It is a mistake for gravel to look at the world tour or mountain biking as some sort of north star.
Gravel is cycling's ironman. What is unique about it (as you alluded to at the end of the article) is that thousands of age-groupers, from first timers through to competitive athletes, can take part on the same course at the same time as the elites.
That completely changes the opportunities to develop a sustainable standalone financed sport. Like in triathlon, the sponsorship opportunities arise not just for the elites but even the age-groupers that can build a good following and demonstrate value for brands. There is direct finance entering the sport through race entries, there is a captive audience of actual participants.
If you are canyon, would you rather have a cycling fan see your promotional piece (that may be an armchair fan with no intention of ever riding a bike) or an age-group athlete that will definitely spend money on a new bike at some point and may even market it for free on social media for you?
That's exactly how ironman has become such a behemoth in the sport - not by broad appeal TV audiences watching the elites, but by exploiting (deliberate word usage as ironman have gone a bit too far) age groupers.
This also ties in nicely to the team development idea. Can you create a sustainable pro team and justify to sponsors you are offering them genuine value every year? It would be pretty tough.
Can you create a community pyramid with an elite team at the top and tens/hundreds of age-group athletes underneath that by nature of their participation, are a captive audience lapping up kit and merch and supporting partner brands? That would be a lot more attractive to me as a potential sponsor.
I guess I'm hearing the same stuff you are hearing wrt teams. There will be new dynamics next season for sure.
I don't agree with your too-many-stakeholders take though. I think it's massively beneficial for gravel that we have major series outside the UCI. This drives innovation. Having it all consolidate into a single entity controlling everything, would likely stifle it.
What I see, rather, is that we lack an entity with a global long-term vision. Earlier this year I wrote a piece on Escape Collective outlining what structure I think would be great for gravel (incl teams with clear regulations, rev share with privateers, teams with equity, etc.).
Realistically the Gravel Earth Series would be best positioned to build this (Lifetime only cares about their domestic market, the UCI doesn't care/believe in gravel as an entertainment product/spectator sport).
While I like what Klassmark is building on the brand and content front, I don't think they have the mindset to create those structures that I deem necessary to make gravel sustainable.
The brutal truth for gravel to work as a pro or even semi-pro sport everyone needs to make money; the riders need a wage that will support them currently and once they retire, the sponsors need a return on their investment, the media needs something that will attract eye balls and advertisers. Personally with pro-cycling, I feel the media (especially one company) and the UCI are getting the lion's share of the cake, and that is making it impossible for many teams to continue. Looking at F1 or other motor sports, there appears to be a far better division of revenue especially TV rights between the stakeholders. Unless the UCI takes some firm action against the media (rather than bullying riders over sock length etc), the number of teams will be reduced to those who have a billionaire sugar daddy. Gravel will go on the same downward trajectory. But then you know this anyway.
Great article, my take on it:
It is a mistake for gravel to look at the world tour or mountain biking as some sort of north star.
Gravel is cycling's ironman. What is unique about it (as you alluded to at the end of the article) is that thousands of age-groupers, from first timers through to competitive athletes, can take part on the same course at the same time as the elites.
That completely changes the opportunities to develop a sustainable standalone financed sport. Like in triathlon, the sponsorship opportunities arise not just for the elites but even the age-groupers that can build a good following and demonstrate value for brands. There is direct finance entering the sport through race entries, there is a captive audience of actual participants.
If you are canyon, would you rather have a cycling fan see your promotional piece (that may be an armchair fan with no intention of ever riding a bike) or an age-group athlete that will definitely spend money on a new bike at some point and may even market it for free on social media for you?
That's exactly how ironman has become such a behemoth in the sport - not by broad appeal TV audiences watching the elites, but by exploiting (deliberate word usage as ironman have gone a bit too far) age groupers.
This also ties in nicely to the team development idea. Can you create a sustainable pro team and justify to sponsors you are offering them genuine value every year? It would be pretty tough.
Can you create a community pyramid with an elite team at the top and tens/hundreds of age-group athletes underneath that by nature of their participation, are a captive audience lapping up kit and merch and supporting partner brands? That would be a lot more attractive to me as a potential sponsor.
I guess I'm hearing the same stuff you are hearing wrt teams. There will be new dynamics next season for sure.
I don't agree with your too-many-stakeholders take though. I think it's massively beneficial for gravel that we have major series outside the UCI. This drives innovation. Having it all consolidate into a single entity controlling everything, would likely stifle it.
What I see, rather, is that we lack an entity with a global long-term vision. Earlier this year I wrote a piece on Escape Collective outlining what structure I think would be great for gravel (incl teams with clear regulations, rev share with privateers, teams with equity, etc.).
Realistically the Gravel Earth Series would be best positioned to build this (Lifetime only cares about their domestic market, the UCI doesn't care/believe in gravel as an entertainment product/spectator sport).
While I like what Klassmark is building on the brand and content front, I don't think they have the mindset to create those structures that I deem necessary to make gravel sustainable.
Yep - I think we have the same vision idea with a slightly different path.
Stakeholders I think it's tough. Not having the UCI is a big plus, but not having any organisation is unfortunate. Calendar clashes kill me.
I think the GES model is the correct one. However, I do not think Klassmark are the one to do that in the slightest for numerous reasons.
The brutal truth for gravel to work as a pro or even semi-pro sport everyone needs to make money; the riders need a wage that will support them currently and once they retire, the sponsors need a return on their investment, the media needs something that will attract eye balls and advertisers. Personally with pro-cycling, I feel the media (especially one company) and the UCI are getting the lion's share of the cake, and that is making it impossible for many teams to continue. Looking at F1 or other motor sports, there appears to be a far better division of revenue especially TV rights between the stakeholders. Unless the UCI takes some firm action against the media (rather than bullying riders over sock length etc), the number of teams will be reduced to those who have a billionaire sugar daddy. Gravel will go on the same downward trajectory. But then you know this anyway.