Too early to pick a winner

Rabobank’s new bike sponsor is Giant, who will be replaced at Columbia by Scott, who understandably ditched the team formerly known as Saunier Duval. Cervelo decided to start their own team after losing Saxo Bank to Specialized, who continued their deal with Quick Step but lost Gerolsteiner, who folded. Ridley dropped Silence-Lotto in favor of new super-team Katusha, which used to be Tinkoff and used to be sponsored by Colnago, who also parted with Milram and Rabobank.

… and that’s just what had been announced or credibly rumored before this issue went to press.

One of the really cool things about cycling is that, with only a few exceptions, consumers have access to the exact same bikes used by the world’s best teams at the highest level of the sport. But when it’s such a game of musical chairs at the top, what does say to consumers about those bikes and those teams?

In the last issue, I talked about how complicated the decision is for sponsors when a doping scandal hits. But, when it comes time to sign a new bike deal, the decisions are even more intricate and there’s just as much at stake.

The team needs to win races and having capable equipment is a factor in that. In the old days, a team could get away with a sponsor-correct paint job on a custom bike, but the recognizable shapes of modern carbon frames and components make that a lot more difficult. The team also needs a bike sponsor big enough to support them with a lot of product, a lot of technical support, and a lot of money. It’s a major commitment, but there are more companies that are up to the task than there are teams in the Tour.

The sponsor wants to get the best team available, although that can be hard to define. The team’s public image and reputation are obvious criteria, but product testing and business considerations, like entering a new market by sponsoring a team from that country, must also be factored in. Then there’s the price tag, including bikes, manpower, and cash.

Finding the right fit in all those areas is quite difficult. For the purposes of this column, though, let’s think just about the images of the teams and companies as the measuring stick for their partnerships.

So, getting back to the original question, how will people interpret the current sponsorship shuffle? Of course, lots of fans will say that it’s just about money, and there’s plenty of truth to that. It’s no secret that teams want to maximize revenue and sponsors have an incentive to sign whomever will help them move the most bikes. But this principle extends far beyond cycling and fans of all sports seem willing enough to accept it, albeit cynically at times.

But there are some cycling-specific implications as well. On the one hand, the realignment of teams and bikes suggests that all the bikes are good enough to win races at the highest levels of the sport. On the other hand, this undercuts each company’s ability to argue that their products are superior. That’s a mixed result for most of the brands involved, but it seems to me like one stands to benefit.

As evidenced by their TV spots on Versus, Cervelo is happy to be a small company that makes Tour-winning bikes. Stepping out of the fray and positioning the relatively modest Cervelo TestTeam as the company’s product development and testing arm allows them to say that making the great bikes is not about having the biggest sponsorship budget. In some ways, that’s better than saying that you make the world’s best bikes when you sponsor the world’s seventh best team.

Then again, whatever happens at the actual bike races next year will the biggest factor in how these sponsorships will play out. Whoever wins the Tour will give their bike sponsor a leg up, and whoever gets caught doping will have wasted a lot of their sponsor’s money.

Some things never change.