The 2022 season is almost starting (some argue it has already , it’s important to talk about the possibility of teams being relegated from the World Tour (WT) at the end of the season.
According to the UCI sporting criterion set forth in the UCI Cycling Regulations – Part 2 – Road Races (page 194, for those interested):
“The sporting criterion is evaluated with regard to the UCI world ranking for men UCI teams – 3 years, as defined in article 2.10.044.
The 18 top-ranked teams in the above-mentioned ranking, among the teams having applied for a UCI WorldTour licence in accordance with articles 2.15.009 and 2.15.010 and having met the criteria defined in articles 2.15.011c to 2.15.011f, are deemed to meet the sporting criterion.”
The current three-year cycle ends at the end of this season.
What does this mean? Well, a lot and nothing at the same time.
Nothing because there are currently 18 teams in the World Tour, the same as there will be next season. The teams that are going to have the opportunity to get promoted (yes, it’s simply an opportunity because fulfilling the sporting criterion is just a part of the equation) are already the teams we often see in WT races anyway. So, from the perspective of the races and the fans little will change.
The same is true for the biggest sponsors: the teams with the most money will not really care about the need to stay in the top-18. The mere pursuit of their season goals already guarantees that this will happen. The teams’ ranking is compiled based on the results of each team’s 10 best riders on the individual ranking. Run through your head just the top-5 riders of Ineos, UAE, or Jumbo-Visma… Yeah, I’m sure they’re not worried about relegation.
The sporting criterion has a brutal impact on smaller sponsors. Plenty of us can remember the circus around 10 years ago surrounding WT teams signing less talented riders that had accumulated loads of ranking points on less competitive races to rake in their points for the following season.
And this is where I have a problem. Now fortunately, per my understanding, that circus will not be repeated. The points a team gets during the three-year period will be their own, regardless of transfers. The problem is the inclusion of a sporting criterion in what currently is a pure financial sport.
Cycling is a sport where companies pay for advertising. It wasn’t always like that but this was how a certain level of sustainability was found. Most teams have fairly short lives, comparing to other team sports. Audiences follow races and riders more than they do teams. Teams are corporations, businesses that will do what’s best for business. It inherently does not make sense for fans to invest emotionally in a business. An this is why introducing relegation in cycling makes zero sense.
Why does relegation work in football? Because teams are hundred-year-old entities that have fans that are emotionally attached to it and will stick with the team in the lower divisions. Maybe not to the same extent as before, but the club will survive is my point. Fans will still buy tickets, kits, pay for memberships etc. The point of the club is not to play in the Premier League. It is to play, period.
This is not in cycling. The point of Movistar is not to win the green jersey in the Etoile de Besseges. The point of BikeExchange is not to get a podium place in the Vuelta a Comunidad Valenciana. It is to go to the Tour de France. To the big races. I mean, that was the point of introducing the WT more than a decade ago. Among other objectives, it was created to provide more certainty to the sponsors that their investments would be rewarded with the participation in the biggest races. Well, relegation kind of defeats this point. Not to the biggest teams (they never had any difficulties getting invitations before the Pro Tour, anyway) but to the mid-to-low tier ones.
For example, under the current ranking, Lotto Soudal would be without a WT license for the next three years (2023-2025). Lotto, one of the most reliable cycling sponsors of the past half-century. What kind of sense does this make? Ironic, because if any team would have football level supporters it would be Lotto. In another brush of irony, the other relegated team would be Cofidis. Another legendary sponsor of the sport, that has poured more money into cycling over their history than most other sponsors. To finish the irony painting the promoted teams would be Alpecin Fenix (essentially a WT team already) and Arkea Samsic. Two teams whose tradition in the sport are not even in the same stratosphere as Lotto or Cofidis.
.jpg){kind=link}
To summarize, relegation makes no sense in a sport whose main problem is attracting steady financial investment. I mean, in 2015, they couldn’t even find 18 teams that fit their criteria for the WT. Look instead to a model similar to American sports – a sports governing body controlled by the teams, acting in their best interest. It is, in my mind, the ideal governance system for a sport that is dependent on financial investments instead of emotional attachments to teams. That model is terrible for the average American fan who is invested emotionally in their team, but I believe has some valuable takeaways for cycling.
I know that plenty of people support cycling teams. I certainly do. But, comparatively, I wouldn’t be devastated if the team I support disbanded. I expect business decisions from a business. If my football team ceased to exist it would affect me way more because it’s something I’m not expecting to happen.
I’m also not saying that the American model should be implemented 100%. But it does provide a great value proposition for a sport that must attract investment because of the power it gives the teams and their owners (in this case the sponsors).