ALL THAT GLITTERS ISN’T GOLD BUT SOME OF IT IS

As usual, I’ll start with a couple pre-column notes. First is the launch of The Road Diaries, the website that I’ve been helping SRAM to develop strategy and content for since May. We’re focusing on behind-the-scenes coverage with a personal feel, as well as exclusive athlete features. I implore you to check it out at www.theroaddiaries.com 

The other note is Cofidis’ announcement that it makes no sense for them to renew their ProTour license, which means that we can officially start referring to “ProTour teams” as “Tour de France teams.” I’m surprised it took so long. 

It also took quite a while, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced on June 30 that it would uphold the two-year ban issued to Floyd Landis by the US Anti-Doping Agency. Thus, less than a week before the start of the 2008 Tour de France, the 2006 Tour de France finally ended.

Ironically, the ominous chain of events that began there with Operacion Puerto and Floyd’s post-race bombshell has resulted in some good news of late. In the weeks prior to CAS’ final word on the Landis case, the teams formerly known as CSC, High Road, and Slipstream each announced a new title sponsor that would come on board for the Tour and continue for the next couple years. Despite the doping scandals of the last two years and the ceaseless UCI-ASO wrangling, it certainly appears that the internal anti-doping programs instituted by each of three teams in the wake of the 2006 Tour have paid off.

On the surface, the trio of deals seems like an unquestionably auspicious sign for cycling. But ESPN’s Bonnie D. Ford, a veteran chronicler of the sport and of Slipstream in particular, speculated that the team’s deal with GPS device maker Garmin and High Road’s deal with Columbia sportswear aren’t sufficient to run a Tour de France team. A statement from High Road owner Bob Stapleton seemed to confirm her hypothesis.

If it’s true, it could put smaller teams in a difficult position by setting a precedent that the title sponsorship of a competitive Tour de France team can be had for less than what it currently costs to run one. For a program without the backing of a billionaire like Stapleton or Slipstream’s Doug Ellis, the only choice would be to cut costs, with reduced salaries for riders being a likely result.

This scenario of the owners being unable to afford the athletes would be similar to the one that led to the cancellation of the 2004-2005 NHL season, from which that league has been slow to recover. Of course, cycling has a different set of variables from hockey. Most notably, the athletes don’t have an organized labor union, which makes the market for their services an extremely fluid one. If the teams become polarized between haves and have-nots, the salary discrepancy between stars and domestiques might grow even wider if poorer teams allocate the bulk of their salary budget to a capable race-winner to keep themselves in the hunt.

But all this would have to be good news for someone. Obviously, sponsors would get the same exposure at a lower price.  But Tour de France organizer ASO would benefit too, as reduced budgets would force teams to pare down their season schedules. Since the ProTour requires teams to attend every event, many couldn’t afford to participate in the UCI’s system even if they wanted to. But few would choose to skip the Tour. Once again, the UCI would be no match for ASO’s economic clout.

Despite these caveats, some sponsorship is a hell of a lot better than none. A common thread among the three deals is that Garmin, Columbia and CSC’s replacement, Saxo Bank, are smart companies who seem to have done their homework before getting into the sport or increasing their involvement, in Garmin’s case. If their research and the sales pitches of Slipstream, High Road, and Riis Cycling, which runs Team CSC, hadn’t convinced them that cycling still has a fan base, we wouldn’t be retraining ourselves to say their names. Also, there’s no reason to think that Saxo Bank’s commitment won’t cover Riis Cycling’s budget, which bodes well for all teams.

The message from these sponsorships, then, is that brands remain interested in marketing to an audience that remains interested in watching cycling, although the riders possibly have some lean years ahead of them. It’s a mixed bag, but it’s a lot better than what most people were predicting 23 months ago.