Pro Tour In Crisis?

by Chris... on Aug 14, 2007 2:04 PM EDT in News Comment 29 comments

So the question remains, how many pro tour teams will survive to race in 2008?

Astana is the latest team holding a supposedly golden pro tour license to see its future in doubt. This following Discovery's shocking fate, where it couldn't find a taker for its license, even with one of the most decorated and talented lineups in the sport under contract. And Gerolsteiner is utterly in limbo, awaiting word as to whether its Green Bay Packer-style community bond will be permitted to lapse (and if so, what will happen to the statue?).

Of course, cycling teams come and go, and in the context of the ongoing upheaval, losing four teams in two years isn't the biggest shock. It does seem like a blow to the pro tour license, though. The idea of the license is that of a golden ticket, an automatic entry into every race that matters (and then some). US team sports aren't a perfect analogy -- for one thing, the economic model is completely different -- but if the Devil Rays or Arizona Cardinals ever decided to give up the ghost, the line of rich guys offering to buy out their license would be around the block.

I don't see a lot of continental teams prepared to convert to Pro Tour status, though maybe that will change. For one, these teams have a set list of sponsors and established infrastructure; all they'd need is a dump truck of cash to make the fee and sign some of these fancy free agents, and off they go. Easier said then done; ask Bruyneel and the Tailwind folks.

But is this really a problem? Not exactly. If they get down to 15 Pro Tour teams (the number I have previously thought was about right), the competition won't suffer; it'll just vary a bit more from race to race. Salaries will probably be depressed for a while, but then the salary explosion seemed to match the incidence of elaborate doping schemes, so I can't get too upset about that either. What's lost is the sense of a closed competition, where 20 teams battle it out for all the spoils all year long, with just a few random teams for window dressing. Instead, the Pro Tour will find itself heavily infiltrated by non-Pro Tour teams, some of whom may make off with the hardware, on a given day or even in the year-long competitions. It's not as neat and clean, and it would cause the UCI to think harder about how they run the competition, but the racing will be the same as it has been.

[Of course, there's Slipstream, and by the time I finished writing this, there was already talk of an Australian super squadra...]

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Add Unibet to the list of teams in limbo

Unibet are currently considering whether it's worth the money sponsoring a team that isn't allowed to race unless they do so under a different name, and even then not so much. Gee, I wonder what conclusion they will come to?

by Jens on Aug 14, 2007 2:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Right

The fact that I completely forgot them helps prove my, er, point.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Aug 14, 2007 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

CSC vs NASCAR

Somebody pointed out, a few weeks ago, that cycling teams haven't ever had a way to build value in their organizations.

I don't follow NASCAR, so I don't know anything about their business model and revenue sharing scheme. But it seems that the sport is structured like cycling--team organizations that turn into billboards for a sponsor year after year. Whatever they are doing, it seems to be working, at least from the point-of-view of building viewership.

I hate all over that approach, though. NASCAR goes to the super nauseating extreme of promoting the sponsor's interests, so the races are basically infomercials.

The model of providing some random sponsor with a few years of publicity is very unsatisfying from a fan's point of view. Disco's folding is just the most recent example of this. There have been truckloads of cycling teams that have come and gone over the years.

CSC seems to have suceeded in developing a real team brand and a fan base that can theoretically outlast the sponsor, and individual star riders.

The teams could fairly easily buddy up with eachother and the race organizers and build the sport.

-K-

by KevinK on Aug 14, 2007 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

From the Nascar point of view.

Nascar sponsorship works off of selling the rights to certain portions of the car. Major sponsors are given hood and side panels, smaller sponsors are given different portions of the car based on an individually negotiated deal for each sponsor. There are certain sections of the car that are worth more and then the teams success drives the price. For example the quarter panel of the Leading car in the Chase will cost more than the quarter panel on a car in the back of the field. It is all based on exposure and of course the cars in the lead get the most TV time. Every team has guys who all they do is market the cars panels to potential sponsors. In some cases with very successful teams the sponsors are more in a bidding war for rights to certain sections than otherwise. It is most like buying advertising on TV during sports events than anything else. The big events like the Superbowl (top NASCAR teams) are expensive to advertise in compared to A game Between Tampa Bay & The Royals (back of the packers). The problem with this is that the teams that can afford to have great teams through development and equipment end up getting more money and thus can have more development better equipment. The real key is what advertisers think they are getting for their money. They run an analysis that tells them how much the exposure is worth in advertising dollars and then look to see how much it costs in actual dollars. Naturally if the can see the actual expenditure is lower than the perceived benefit then they are willing. The key to getting a sponsor then becomes maximizing the positive exposure to maximize the worth in advertising dollars. Everyone is always looking for a deal.

