Relegation rules in cycling: Sensible or pointless? A pro & con
Click through: These teams are currently part of the World Tour
After the end of the 2022 season, the World Tour licences for the next three years will be reallocated by the UCI. Anyone who wants to get one of the 18 places in cycling's premier league must qualify in sporting terms. The UCI's three-year ranking is decisive. This involves adding up the points that a team has collected in UCI races from 2020 to 2022. The current status of the three-year ranking can be found at Procyclingstats. It should be noted that only the points scored by the top ten drivers of each team per season are counted towards the three-year ranking.
As two second division teams, Alpecin-Deceuninck and Arkea-Samsic, are currently among the top 18 teams, Israel-Premier Tech and Lotto Soudal are threatened with relegation from the World Tour. A fact that is causing discussion. TOUR presents arguments in favour of and against the relegation rules.
PRO - by Thomas Goldmann
Pro-argument 1: Competition stimulates business
A regulation for promotion and relegation is good for cycling. After all, competition - as in so many areas of life - stimulates business. The pressure of relegation forces teams to rethink previous patterns, to conduct material research and they must not rest on their laurels, which are sometimes very strongly linked to the purse of the respective owner. This is good for the development of cycling as a whole.
It comes as no surprise that a wealthy team like Israel-Premier Tech now has its back to the wall in the fight against relegation. High-calibre new signings such as Chris Froome and Jakob Fuglsang did not bring the hoped-for victories. Consequently, the racing team now has to live with the consequences - and that is fair. Even if the owner Sylvan Adams is threatening to sue the UCI.
Pro-argument 2: Good work must be rewarded
In contrast to Israel-Premier Tech, a team like Intermarche-Wanty-Gobert, which claims to have the lowest budget in the World Tour, shows how you can achieve a lot with very little - the team is currently in tenth place in the three-year rankings. For a long time, the Belgians were ridiculed as an appendage of the World Tour, but then there were some changes to the staff. The team also pursued a good transfer policy with new signings such as Alexander Kristoff and Biniam Girmay. This must be incentivised, which is the case with the relegation regulations.
Pro-argument 3: Tradition is not a licence guarantee
The argument that the future of decades-old traditional teams is at stake - as expressed by Ineos professional Tao Geoghegan Hart - is understandable, but does not get to the heart of the matter. Tradition does not protect against relegation! A long-established team like Lotto Soudal is now only number four in Belgium behind Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl, Alpecin Deceuninck and Intermarche-Wanty-Gobert and is on the verge of dropping into the second division.
The golden days at Lotto Soudal with Andre Greipel, who was under contract there from 2011 to 2018, are over. The team has failed to reinvent itself under General Manager John Lelangue since 2019. Relegation would be the logical consequence of sporting mismanagement, but it can also have a positive effect on this team, as they are now being forced to change. Parting ways with Lelangue is the first step.
The same applies to Movistar. In the 1990s, the traditional Spanish racing team celebrated five Tour de France victories in a row with Miguel Indurain. Since the departure of Richard Carapaz, Nairo Quintana and Mikel Landa at the end of 2019, Eusebio Unzue's team has been dependent on a now 42-year-old Alejandro Valverde and an inconsistent Enric Mas. The latter's second place at the Vuelta barely saved the team from major worries in the fight against relegation. Without this arrangement, there would be a great danger that Movistar would simply continue to let things slide. The pressure of the three-year classification leaves the cycling dinosaur with no other choice: it has to change. And that's a good thing!
Pro-argument 4: Championship fight benefits from relegation battle
In addition, the fight against relegation will perhaps finally bring the championship battle into the public eye in future. In other sports, fans need a league, a competition throughout the year that they can cheer on. In cycling, however, hardly anyone takes notice of the fact that Jumbo-Visma leads the three-year standings. Sooner or later, the relegation battle could be joined by the title fight.
Pro-argument 5: Smaller races are upgraded
Last but not least, it's not just the teams that are affected by the relegation rules; many organisers are also suddenly in a completely different position - in a positive sense. The relegation battle enhances small races. For example, ten World Tour teams will start at the Münsterland Giro in 2022. Last year there were only five. The reason for this is the UCI counters that can be won there in the fight against relegation.
It is clear that the points system in cycling does not correspond to the weighting of the races and needs to be revised. After all, it is unacceptable that 120 points are awarded for a stage win in the Tour de France, but 200 for a triumph in the Münsterland Giro. Nevertheless, even with a slightly modified system, the smaller organisers would still attract large teams and receive more attention.
Contra - by Andreas Kublik
Counterargument 1: The purpose of the World Tour licences has been reduced to absurdity
The relegation rules in professional cycling are rubbish. First of all: With the World Tour licences, the UCI once promised the professional racing teams long-term planning security. For this reason alone, the relegation regulation in this form is absurd. The idea of licences was borrowed from the major sports leagues in North America: In the NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB, however, there is no relegation.
The old uncertainty in cycling is back: even in autumn, some World Tour teams are unable to tell their sponsors whether they will be riding the Tour de France next year - and may drop out as sponsors at short notice. However, planning security for everyone involved - teams, sponsors, riders - was the argument in favour of long-term contracts. And even before the introduction of the relegation rule, the points won by a team's riders played a role in the awarding of licences as a sporting criterion - but not exclusively.
Counterargument 2: It is not a sporting competition and not a real league system
In addition, a system for promotion and relegation can only work with a clear league system. This means that you are relegated from the higher league and promoted from the lower one. In professional cycling, however, there are no self-contained leagues - the first, second and third divisions of international cycling are mixed up in the races.
The World Tour as the first league is partially open. However, who is allowed to take part is not determined by sporting rules - but by the wishes of the race organisers, who often award wildcards based on home advantage rather than sporting criteria. Teams from cycling nations with a Grand Tour (Tour, Giro and Vuelta) and many top-class cycling races have a clear advantage.
Counterargument 3: Existential pressure is never good for morale
The pressure is increased by the fight against relegation - the stability of the system is lost. Racing drivers are bought out of contracts at short notice (for example Dylan Teuns in August by Israel-Premier Tech), racing drivers have to race when a break would be good - and excessive existential pressure has always been a motive for doping. Winning has taken a back seat to ethical criteria, which were once a decisive factor in the awarding of licences. Have you forgotten, UCI?
Counter-argument 4: The system does not correspond to the logic of cycling
The underlying points system has nothing to do with the realities of cycling. As a rule, professional cycling races are run to victory with one leader per team. However, in some races, riders in fifth to seventh place earn a team more points than a win - with consequences for the riding style. See next counter-argument.
Counterargument 5: Less safety in the races
The relegation rule also contradicts a key endeavour of the UCI in recent years: The races should become safer - the race finals should be defused, for example through the three-kilometre rule - then all but the top sprinters should be able to continue reasonably relaxed. But now every position and every point is being fought for, sometimes by several riders per team - even in chasing groups that have been left behind. This causes additional unrest in the race finals.
Counterargument 6: The UCI is weakening its own top competition, the World Championships, and the national teams
Due to the fear of relegation, some of the teams concerned, such as Movistar or Lotto Soudal, did not allow their riders to start in the World Championships in Australia. Instead of riding the World Championship race in the national team for a captain from another professional racing team without a chance, they would rather go on the hunt for points for the team in smaller races in Europe. The German team also felt the effects of this. Mixed relay world champion Max Walscheid should stay in Europe.
Andreas Kublik
Editor
