CanadianBiker32

Question is why does all.cycling racing pay to win. Crap compared to nba or baseball players who barely train as hard

DrIsotope

NO athlete outside of the major ball sports makes big money. Some racing drivers make decent money, but nothing like the NBA, NFL, or as we call it in America, "soccer." Cycling is a niche sport, so you'll not see paychecks like those in the major markets. Chris Froome is one of the highest (if not the highest paid) cyclists at just less than $5 million a year. Most pro sports teams are carrying half a dozen players making more than that. Hell, Clayton Kershaw makes 32 million a year and will make 25-30 pitching starts per year. Lebron James makes $33 million a year.

...but if you go into a random assemblage of strangers, 9 out of 10 will know who Kershaw and Lebron James are. Most of the members of my own family don't know who Froome is. But hey, professional cricket players average about $50,000 a year. Which of this whole post is the only reasonable number I stumbled across. $5 million to ride a bike is comparatively as ridiculous as +30 million to play ball sports.

79pmooney

You picked the wrong era. If you raced in the 1920s, moved to New York and could win, you could have made money than a pro football player. (Madison Square Garden, where the wealthy went to gamble large sums on their favorite racers.) The top racers were the highest paid athletes in North America.

Ben

Doge

Because it has little to do with effort or talent and more to do do with the economics of the business.

Do companies make more money because of cycling over the nba/baseball sponsorship?
A: Not so much. The races are too long and too expensive to air. The public thinks it is cool, but outside of the industry, I don't see people buying beer, or cars because of what they see pro cyclists doing. USADA in particular, has ensured it is seen as a dirty sport. Sponsors are afraid of it.

Do cyclist need to be paid more to make those sponsors more money?
A: In general no. For USA, I think so. Most of the juniors that made (put up points) USA the best junior nation in the world (2015 UCI Nations Cup Champion) are full time pros. They are enrolled in college, part time, or full time, or have quit cycling completely. One is a full time pro. This would not be the case in other countries. USA kids see other opportunities.

Doge

Japan still pays well.

Doge

Lance did pull down over $100M. Cheating or not, that was cycling generated money.

I don't think someone that good again, could get that kind of money for several decades.

DrIsotope

I was just talking about the "team" paycheck. Figure in endorsements and sponsorships, and the NBA/NFL/etc guys can triple their salaries.


They should bring back the Six-Day race format. Road races are terrible for TV. You know why NASCAR is so popular? The cars are loud, they crash all the time, and you can see the whole track from the cheap seats. I'd prefer to watch bike zoom by 30 times an hour on a wicked steep banked wood velodrome than to see a peleton zip by at some spot on a 100 mile stage.

Thirty minute mass start, 30-40 bikes on the track, most laps in 30 minutes wins. I'd be all over watching that.

Radish_legs

Even the pro tour is talking about how boring their product is. Boring predictable stages, everything controlled, nothing unpredictable. That's why we are seeing proposals towards smaller teams. But cycling isn't smart enough to try and improve their product.

gsteinb

Hiya. This probably fits here better.

Doge

I agree.
I'm sure you have seen my posts on pro races being too long.

I have hope for cx, but in the end, much better choice going to college than being a pro.

brianmcg123

Well, they make a hell of a lot more than triathletes or crossfit athletes.

But, it has nothing to do with how much you train. It's how many eyeballs are watching and buying the products that are advertised.

DrIsotope

Not just too long, but absolutely obsessed with going up hills. Going up hills is boring, unless some guy is flying up them in a 900hp race car made out of insanity. Also why "uphill mountain biking" isn't a sport.

Doge

5 hours is too long for any TV (it still exists) network to show - end to end. So they cut the footage and show us the end.

What would have been different at the UCI World RR if the race were - say 80 miles/3 hours?
-They would have been faster than juniors.
-Overall less concern about conserving. I mean, what pro can't go all out 3 hours?
-Cav might have shown up.
-A network might have picked it up.
-There might have been other sprinters.
-A nature break might not be required.
In the end we likely would have the same winner, but might have seen the whole race.

Outside of streaming or buying Olympic channel - they don't sell enough beer get any TV network interested, as recording 5 hours of racing so they can to edit to 1 hour also costs.

CliffordK

I certainly wouldn't call $5M peanuts. I'd be happy if someone was to give me fancy bicycles and pay me $100K to ride a bicycle in circles all day.