Coup De Pot Rouleurs

by Clydesdale on Aug 14, 2007 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For those that are interested

Here is a Source That talks about the impact of advertising in motor sports. I think the relevance between motor sports and Cycling is pretty strong.

Coup De Pot Rouleurs

by Clydesdale on Aug 14, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For what it's worth

Tailwind said it wasn't because they couldn't find a sponsor...

by ghisallo on Aug 14, 2007 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rumors were swirling that

a major factor was that they didn't believe they would be invited to the Tour de France. Or more accurately put, they didn't feel that they could guarantee to a sponsor that the team would get a TdF invitation, and since the TdF is the big payoff, it wouldn't be worth the sponsor's money to put 45 mil into a team w/o a TdF guarantee.

Armstrong's comments in cyclingnews (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug11news) hinted at that, he suggested that the ASO might go back to national teams for the TdF, a rumor I've not heard from anyone else. It does show that the Team didn't feel that it was good business to ask a sponsor to be the next Unibet. I.e., the TdF guaranteed invite that comes w/ a Protour license is the biggest motivation for sponsors to come into the sport, and without being able to guarantee an invitation to le Tour to a sponsor, a team can't really have enough money to field a top tour team like Discovery, Astana, Caisse, or CSC.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on Aug 14, 2007 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be most interesting

if the TdF took a national team approach. Even then the French wouldn't win but still, you'd have some interesting teams in there. The infighting could be tremendous (i.e. Evans and Rogers, and all the Spanish and Italian squads.)

How can we make this happen?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Aug 14, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

National teams

That was something Prudhomme mentioned on one of the days of the Tour when things weren't looking to cheerful. To me it came off more as something that was said in frustration over a seemingly never improving situation, than a serious option. Lance perhaps saw it as a serious threat. National teams aside, I agree that the threat of arbitrarily being excluded from the Tour creates a completely unreasonable business-situation for a team. The stability remains the major selling-point of the Pro Tour. Without stable working conditions you can never expect cycling to attract the major sponsors, they will always opt for alternatives where they know what they will get for their money.

by Jens on Aug 14, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess this is where

we all take sides on the UCI/ASO debate again.

The Protour was originally a good idea, and well-administered it would have provided the sport w/ the top-level international team competition that would allow it to compete w/ F1, Fifa, and other top int'l sports.

Of course, the UCI killed the golden goose by using the Protour to fleece the race owners of their profitablilty and autonomy. So the ASO, RCS, and Unipublic took their ball and went home.

What that leaves is a sport where it may be harder for a Discovery type uber-team to compete, but may open the door to smaller teams who don't want to compete in ALL the major races.

Bottom line, if the Tour de France really is the most valuable sponsorship opportunity in the sport, that is to say, if le Tour is more important to sponsors than the rest of the season combined, than the ASO really is the most powerful organization in the sport and the UCI and teams will just have to come to grips with that reality.l

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on Aug 14, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Back to the future

"What that leaves is a sport where it may be harder for a Discovery type uber-team to compete, but may open the door to smaller teams who don't want to compete in ALL the major races."

