogerland's hit and back on the bike could work wonders to cultivate the image that is needed.

Jez mon

I don't see that working though. People know soccer players are tremendous wimps, that doesn't stop it being the top sport in this country and in many around the world.

Those that want "toughness" have Rugby, Ice Hockey, MMA, etc. sports where the toughness factor is far more obvious.

As for the doping angle, I think you are failing to acknowledge the media angle, cycling and doping are intertwined in the media's eyes in a way that other sports just are not.