The super-team conundrum

In light of the today’s merger announcement between RadioShack and Leopard-Trek, Anthony Tan ponders the effect of a quartet of 'super-teams’ in 2012, and the sustainability of the current cycling team model.

In this day and age it is astonishing that these cyclists and teams put their reputations, bones, skin, and more on the line in races that are multi-million dollar affairs yet reap no direct financial gain from those very races. Until this changes no team is immune from sponsor whim and there can be no financial stability in the sport The very thing HTC-High Road owner, Bob Stapleton, lamented about last month – the rise of the 'super-team' – and probably now despises, since next year, his team will be no longer – has now multiplied, like a meme. Or, depending on whom you speak to, like a virus.

"If you look at the super teams, there are wealthy individuals behind each one and you've got a sport that's been destabilised by events," Stapleton said on 4 August, in a teleconference with journalists, telling what most of us already knew weeks earlier – that HTC-High Road would be a non-entity in 2012.

"For example, the points structure where teams are desperate to make sure they're in the top 16, and these are the sorts of things that are not helpful to creating a structure for the sport.

"I don't want to blame anyone or suggest anything," said the Californian entrepreneur, "but there are some destabilising factors in the sport."

While Stapleton didn't want to name names, it was blindingly obvious BMC Racing was one of those 'super-teams' he was referring to, whose billionaire owner, Andy Rihs, seems to have a bottomless pool of cash in his back garden. Or a ridiculously large pool.

Apart from re-signing Tour de France champ Cadel Evans till 2014, where he will most likely end his career, and veteran American, George Hincapie, for another season, where he too will most likely end his career, in Thor Hushovd and Phillippe Gilbert, BMC Racing acquired the signatures of two of the sport's biggest (read: most expensive) names – thereby propelling it from 'super' to 'stellar'.

The irony is that Stapleton is a very 'wealthy individual' himself, and almost certainly a billionaire, for in 2000, when his communications company, VoiceStream Wireless, was bought by Deutsche Telekom, the former later renamed T-Mobile USA, the original purchase price was a cool US$50 billion.

Surely Bob, at least some of that went to you…

Regardless, Stapleton isn't one to keeping pouring in $20M of his own each year to fund a cycling team. Because unlike Rihs, who, as a result of the exposure, is arguably selling more BMC bicycles – of which he is the company owner – to cover his investment, Stapleton's cycling operation was founded on the traditional sponsor-pays arrangement.

And without a title sponsor, no-one gets paid.

* * *

However, BMC is not alone. Next year, there will be three other mega-teams: Team Sky, Omega Pharma-Quick Step and RadioShack-Nissan-Trek. (If you count GreenEdge, make that four more.)

Based on a guestimate, between these three super-teams, you probably have close to half of the world's top 100 riders. To quote a Cycling Central reader's pithy remark today, "So... RadioTrek vs BMC next year, and everyone else to get the crumbs?"

In response to the pull-quote at the top of my blog, a VeloNews reader replied: "There should be a scheme in place to share TV rights and race proceeds with the teams. The constant ebb and flow of team sponsors is very hard on pro cycling. I can imagine, though, that ASO and the other successful races would be loath to share their bounty.

Plus, other races are break-even or losing propositions. There are problems, but the sport would be a better sport with more team continuity, (which I think would lead to a bigger fan base), if there was a more stable revenue source for the teams."

And another, from the same thread: "Why should there be 'financial stability' in the sport? Why should teams be immune from sponsor whims? If the publicity they offer is affordable and positive, sponsors buy it, just like they do with NASCAR, etc. If it's not (as of recently with constant doping scandals) they don't.

Why should it be any other way? The corruption throughout the sport is simply 'coming home to roost' helped by the worldwide economic slowdown. I think it'll get worse before it gets better, especially if/when 'Il Pistolero' gets a two-year vacation and 'Big Tex' gets indicted."

All good points, although the revenue sharing argument is a double-edged sword, since aside from the Tour de France, very few other events in cycling actually turn a decent-enough profit to share with 18 other ProTeams – unless teams are keen to have a share the losses, too…

The 'corruption' point is also valid, given Stapleton said that in his discussions which eventually came to nought: "I don't think there has been a single discussion with a potential sponsor where one or the other wasn't talked about," referring to both the federal investigation into alleged systematic doping at the US Postal Service cycling team, as well as 'caso Contador', whose hearing is now scheduled for November. (Though exactly which November, I'm not quite sure.)

"It's been a factor in everyone's view of cycling in the last year," said Stapleton.

* * *

Based on a revealing story on the ABC's 'Four Corners' program a fortnight ago, investigating alleged systematic malpractice by the News of the World – what was once the world's largest circulating newspaper, and signalling what many regard as 'the beginning of the end' of the Murdoch empire – Team Sky may also be on shaky ground over the next 12 months.

Should there be a salary cap in place, I asked Garmin-Cervélo owner, Jonathan Vaughters, when I was at the USA Pro Cycling Challenge in Colorado last month, to mitigate against the very situation that exists today?

"I don't actually agree with an individual salary cap, regarding any one rider, but a total team budget cap, would be more interesting," he began by saying.

"Singling out one rider… I mean, Contador, getting paid five million Euros or whatever a year, okay, he's worth that. But my greater point is that if you're going to pay a rider that much, in order to have an equilibrium in the sport and to have sponsors say, 'Okay, if I pay eight million or 10 million Euros, I'm going to have one of the best teams in the world', you need to have an overall budget cap on teams.

"This is the way all top sports are in the United States, in that it keeps an equilibrium. If you look at NFL, there's a total salary cap of the entire team, and the lowest-ranked team always gets the first pick of the college-level drafts – it keeps an equilibrium, and it puts a premium on intelligent training, intelligent strategy, and really working with young athletes to develop them.

"It puts a premium on that, versus putting a premium on simply purchasing a good team," said Vaughters.

"I feel that will lead to greater long-term stability – and better racing, because it's going to be tighter, more interesting, closer racing."

Nonetheless, no more than five teams are set to dominate the 2012 season, and teams like Vaughters, if they're to survive, are going to have to find a way to beat the best.

Or another multi-million-dollar sponsor/benefactor, so they too can become a super-team.

As the old adage goes, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Follow Anthony on Twitter: @anthony_tan