FrenchFit 

This ought to go over big in Texas. About 11 minutes in:

mattm

Isn't the UCI a "union" of some sort?

brianmcg123

No. It's just an org. of suits that hoards all the money. There is no rider representation.

I would agree. As far as pro sports go, cycling is probably the worst for its participants. The fact that TV generates millions for the organizations that run these events and the riders see almost none of it.

Marcus_Ti

I thought there already was a rider's union...you know...the same union that argued against disc brakes...

Riders' union threatens the UCI with legal action over disc brake trial - Cycling Weekly

Doge

No.
Lance is right - again.

Doge

I agree.

I am amazed at how low the pay is. At first I thought it was because they could not charge for tickets (although they do in stands). They just have no leverage.

Marcus_Ti

He is? There already is a rider's union.

Doge

Not really the same thing. The ASO does not negotiate with the riders union (as far as I know) as the NFL would negotiate with the NFLPA.

But I am not an expert on this, just seems the union for cyclists is at the side while other pro sports is in between.

Marcus_Ti

Fair enough, I figured when I saw reports of the CPA grinching to the UCI about disc brakes they were more active for their members.

It does make me wonder exactly how huge ASO and ASO's parent company's pocket book is annually....and how much they dodge the expenses of their operations and pass them on to host/route communes. I work in live productions, and the amount of manpower to do even a "normal" band show is insane (and part of why modern band show tickets are obscenely expensive)....nevermind a 21-day on-the road show in areas without infrastructure or support.

unionmanbirch

With my username how can I not chime in with my support for this?

Kevindale

Ironically, Lance admitted that when he was top dog he wasn't for a union, and was onl interested in himself. The only way a union works in pro cycling is if most of the super elite riders demand it and won't ride otherwise. The mid-level riders and the domestiques and the fading-glory riders and the up-and-comers, all combined, have little clout. They could all be replaced fairly readily. But if the top riders, at the peaks of their careers, said we don't ride without a meaningful union, then it would happen. And, since most of those top riders are well paid, and are sure that they alone are responsible for their success and glory, they won't stick their necks out for something that would primarily benefit the little guys.

Campag4life

Makes sense. Same argument Bernie supporters have on redistribution of wealth to help the little guy.

Maelochs

Whether anyone likes or dislikes the idea ... is Lance really the right spokesman for Any product or idea?


Maybe pharmaceutical companies ... or ambulance-chasing lawyers.

gsa103

The whole of pro cycling is an economic train-wreck.
The ASO and UCI mess. Continetal team exemptions while complaining about "too many riders."
The teams get very little share of the revenue are are essentially on their own for sponsors, so the names constantly change. There's no way to start rooting for a team since the team is probably something different in two years. Team Sky and AG2R are basically the only teams with the same name since Froome won his first stage. How are you supposed to get fans????

There either needs to be a real league, or something more like a manufacturers league ala Formula 1. The key is having a way for the teams to get a significant cut of TV revenue.

A union would be good, but it's just a band-aid on a much larger problem.

Doge

They have clout.

Doge

Have you seen his Strava ride Kudos?
I think for the masses, yes, for those in charge - no.

Kevindale

Only if the vast majority of them band together, along with a substantial portion of the other pros. In my experience, when it comes to something like unionization, the up-and-comers are so eager to get their toe in the door of their chosen sport or industry that they are the absolute last people in the world who will risk angering future employers by saying the u-word. On top of that, since they haven't experienced all the nonsense that a real union would help them deal with, they're the last people to see the benefits of a union. I think your son is an up-and-comer. Ask him and his friends how much time they've spend discussing the benefits of a union. Ask them if they even know what a union is, and how it works.

It's always those who are on their way out, or all the way out (like LA), who see the benefits of a union. In fields where top pros have long careers (like writers and actors), they see the benefits. In fields where careers are short, it's much tougher.

Plus, in pro cycling, it's such a fractured and tangled web of organizations, it's not even clear to me who the riders would be organizing to collectively bargain with.

Doge

You're right.
No, he's not. He bailed when he gave up on USAc and started rowing 2 years ago, then did USAFA / college, mostly because of how bad a life being a "normal" pro would be. But yea, he talks to them, I talk to them. They have no idea.

But they do have a lot more power than they think - they just don't use it.

Reminder: USA junior class of 2015 won the Nations Cup - best junior cycling Nation in the world.

Caretaker

Astana, Confidis, FDJ, Movistar, BMC, not counting teams like Katusha and Quickstep who still retain their main sponsor's name.

No, the problem lies elsewhere.