I think we will see more and more teams emerge with a regional focus again. Certainly, the Selle-Italia version 2.0 is a good example: I'm forgetting the new sponsor's name, but they've put down a bunch of euros to secure Simoni's services with the goal of getting into the Giro. They will not, however, pursue pro tour status. Slipstream is headed much the same direction, though JV has made no secret that his goal is the Tour. His decision to hire several French riders should help in the that goal, as should the presence of two former yellow jersey wearers. The freedom of race organizers to invite whom they please helps feed this dynamic. Of course, it lacks the stability of the ideal form pro tour; but without sponsors, there is no stability at all.

by gavia on Aug 14, 2007 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The real reason

Armstrong is using Prudhomme's comment about national teams to deflect attention from the real reason Tailwind might not have been invited to the big show - continued doping problems. LA and company really don't know how the WADA Contador investigation is going to conclude. If the outcome is bad, this would be two strikes against Disco (Basso being strike one). Combined with ASO's distaste for LA, it's not too far of a stretch to imagine that the team would be blocked from the Tour next year. How he hell could they take 45 Million from a sponsor with this kind of sword hanging over their heads?

by Eric V on Aug 14, 2007 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sponsor might have asked for a guarantee

that the team would be invited to the TdF, and if the invitation was denied, LA and JB would have to let them out of the contract and refund money already paid out.

If I were Sponsor, I would also ask for the right to cancel the deal at any time at my discretion if any doping investigation credibly implicated Lance, Johan, or any rider or employee of Team Sponsor.

Either of those sponsor requests would cause both Lance and Johan to run away from the deal and cite other reasons for backing out.

by socal on Aug 14, 2007 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I'd ask for the same exact things if I were a sponsor. I'm sick of hearing this shit about being 90% done with finding a sponsor. Why do the fans have to constantly be treated like complete idiots. Come on Disco, lets call it like it is - doping issues have caused the loss of a major pro cycling team.

by Eric V on Aug 14, 2007 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting stats

wiki sports attendence figures

-K-

by KevinK on Aug 14, 2007 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NASCAR and Cycling and IndyCar/Cart

I also think that the car circuits are a good analogy to what's happening in cycling, particularly if you compare NASCAR with IndyCar which NASCAR has totally trounced.

It wasn't that long ago when open-wheeled racing was the dominant car racing form in the US. What has happened to change that pecking order are several factors but the big factor is that the Indy speedway and owner Tony George basically captured the open wheeled market, defeating various teams in the process (the Cart folks) but in the end destroying the market for open wheeled racing. It is now minor league to the extent that Formula 1 can't get a toehold.

Now if you read that paragraph and make the analogy of "Indy Speedway=TdF" you would be dead right. Its a very close analogy. In each case the one race that's the whale of the whole racing calendar in each sport is not shy at all at promoting itself at the expense of the other players in the sport. The results are dishearteningly similar: both sports are diminished.

The NASCAR folks, who are closely associated with their big race, the Daytona 500, did not make the same mistake. They realized that they needed to work together with the other race courses and teams to make a higher profile (national as opposed to regional) year long competition. This they did.

It should be noted that it wasn't sponsorships that drove the growth of NASCAR. The sponsorships merely followed the trend and like with cycling many teams (and even the sponsorship of the main series) changes yearly for many cars- sometimes a couple times a year even. That big old Dupont sticker on Jeff Gordon's car all these years is a big exception to the rule. So the Tailwind/LA statement that they were 90% done with a sponsorship deal before they backed out fits with what happens outside of cycling as it wasn't a sponsorship problem that convinced them to give it up. It was the politics of the sport.

So to sum up, the problem isn't sponsorships, or even doping. The problem is that there is too much infighting between cycling's players. As UCI guy Pat McQuaid said in reaction to Tailwind pulling out, this hurts the international credibility of cycling. But do you think for a minute that ASO is bothered by that? The Giro? Its not like I think McQuaid is a visionary the sport should rally around either but he is right in saying that the races are very selfish. As long as that continues the sport will be a boutique niche sport.

by ursula on Aug 14, 2007 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree ...

I think another interesting thing about NASCAR's success is that they are the KINGS of controlling every aspect of their "sport". With pro-cycling, there is NO control.

Phat Arses - On my signal, unleash Hell!

by notaero on Aug 14, 2007 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A smart move for the ASO

would be to promote the races before the TdF the same way the NASCAR folks promote their points competition. I've seen maybe two NASCAR races in part in my life, and I'm aware of that competition.

The ProTour could be recast in that model--not by the UCI, I think it's just not possible for them to do anything revolutionary.