Perhaps part of this is to recognize that it isn't one rider that gets to the finish line in the TdF, but the team that gets him there. So, yes, pay the team leader a hefty bonus, but make sure it trickles down to everyone that helps get him to the finish line. Even throw some of their names up into the spotlights.

Froome + X + Y + Z got the the end! Brilliant move by X to give Froome a draft leading into the hill.

The other thing is that athletes are paid to make money for those paying them. So, if Nike pays athletes to wear Nike shoes and clothes, then they expect that money to come back and make them even more money.

On bikes, the same thing must happen. In fact for "gearheads"... I'm sure they would be happy to hear exactly the components that Froome chose, and why he chose them. Froome now pounding his way up the field on an 11/23 cassette mated to a compact crankset. He shaved an ounce off of the weight of his shoes using X brand CF soled shoes. And the comfort and stiffness....

colombo357

Mainstream sports:

- People plunk down big money for season tickets
- Franchises and players are heavily branded. Players have their unique numbers, signature shoes, etc.

Cycling:

- No ticket sales
- No branding; teams change sponsors year to year, riders don't have unique race numbers, everybody in the peloton looks the same when wearing helmets and sunglasses

Caretaker

Road racing is a minority sport probably everywhere except Belgium. So what, I say.

As regards 'five hours being too long for any TV network' that simply isn't true as anyone will find out if they take the time to check the international TV coverage times for this year's Grand Tours as listed on Steephill. I spent many days watching 5 and 4+ hours of live cycling on TV this year. Yes, only a minority have either the time or the interest.

Vive le minority!

Doge

My concern is USA Network TV. The kind that comes with the "standard package", that is ad supported.
I would like to see USA have more representation in the World Tour. I still like cycling without that, but as a fan boy - I like it more when it is a USA rider.

So to the pay topic / some facts.
In 2015 USA juniors won the UCI Worlds Nations Cup. By UCI's measure, overall USA had the best juniors in the world.
That has never happened.
Here is where things are now - 2 years later.
1 rider is full time development pro. We all know who he is.
2 riders are partially enrolled in college and have pro development contracts. Neither are road racing at the moment and one is taking time off.
1 rider is completely enrolled in college
1 rider hung up the bike.
We have a few others very capable of winning in Europe that didn't really get the same opportunity as juniors. Some that were not winning were given many more opportunities. That's coaching, so you can't always get it right.
Some of these kids are doing some USA devo pro now, but as far as I know supported by parents. They may come out later.

Best USA Soccer kid - Dad moved to Germany with him to finish HS. I expect the team paid for both to do that. Kid at 19 is making $8M/year.

Getting USA's best cycling kids to stay in the sport is clearly difficult, and different.

Caretaker

Isn't Adrien Costa with Axeon-Hagens Berman and Brandon McNulty with Rally?

Two riders still trying to progress their careers two years after the juniors isn't as far as I can judge untypical for any national team.

Doge

You got 1 and 2. Adrian is not racing and on a leave of absence. He was (I think is) a UC Santa Cruz student. The little I've seen him, he has all the makings of a top business leader.
If they were American football players - they'd be learning the sport in college. If they had NFL opportunity, they'd do it.

The formula is to move to Europe and have the family move with you. If not, what Brandon is doing I think will work. But it is a real hard call for a USA kid to make that choice, esp when you don't really know what they are until 20s. If there was more money, that would be different, and kids might try it out. If USAC looked at collegiate, or right after college they might also find some talent. Once off to college the USAC programs are minimal. The system is setup to get 15-16, 17-18s in Europe and then, forces a decision - go pro track or go school, or delay and maybe lose some options. Mine would have lost if he delayed, so he chose. Many do some kinda hybrid. Choose to focus on cycling USAC has U23. Choose to have a backup for cycling (go to school full time, become a firefighter...) and it is difficult to find a trade team (I understand that) or see any USAC programs. When riders like Froome become pros at 22, or my new fav Primož ROGLIČ @ 25 there could be plenty of talent post school. Just that, it is not done that way, and college takes you off the grid.

tyrion

Basketball, baseball, and (American) football have had (for the most part) good management and good marketing for close to a century. The product is packaged nicely into 2 hour chunks that work well for television. The team/city affiliation is an interesting tribal dynamic that energizes the system.

Those 3 sports evolving into massive businesses was no accident.

