Team Sky is now Team INEOS

[TrevA]

Jonathan Vaughters thinks that it won’t be good for cycling on the long term, as the high level of funding will continue to allow Team Ineos to sign the best riders and lots of them. However, this is a bit like criticising the top 6 teams in the Premier League for buying up all the best football players and smacks of jealousy and sour grapes to me, because Vaughters isn’t able to find backers for his team to the same extent.

[1982john]

Jonathan Vaughters thinks that it won’t be good for cycling on the long term, as the high level of funding will continue to allow Team Ineos to sign the best riders and lots of them. However, this is a bit like criticising the top 6 teams in the Premier League for buying up all the best football players and smacks of jealousy and sour grapes to me, because Vaughters isn’t able to find backers for his team to the same extent.

It could be the case that it is both bad for cycling and that he is jealous. They are not incompatible. The problem with your football analogy is that like you say there is a top 6 or so teams that are very competitive at the top of the prem whereas no one can touch sky on their funding. It's a top 1.

[reohn2]

I think it's fair to say that money is killing competion in pro sport where there's no limit on funding of an individual or team.

[Bonefishblues]

I think it's fair to say that money is killing competion in pro sport where there's no limit on funding of an individual or team.

Well it's creating an upper echelon of fewer teams (although Leicester blew that out of the water), but not sure it's killing competition per se?

[reohn2]

I think it's fair to say that money is killing competion in pro sport where there's no limit on funding of an individual or team.

Well it's creating an upper echelon of fewer teams (although Leicester blew that out of the water), but not sure it's killing competition per se?

It isn't in the top echelons,but then there's a huge gap.

[Bonefishblues]

I think it's fair to say that money is killing competion in pro sport where there's no limit on funding of an individual or team.

Well it's creating an upper echelon of fewer teams (although Leicester blew that out of the water), but not sure it's killing competition per se?

It isn't in the top echelons,but then there's a huge gap.

Agreed - almost a different competition, but in the case of the bladder-botherers an awful lot of cash trickling down, too.

[reohn2]

Well it's creating an upper echelon of fewer teams (although Leicester blew that out of the water), but not sure it's killing competition per se?

It isn't in the top echelons,but then there's a huge gap.

Agreed - almost a different competition, but in the case of the bladder-botherers an awful lot of cash trickling down, too.

I didn't know you were a trickle down theorist
The programme is up for the pro game and nothing else and the trickle down I see and hear is is referees leaving club football out of fear of violence on the pitch but I digress.
Back to cycling,money doesn't talk it screams abuse.

[TrevA]

Jonathan Vaughters thinks that it won’t be good for cycling on the long term, as the high level of funding will continue to allow Team Ineos to sign the best riders and lots of them. However, this is a bit like criticising the top 6 teams in the Premier League for buying up all the best football players and smacks of jealousy and sour grapes to me, because Vaughters isn’t able to find backers for his team to the same extent.

It could be the case that it is both bad for cycling and that he is jealous. They are not incompatible. The problem with your football analogy is that like you say there is a top 6 or so teams that are very competitive at the top of the prem whereas no one can touch sky on their funding. It's a top 1.

Team Sky's budget is the highest but it's not out of the ballpark compared to the other teams. Katusha aren't far behind them. Tinkoff and BMC have been very well funded in the past - data from 2016:

According to l’Equipe’s estimates on WorldTour team budgets (including TdF wildcards):
1. Team Sky: €35M
2. Katusha: €32M
3. BMC: €28M
4. Tinkoff: €25M
5. Astana: €20M
6. Etixx-Quickstep: €18M
7: Movistar: €15M
=8. Lotto-Soudal: €14M
=8. Lotto-Jumbo: €14M
10. Dimension Data: €13.5M
11. Orica-BikeExchange: €13M
12: Giant-Alpacin: €12.5M
=13: Trek-Segafredo: €12M
=13: AG2R La Mondial: €12M
15. Cofidis: €11M
16. IAM: €10.5M
=17: FDJ: €10M
=17: Cannondale: €10M
19: Lampre-Merida: €7M
20: Direct Energy: €6M
21. Bora-Argon 18: €4.5M
22. Fortuneo-Vital Concept: €3.5M

Cannondale - now EF, are well down the list, so you can see why Vaughters sees the big teams as a threat. His team are probably the equivalent of Bournemouth in football terms.

[Bonefishblues]

Absolute small change in cost/sponsorship terms, it seems to me

[Postboxer]

Maybe having one big sponsor, sponsoring one big team getting a lot of success will somehow attract other big sponsors, benefiting other teams. Maybe owning a cycling team will become the next must have accessory for eccentric billionaires.

[thirdcrank]

Why is anybody bothered about what somebody like Vaughters has to say?

Well, as a self-confessed dope taker, he'll always attract media interest and then, with so much top sport on the telly, the papers have to find something else to fill their columns, so comments from managers are just the thing, especially if they can be given a controversial slant.

[1982john]

Maybe having one big sponsor, sponsoring one big team getting a lot of success will somehow attract other big sponsors, benefiting other teams. Maybe owning a cycling team will become the next must have accessory for eccentric billionaires.

It is interesting given how big pro cycling is in other European countries there has not been 'an eccentric billionaire' will to get a French team on top.

However if anything it will put off normal sponsors - those who use it as marketing. You can't compete with a vanity project money.

[reohn2]

Why is anybody bothered about what somebody like Vaughters has to say?

Well, as a self-confessed dope taker, he'll always attract media interest and then, with so much top sport on the telly, the papers have to find something else to fill their columns, so comments from managers are just the thing, especially if they can be given a controversial slant.

Almost all those running the procycling circus are dope takers,difference they don't all confess

[100%JR]

It will give all the professional haters something to moan about.
Plus at least the French will still have a team to throw urine at

Also it a big two-fingers up from DB to those in the gutter press who predicted his downfall

[thirdcrank]

I like to think I'm not naïve, even though I was taken in by Lance Armstrong. For years, in the amateur side of the sport we were among the only true amateurs and in the pro ranks we were generally amateurish with a few outstanding exceptions. Now, with a combination of lottery money and lavish sponsorship we're enjoying success. Or at least, I'm enjoying it, even if nobody else is.