Pro-cycling has an image problem that hugely affects its ability to attract fans. If you want to find the major source of that problem then look no further than the title of this thread.

Kevindale

It's good to hear that there's a good potential future for US cycling in the coming years. As for a good, stable future for pro cycling, especially in the US at the very top level, there clearly need to be major changes to the fundamental structure. As best I can gather, the sport (internationally) has long been run like a the circus and carnival industry used to be run. Lots of shady and manipulative people, with competing and entirely selfish agendas, focused on putting on an entertaining show for fans who are only really engaged for the biggest events. The actual performers are cannon fodder, with only the biggest stars getting a fair slice of the pie. And the fans, at least in the US, are only interested in who won.

I have a sense that in the US there is an increased interest in cycling both recreationally and competitively (I might be misreading my own growing interest recently, but it feels like interest is growing). It seems like there's a lot of amateur racing in road/cyclocross/MTB all over the country, and more and more professional events in the states. I also have the sense that the country is getting over the polarizing and depressing effects of the whole LA debacle. Hell, Lance himself could probably help continue to rehab his reputation by becoming a spokesman for rank-and-file riders.

One problem for the future is that cycling is so different than most sports, so I'm not sure what the model is that cycling should evolve towards. Without much deep thought, it seems similar to tennis and golf as sports that have big recreational bases, are elite sports (unlike soccer and basketball, which can be played anywhere and with virtually no equipment), are resistant to having teams, and have a wide variety of tournaments scattered all over the world and calendar. Both are dominated by a tiny number of superstars, and yet have a steady stream of new talent breaking in. Differences are that golf and tennis are TV friendly, and easy to understand even for the most casual fan. And mid-level pros who never won major tournaments can make decent livings as local pros and coaches after they're done competing. I have a cousin who became a really good golfer, but never good enough to qualify for the pro circuit. All he wanted to do was play golf, terrible at school, etc. He's made a decent living as a course pro and private coach in a small Kentucky town for years. I don't see that you can do that in cycling, and I don't know what the sport can do to motivate more people like your son to stay focused on cycling.

I'm curious what were the main issues that drove your son from the competitive side of cycling, if you can speak to that.

Doge

I take suggesting this is simple back.

Looking at the NFL we have one company/promoter - the NFL and many owners of franchises.
Then the players union.
NFL is not an Olympic sport so PEDs etc are all up to them in a sense, and they do what is needed to get fans and keep the lawyers away. They can control access.

Cycling we have many owners of teams. We have many promoters. We have the UCI that is not supposed to be a business profit center then WADA and all the country organizations. While "small" it is a world sport and an Olympic on. Access is hard to control.

Yea - not simple.

Marcus_Ti

It also gets a more ugly, as you have multinational teams in multi-national races and the racers and staff are sometimes EU citizens but sometimes not. Further AFAIK, the EU treaty doesn't set any universal law on collective bargaining across member states..

It gets worse, as teams may or may not be based in one country, be incorporated in another, Owned by someone in yet another country, and have team members from 10+ other countries....all while racing in still other countries. So who's collective bargaining rights actually apply? Or are there any, since the roster has no consistency of law?


So you have (now-defunct) Team Saxo-Tinkov. Owned by a billionaire oligarch in Russia, but title-sponsored by a danish bank...the team was registered in Denmark (later in Russia)...employing Contador who was a spaniard....racing in the Tour de France. What country's collective bargaining rights apply? Oh and the UCI our dear race sanctioners, is based in Switzerland.

Cycling's problem is that it is so multinational even down to the team org flowchart level.



At least with the NFL and NBA, there's one set of national law (basically) that even defines bargaining rules. All this ignores the other elephant in the room-cycling's inability to keep sponsors who pay the bills.

Doge

A few things.
-He does not like living in Europe. He's visited maybe 10 times. If you want to live off of cycling - live in Europe.
-The pay is very low starting
-The retirement is rough
-He doesn't know how good he is/could be.
-He/we see no formula / logic in the USA team selection
-USAF Academy is a good degree and service opportunity and great area for cycling. While there is no time to train the hours and miles needed for road pro, there is lots of cycling for the love of cycling and racing.

Kevindale

Thanks. Odds are he made the right decision. Some of this goes to why it's hard to 'grow' star athletes in the US except in glamor sports (and even there it's often kids with few other good options) - kids with talent, and usually their families, need to be obsessive and single minded, usually at the expense of education and simply having a life. The level of sacrifice is difficult to sustain for anyone who has any other interests. Athletes coming from countries where even low-level success in sports is a big step up in life have a lot more incentive to give everything to the sport.

direwolf

Does he even still have a prevalent voice in the cycling community?