Caretaker

I'd like to see more young American riders coming into pro-cycling but I don't think it's reasonable to expect a sport to Americanise(ize) just to attract them.

brianmcg123

They already tried that once in the 1990's. They had a draft and everything. Every race was a criterium with points awarded for laps led, etc.

Seriously, this really happened.

Doge

Not the sport. The USA side.

USA success is very much about having a college degree. The big USA sports are via paths through college. I am aware of the alternative, but college is the most direct route for USA financial and sports success.

22 year old males still have some potential - I'm understating that quite a bit.

Putting teens in Europe without family is possibly less than ideal and it has not worked out well for other than some very special cases and prodigy riders.

As you are well aware many riders in the Flanders area can be and are world class cyclists. If this is a gene component, it is not that far away from what USA can deliver in the 350M pool of people. It is just too unattractive, too much a gamble to take door number 2 when bills are paid with what you have.

USAC should IMO (and I'm very biased, and this view helps my kid, although it hardly matters) pay attention to the physical males peaking - ages 21-24 college/post college kids. We are not Europe, we should not follow Europe's' path. Those that have the mind and will to achieve and succeed should be picked up after they succeed.
Tell our kids to go to school, support them and have something to take to the world on the back end.

Brandon is a total exception to any of this. Adrian is not.

Caretaker

So you're talking athletic scholarships which is fine but after college they have to go out into the 'real world' and that means getting a place on a pro-team based in Europe. Hopefully it will be developed and attract talented Americans.

What I do object to is an underlying theme in a couple of threads here that the main elements of pro-cycling be ditched to make it more marketable to a wide TV audience and so generate higher revenues that would filter down to riders and make the sport more attractive to aspiring young Americans. Main elements like the length of stages or measures to promote team loyalty among fans. All this referencing to NBA, NFL, NASCAR and the obsession with revenue and marketing I find annoying.

For me it's the uniqueness of pro-cycling road races that attracts. The open venue, the evident community spirit, the pitting of man/woman against topography, the little idiosyncrasies like stage races where winning isn't everything. To be honest also the fact that in pro-cycling you don't get the obscene remuneration levels common for even mediocre professionals in sports like football (soccer).

Doge

I'm not discussing money be given. Athletic scholarships are mom and dad.
I'm saying 17 is too early to move a kid overseas and have them succeed. The big soccer deals are moving some of the family. Cycling does not have that money. If we're into funding another NCAA sport by taking football earnings, guess that works, but I was thinking more allow kids to grow a bit. Find how to transition 80% of our best 10 juniors to mid-20 year old pros and pick up 100 pros that start riding late teens. A cyclist at older 20s is better than late teens. So let them mature.

On liking pro cycling the way it is, sport can evolve and remain the same. Soccer became Rugby which became American Football*. Along the way each sport grew. If a version of pro cycling that focused on shorter races in the TV network time slots, for TV with on bike camera broadcasts etc, that might not take much, if any from the existing sport. Then it might. There are many more that could do this, the pool is much bigger. A rider can have a job or go to college (likely not both) and race 2 hour races. Pro speed can be developed on far less time than pro endurance. The fastest would still rise to the top, and be faster, rather than being culled because they can't train 40 hours to race 5 hours.
I see no reason why the traditional ride 1 hour warm-up, follow a 5 min break for 3 hours, catch break near end and sprint more slowly 5 hours later format wouldn't still exist - except it pays like crap.

Edit Add: Seeding the market. Trader Joe's came out with a $1.99 wine Charles Shaw. The CA wine makers were not so happy at the time and feared it would eat into their sales. For a short time, it did. But at $2 - many more folks started buying wine. And people got sick of "Two Buck Chuck", which, is sometimes drinkable. They started buying more better wine. The net result is classic more expensive wine sales are up as well as cheap wine. I have some belief/hope this could be done in cycling. Maybe if people saw the stuff going on at the start of the races, in the middle and liked it, sponsors would pay more, riders would be paid more and folks might want to watch more of the classic (on pavement) stuff too.

*My version - Soccer being the older English nickname for Association Football not to be confused with Rugby Football where the kids at the Rugby school picked up the soccer ball and ran with it. The Canadians modified Rugby into the Gridiron Football and the American's wanted to be true to the sports roots and call it football. As soccer grew outside of England the Euros were not liking that the American's took the name and started calling soccer, football. As they win more - they get to name it.