ProTour dead

Bro Deal said:

Since the UCI has finally accepted that the GTs do not want to be part of the ProTour, it looks like the ProTour does not have much left to offer. Without guarantees of entry to the GTs, will smaller teams want to enter events they are not suited for? It does not look viable without the GTs.

So what comes next?

I would not mind a return the the World Cup format where the top sixteen teams were given automatic entry to the GTs.

Is ASO taking all of their other races out of the ProTour as well? I mean what is the ProTour without Paris/Nice, Roubaix, Liege and, of course, Qatar? Kind of renders the ProTour as second rate.

I don't think ASO will permit any system where there is an automatic birth into the Tour. Astana did an end to that these last two years. I suspect that the automatic birth issue was really what was being played out in the Unibet fiasco.

Frankly, I am with the GTs on this one. The realize that the UCI is screwing things up and can't be trusted regulating the GT's investment in their races.

Frigo's Luggage said:

Is ASO taking all of their other races out of the ProTour as well? I mean what is the ProTour without Paris/Nice, Roubaix, Liege and, of course, Qatar? Kind of renders the ProTour as second rate.

I don't think ASO will permit any system where there is an automatic birth into the Tour. Astana did an end to that these last two years. I suspect that the automatic birth issue was really what was being played out in the Unibet fiasco.

Frankly, I am with the GTs on this one. The realize that the UCI is screwing things up and can't be trusted regulating the GT's investment in their races.

So what would replace the vacuum left by the dissolving Protour?

Crankyfeet said:

So what would replace the vacuum left by the dissolving Protour?

Bring back the DuPont 😄

No matter what they say its still a fight about television money.

The Pro Tour is a good idea, especially the idea becoming global. A Pro Tour race in the US or Australia is a good idea. The grand tours may be a small bit better for antidoping but they are not good for growing the sport.

snood said:

No matter what they say its still a fight about television money.

The Pro Tour is a good idea, especially the idea becoming global. A Pro Tour race in the US or Australia is a good idea. The grand tours may be a small bit better for antidoping but they are not good for growing the sport.

Agreed! The Pro Tour is a great idea for globalising cycling - pity it was implemented poorly and by force.

That said - between mini Hitlers in cycling and TV rights I don't think the ASO and Pro Tour will ever get along - both want to much of the pie...

I remain unconvinced on this globalisation thing. The sponsorships and racing remains overwhlemingly European, and that is where the true fan base is - I am not demeaning other nationalities that follow cycling, but having people plan their summer holidays and camp out on the Alps for the TdF, or being forced to bring in the army for crowd control at the Dolomites for the Giro are an indication on where cycling is an important spectator sport.

The PT did not add much to cycling, beyond making it increasingly difficult for smaller teams to remain in pro cycling (a sponsor à la Acqua e Sapone does not really care whether their riders can compete in the Vuelta or the TdF - they want TV exposure in Italy, which is their only market!). These smaller teams (the 'continentals'😉 are being pushed out of cycling, and in an effort to globalise cycling we have been demoting semi-classic races like a Giro del Lazio or E3. Not the way to do it, IMHO.

Now, the unknown for me is cycling in the US, The Market With Big Money for the sponsors and bike/component producers. I cannot figure out whether there is a real future/real interest for pro cycling there, but I guess the next 2-3 years post Lance will make that more clear.

brick92.hyves.org111154845 6 Y9kk.jpegOpen ↗

Powerful Pete said:

Now, the unknown for me is cycling in the US, The Market With Big Money for the sponsors and bike/component producers. I cannot figure out whether there is a real future/real interest for pro cycling there, but I guess the next 2-3 years post Lance will make that more clear.

I have always felt that the Armstrongs and Lemonds have brought publicity to cycling in America at the detriment to the grassroots development. We have seen the cycling powers here in the states always attempting to put together a powerful national team that can compete with the europeans. But the average American cyclist does not really care about the European cycling world. It's the local crit that has his attention. And it's at that level where there is not enough money to go around.
America will never make road cycling a priority sport. It's too expensive for the average citizen. I thought mtb racing would make a bigger splash then it did.
However, the American market for recreational cycling equipment sales equals all of Europe. But as we see in Europe, cycling equipment companies cannot offer as much money as it takes to sponsor a team like T-M, Discovery, CSC,......etc.
I don't care for the format of the ProTour. However, I would hate to see the discrimination of powerful teams at the GT's based on rumours as we have seen in cycling in general this past 2 years.
Cycling does not need globalization. It is more interesting keeping the little cultural quirks it has now. That's part of the attraction to cycling for me.

I tend to agree with PP : the debacle over Unibet was the case in point.
Unibet had ProTour status but the GT's wouldn't invite them to race.

Also PP raises a very good point about the Continental Team (who cannot race in the PT).
They have to wait in line to be granted a PT licence by the UCI.

Also races like Wevelgem did not get PT status - and races like the Midi Libre disappeared altogether.

I know that the stewards of the sport want to globalise the format - but the PT did more harm to the structure of the sport than it did good in my opinion.

The Pro Tour put the squeeze on the smaller sponsors, teams and races. They wanted the cream to rise to the top. Instead, they wound up limiting cycling's base. How can a team attract a sponsor without being able to say that in three years we will be in the Tour and your investment will reap benefits. How can a small race survive when they can't attract any of the big teams. I think ProTour teams are limited to 25 riders. So, they chose their races very carefully to avoid overtaxing the riders. Back when Mapei had 50 guys, they would show up at a race in a parking lot and the promoter would be able to get people interested by saying the world's best team is coming to the race.

There were some good things about the ProTour. The minimum salaries, insurance, financial guarantees were policies that should have been put in place a long time ago.

It's interesting that the issues with small teams that have been brought up here are the same issues that were brought up by the GTs when the ProTour started. The UCI was never willing to negotiate in good faith to resolve these problems; and by continuing to expand the number of teams, made the problems worse.

You knew the ProTour was headed for trouble when the GTs agreed to give all the ProTour teams invitations to their events in exchange for changes to be resolved at the end of the first season. At the end of that season, the UCI announced that no changes could be made until the current four year contracts expired. They were going to wait three more seasons before making any changes. Assinine. It could be viewed as double crossing the GTs.

Bro Deal said:

There were some good things about the ProTour. The minimum salaries, insurance, financial guarantees were policies that should have been put in place a long time ago.

It's interesting that the issues with small teams that have been brought up here are the same issues that were brought up by the GTs when the ProTour started. The UCI was never willing to negotiate in good faith to resolve these problems; and by continuing to expand the number of teams, made the problems worse.

You knew the ProTour was headed for trouble when the GTs agreed to give all the ProTour teams invitations to their events in exchange for changes to be resolved at the end of the first season. At the end of that season, the UCI announced that no changes could be made until the current four year contracts expired. They were going to wait three more seasons before making any changes. Assinine. It could be viewed as double crossing the GTs.

The problem seems to be that the Pro Tour is run by UCI, who are not particularly representative of pro cyclists or the general well-being of cycling (despite their spin), but more concerned with who has the biggest [censored] in cycling administration.

In the US, the golf PGA Tour is run by the touring golf profesionals themselves. I'm not saying a professional cycling union should run the Pro Tour. But at least get something in there that's a little more apolitical.

Crankyfeet said:

The problem seems to be that the Pro Tour is run by UCI, who are not particularly representative of pro cyclists or the general well-being of cycling (despite their spin), but more concerned with who has the biggest [censored] in cycling administration.

In the US, the golf PGA Tour is run by the touring golf profesionals themselves. I'm not saying a professional cycling union should run the Pro Tour. But at least get something in there that's a little more apolitical.

I always suspected that Vebruggen and McQuaid saw the ProTour as a way to set themselves up like Bernie Ecclestone.