Cycling's future is at a crossroads, and the sport's leaders are sounding the alarm. Despite its growing popularity, the financial model of cycling is facing a crisis, leaving teams vulnerable and dependent on fragile sponsorship.
The Paradox of Cycling's Popularity
Two experienced team bosses, Valerio Piva of Team Jayco AlUla and former manager Vincent Lavenu, paint a stark picture. They argue that cycling is the only sport where its participants don't benefit from TV rights, even as global audiences boom. This paradox is evident in the widening gap between a handful of super-funded teams and the rest of the peloton.
"This gap increases year after year," Piva warns. He believes the current model is unsustainable, with a small group of superpowers dominating the results sheet, leaving the rest to fight for survival.
Lavenu agrees, pointing out that while a few teams have state or multinational backing, the majority are struggling to keep sponsors interested. "Today, there are a few teams with unlimited budgets, and the rest are fighting to retain sponsors," he says.
The Value of Cycling's Product
The issue, according to Lavenu, is that teams don't share in the value of the product they help create. Cycling doesn't benefit from TV rights or ticketing, and while the UCI provides some support to amateur clubs, it's not enough to protect World Tour squads from sponsor withdrawals or failed mergers.
One proposed solution is to charge fans for access to certain race routes, redistributing the funds to teams. Piva and Lavenu see the potential in this idea, but they also highlight its limitations. Piva suggests that any new funds should be distributed fairly, considering the contribution of each team to the spectacle. However, he acknowledges that this could simply reinforce the existing hierarchy.
Lavenu raises practical concerns, questioning how ticketing can be implemented for an open, fluid sport rooted in public spaces. He believes that removing free access would damage the very essence of cycling and its heroes' relatability.
A Call for Reform
Instead, Lavenu suggests controlling outgoings, perhaps through a salary cap. However, he recognizes the challenges of imposing such a cap on state-funded sponsors. Without a central authority and shared commitment, a salary cap could be ineffective for the biggest teams.
Both Piva and Lavenu emphasize the core contradiction: cycling's popularity hasn't translated into financial protection for its participants. The current model leaves sponsors bearing most of the risk, mid-tier teams fighting for relevance, and riders and staff building careers on unstable ground.
"Cycling is the only sport whose actors don't benefit from TV rights," they remind us.
If the World Tour doesn't find a way to share its value more fairly and predictably, more teams will pay the price for a system that never truly guaranteed their survival.
