I recently wrote about the split between the UCI and the grand tour organizers
enabling the bosses of the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a Espana
free to invite any team they wanted to their races. Well, the Giro d'Italia
announced its invited teams and judging by the prominent names left off the
list, the free market in cycling has arrived.
To be sure, before the inception of the UCI's Pro Tour, there was a free market
in professional cycling, but things were so bad during the Pro Tour, it seems
like a re-birth of the free market. By free market, I mean the ability of the
individual races to determine which teams get to ride their events. If the Tour
de France want to invite only amateur teams from the state of Rhode Island it is
now their choice to do so. However, if the perceived quality of the race
suffers and fans go elsewhere then the Tour bosses only have themselves to
blame.
That may not seem so far-fetched. Back in the early 80's, in some people's eyes
the Tour de France was getting boring. So, in an attempt to add some excitement
to the race, the organizers extended invitations to several amateur teams
including those from the US, Russia and Colombia. Only the Colombians came, but
it ushered in the era of the Colombian climber and the likes of Lucho Herrera
and Fabio Parra won stages and stood on the podium at the Tour.
That's how a free market works. You develop a product. You market it. If people
like it. They buy it. That may seem to be a pretty simple formula, but it
isn't. Yes, the race organizers can be totally arbitrary in which teams they
include, but for credibility sake, they need to be objective with the criteria
they will use for determining who will ride. In this year's Giro, the
organizers excluded several teams including Astana and the former T-Mobile
Team, now called Team High Road Sports, because of concerns over doping.
Hey, that is their prerogative, but what about Michael Rasmussen's Rabobank
team and Team LPR which included Danillo DiLuca who is serving a three-month
suspension for a non-analytical doping offense? That just doesn't make sense
to me. Oh well, hopefully, saner heads will prevail at the organization
which runs the Tour de France and there will be no seemingly arbitrary decisions
about who will toe the starting line in July.
Bruce
Active Expert: Bruce Hildenbrand
Previous Next
Bruce Hildenbrand
Susie B,
good comments all. Let me try to address them.
I think there were several reasons why the grand tour organizers didn't want the Pro Tour, here they are in
descending order of importance, IMHO
1) Money - the UCI has no real way to generate revenue since it doesn't own any races other than the World
Championships and, unlike the NFL, all the TV revenues go to the race organizers. So, this was viewed (and
rightly so, IMHO) by the grand tour organizers as an attempt to get a piece of the pie. If the UCI could have
grown the Pro Tour to be more important than the Tour de France, then maybe the UCI would have deserved
a slice of the TV revenues, but IMHO the Pro Tour was not headed in that direction.
2) selection of teams - the grand tour organizers wanted to be able to determine which teams attended their races
for several reasons. First, they wanted to be able to include smaller teams that were from their country (French
teams in the Tour, Italian teams in the Giro,etc.). With 20 Pro Tour Teams and 21, or so, teams in most grand
tour events, that left little room for the non-Pro Tour teams. Secondly, the grand tour organizers don't trust the UCI
to effectively fight doping. When all the doping positives occurred at the 2007 Tour, the prestige of the Tour de France
ook a big hit. Under the current Pro Tour agreement, the Tour bosses were required to take 162 riders
(18 teams of 9 riders) over which they had no control into the race. The Pro Tour teams chose which riders were
on the roster and the Tour organizers could do nothing about their choices.
The reason I made "selection of teams" one reason is that they are interlinked. At one time I thought a reasonable
solution would be to reduce the number of Pro Tour teams to say 15 or so which would give the race organizers six
slots for their choosing. However, if the Pro Tour teams would still have sole descretion on who they send then that
would not satisfy the second problem. After the Rasmussen affair, the Tour bosses want to have a say in the
specific riders as well as the teams.
Oh yeah, I don't think you could increase the number of teams without decreasing the number of riders on each
team. With all the roundabouts in France and the tight finishing circuits in the Giro, those races are already an
accident waiting to happen.
Yes, barring any unforseen incidents, I think Slipstream will be at the Tour! I also, hope that High Road Sports
will also be there. I was just at the High Road team camp and they have cleaned house and are looking to
move forward, just like Slipstream, as a team of the highest integrity. And with George Hincapie, Michael Rogers,
Linus Gerdemann, Michael Barry, etc, they deserve to be there as well. We have to reward the teams who are
making strides to clean up the sport. That is the future!
About the TV money, it is a lot! Just a few weeks ago, the Tour organizers agreed to a new five-year deal with
France Televisions (they broadcast the tour on the France 2 and France 3 channels) for 29 million Euros per year
with a 2 percent increase for the next for four years. The Tour also sells the rights to use the France Televisions
feed to people like Versus and other entities like Eurosport and national TV stations like ZDF and ADR in Germany
and RAI in Italy, etc. I dont' know exactly what these TV networks pay, but it is probably in the high six-figure to
low seven-figure range.
I hope this answers all your questions. If not, let me know.
Bruce
Jesse@Active
With High Road and Astana out of the Giro, how will this affect their mission at the Tour of California? Can we expect both teams to bring their A games in hopes of proving that they mean business on the road? What are the chances Astana decides to try to put Leipheimer, Contador and Kloden all on the podium?
Cathy
in response to: Jesse@Active
Contador and Kloden are not racing ATOC so will not be helping Levi defend his title. However, Team Astana is bringing a great squad with several riders capable of getting good results, in addition to Levi who will fight to win the overall. Gusev, Ivanov, Horner, Chechu, Jani....these guys will be especially motivated to get a win after the Giro snub, as will Team High Road. It should be fun to watch! Personally I can't wait to see them battle it out with a team that has sung their own praises a little too loudly in my opinion.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Cathy,
thanks for answering Jesse's question. Given Astana's roster for the Tour of California they will definitely be coming
to win it! And, yes, the Giro snub will be super-motivation to put in a cracking ride. ASO, the company which owns
and organizes the Tour de France will be announcing the teams invited to its other major stage race, Paris-Nice on
February 13th. Much like the Golden Globes are a preview of the Oscars, if teams like Astana and High Road are
left out of Paris-Nice it could spell big trouble for their chances of getting an invite to the Tour. That would be a real
travesty, IMHO.
Bruce
Maybe I'd get onboard with this whole free market business if top Giro man Angelo Z dances around to "My Prerogative"... With or without the flat-top hair cut & massive shoulder padded suit, which would of course, be his prerogative.
Actually, according to what I read the last couple days, it's NOT the past history of doping that's keeping Astana & High Road out of the race, but that apparently the Giro guys don't think the teams were going to send their "A" teams & well, they're just not down with that. Yes, it seems the Giro is done being the ugly stepsister to the Tour de France & they want to dance at the Ball too, d*mn it!
It's because of stuff like this that I support the Pro Tour. Or at least some version. WHY do you think it's a good idea that race OWNERS have so much power over the sport? They only truly care about their own races (see example above). For the sport to continue to grow, it needs a controlling entity that cares about the sport as a whole AND about the riders. I think the Pro Tour was on the right track. Maybe it just needs some modifications. The one thing I don't want to see is cycling being held hostage to the whims of race owners. That's as bad as the deathgrip on college football by the Bowl Games & their partners in greed, the college conference poobahs.
Maybe the Pro Tour should consists of two tiers : the top group and a slightly lesser group. There would be 14-16 teams in the top group & they would be the BEST teams in the world & they would be guaranteed slots into the big races (unless flagged by the UCI as being under investigation for a CURRENT violation & then it's each race organizer's, um, prerogative). The 2nd tier would consist of 10-15 teams & all the races would also have to invite 2-4 teams from this group, chosen by each race organizer. The other race slots could be filled by other 2nd tier PT teams or teams not in the PT at all. ALSO, the Tier placement is not fixed. You could move up or be "relegated" at the end of the season dependant on your end-of-year points. This should keep race organizers happy as the teams will always want to send guys to all races who can win points for them. What do you think?
Switching topics slightly, I have some other questions for you. Don't you think the ASO will absolutely invite an American team? They MAY not want one to win & they MAY not love us, but they sure want our money & TV exposure. If they don't invite Slipstream &/or that other newly designated "American" team - High Road, it would be the worse French business decision since Oprah was kept out of Hermes... BTW, do you know if or how much the various TV orgs pay the ASO to be allowed to broadcast from the TDF?