The ASO and teams should dump the ProTour license = entry into the TdF, and make it a performance based entry. Setup requirements for dope controls (the blood passport idea from Rydr1 is the best proposal I've seen), and tadaa, cycling kicks ass.

-K-

by KevinK on Aug 15, 2007 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

National teams

cyclingfans.com raised the subject of the return to national teams last month. I'm not sure what I think about it.

Scroll down to July 29 here:

http://www.cyclingfans.com/arc07-23-07-07-31-07.html

by Toyota on Aug 14, 2007 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not just those

Credit Agricole's quitting its sponsorship this year, which might leave even more slots open (that said, I think they'll get a sponsor)

It does make things interesting. Teams like Chocolade Jacques, Tinkoff, Skil-Shimano, Tinkoff, Lamboukredit, Barloworld, Agritubel and Slipstream would be able to get lots of bids at almost any ProTour events they wanted. Selle Italia also would, and it leaves the ProTour at the level that the ASO cartel would love. 16 teams is, in fact, their target number.

by BDBrian on Aug 14, 2007 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BTW, as for U.S. team sports...

... don't be so sure that rich guys would line up around the block to buy the Tampa Bay Devil Rays if MLB required the team to stay in the Tampa area.

The Nashville NHL franchise owner has been trying to sell for quite a while now and lost a megabucks potential buyer because the NHL wouldn't let the potential buyer move the team to Canada. Now the owner is stuck trying to sell the team to someone else for $50-100 million less than the Canadian guy was willing to pay. No surprise there, because trying to sell the NHL in Nashville, Tennessee is a lot like trying to convince corporations that hate negative publicity to sponsor a pro cycling team.

by socal on Aug 14, 2007 8:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure

Exceptions are those where the all-important entry to the league is attached to a really bad idea. If those teams were free to move, problem solved.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Aug 14, 2007 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

National Teams

Boy, that'd be a spectacle. Can you imagine who would lead the Italian team? And how many knives would be sticking out of his back by, say, stage 3? Spanish team would be no picnic too. Actually, I'm starting to warm up to the idea.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Aug 14, 2007 10:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

National Teams

already compete in the World Championships, scheduled this year for Sept. 29. Almost every year we see riders from the same country in the Worlds not co-operating with each other because the fact is that they are paid by a Trade Team, each one wanting the publicity a World title would bring. This same conflict of interest would exist if the Tour was run on that basis. And if all events were run on a national teams format, who would pay the rders then ?

by lucybears on Aug 15, 2007 6:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

natch

but a one-day race in September or October tends to draw about 1/3 of the aspirants of a grand tour. Most of the Tour guys have shut down by then, and the Classics guys will only show if it's a suitable course.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Aug 15, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Funding?

I'd like to see the funding of the national teams for the TdF. I'd also like to see if the established teams would just let their stars go off to the national team.

Geez, what am I talking about? Of course that won't happen. The national teams would be filled with minor riders only. This ASO national team talk is just another attack at UCI and the pro tour.

by ursula on Aug 14, 2007 11:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Established

teams WOULD let their stars go off to the national team, but on condition that they were to make sure the winner came from their Trade team, not their country.

by lucybears on Aug 15, 2007 6:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

A combined trade/national-team racing calender would kill cycling as effectively as a rule making square wheels mandatory.

by Jens on Aug 15, 2007 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

National teams = joke

I don't think anyone (except Lance?) took that seriously.

First, the TdF has been the examplar of the new international world order. The ideal would be, you hop on the concorde, fly from New York to Paris, watch a stage of the TdF, while trading stocks on the Canadian Venture Exchange with your T-Mobile phone. National teams are pretty outmoded.

From the doping control perspective; I can't suffuse my writing with sufficient sarcasm in response to the idea that national teams will control doping. The national teams/olympics have been incubators, arguably of the current modes of dopage. Astana is just the latest example of a national team ethos. When Chinese riders get on the podium in Beijing for the RR or TT, you'll see the full expression of national team doping controls.

The olympic road race and the worlds are third rate compared to the regular pro races. It's like watching the pro-bowl or the olympic basketball games. There is no team chemistry, team history, etc...

-K-

by KevinK on Aug 15, 2007 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs