Oleg Tinkov says cycling in "huge crisis" as he predicts more teams will collapse

Simon E, agree with your points as F1 and premiership footie as a way NOT to go. But stupid football wages dont exist in all countries with, i'd estimate, 95% of clubs on sensible wages.

The article on Sky's accounts is a good read which shows they got  just short of £3.2m for entering races, a mere splash in the ocean compared to their £18m wage bill.

The sport is evolving at a quicker rate than it can sustain hence the teams folding however with a personal fortune of approx £1.4b the only reason i can see for Tinkov pulling out is due to him not getting his own way as its blatantly not money.

If we want the sport to continue along the same route then it has to prostitute itself as F1 and the likes have done or do we want a sport thats less in the limelight but more sustainable ??

So what is the issue?  What's changed in recent years that is casting a shadow over the sport?

Tinkoff and the like are the cause of the problem by paying the salaries.  The more that's paid, the more people expect, and the spiral continues.

How many riders does a team need when the most they can field is about 9?  How big a motorhome?  Does no-one learn anything from F1 or football?

Tinkoff is right, the sport is in crisis, and will need to change. 

One of its major challenges is rider slaries and associated with that team budgets. I for one see no issue with top cyclists being paid top money... I think the argument of keeping salaries low as a way to support the sports long term financial sustainability is a little short sighted.

This is a global sport, its a sport that includes the worlds biggest annual sporting event, so why shouldn't it look to generate revenues in line with other top global sports. 

That for me is the crux of it... instead of fighting for the crumbs on the table, the sport, led by UCI should be looking at how it maximises revenues generated. 

For donkey's years, competitive cyclists have endured exploitation and ridiculous conditions / salaries probably because of some internal feeling of uilt at getting paid for doing something they love. 

That bollards and not something that the sport should stand for.

In this we should look a tthe women's scene... they are kicking off, and changes are happening, and happening fast. 

Just out of interest, how much does it cost to run a team like Sky over the course of the year, across all the events it runs at?

As a motorsport fan I'm interested to see how it compares to running a season in MotoGP, another sport that's got lots of financing problems behind the curtain.

The OnePro cycling approach where you are the team and the sponsors don't pull the plug on the outfit destroying the brand you have built seems like a sensible step. I understand that the name being the sponsor gets more exposure, but the constant 'brand' will in time have a larger pull than the team formerly known as Rapha-Condor-JLT.

Salaries are driven by supply and demand.  If the likes of Sagan can demand high wages and have a choice of employers, then wages will go up.

The opposite should now happen, as there will be fewer teams bidding for the top talent.

Pro cycling is a mess, as Tinkov says.   How it can be sustained with the only income for the teams being from acting as mobile billboards does look difficult.   But moving onto pay-per-view might decrease income - it is because those billboards get seen that they have value.

I think there needs to be

a) sharing of the TV rights with the teams

b) a better and more stable approach to who owns and runs the teams.   Football clubs don't disappear just because their sponsor changes.  How to get there is of course much more tricky than just saying that there needs to be more of a "club" approach to teams.

Maybe a genuine league approach, with the riders having a share in the ownership of teams, and transferring their shares when they retire or move?

If cycling is too small for Tinkov to make his vast profits then good riddance. 

What has he actually done apart from inflate top riders pay to abhorrent footballer levels?

Thanks for the legacy Mr T.

The war has already started hasn't it?  UCI wants to give teams 3 year licenses to give teams financial stability for the sponsors. ASO wants more of a league system with promotion/relegation between the pro peleton and pro continental teams to the point they are restricting the number of pro teams at the 2017 tour.  He doesn't mention Sky which is interesting they have to be looking at return on investment its surely gone past its peak of interest with the general public. 

A pay cycling TVs channel may sound good to Oleg but how many people would subscribe? 

No thanks to pay per view thanks. 

Most obvious problem is that very few races make money from tv. In fact I'm pretty sure it's only one: the TdF. So for most of the season there is no revenue to share among teams. The sport's worth is from the riders being, essentially, mobile advertisement hoardings.  Cycing certainly doesn't have any worth along the lines of football. To try and mould it into a football shape is pure folly.

Like to wrevilo, I see a power struggle looming. Without the teams to provide the spectacle, then no tours so by inference the owners will have to change their model or accomodate some compromise.

Can you imagine sponsors willing to provide their assistance only to see a dwindling audience? In my opinion, that wouldn't happen in the longer term as figures would decline and force both parties to the negotiating table. That said, with increasing audience figures / popularity, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Therefore, I see simply new teams filling the vacated spaces for example ONEcycling stepping from the one league below.

It's a difficult situation.  Eventually someone will take power.  Like F1, I don't see the governing body doing much.

Didn't know Tinkov Saxo were shutting down the team 

Tinkov and IAM both gone, any new teams coming together for next season?