# Why don't cycling teams get real names like other sports?



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

They only ever go by the sponsor's name. Can't they be the Sky Condors or the BMC Wolverines? That way the name stays the same even if the sponsor changes? Every other sport gives their teams actual names.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

There is no league in cycling. Therefore there aren't any real teams and there sure isn't any structure at all.

The teams and riders get nothing. They literally get nothing from all of the tv rights and broadcasting. This may be starting to change, but not really. The only thing they get is money from sponsors, that's it.

The reason the teams are called the sponsor names is because that's the only way they get paid. If the sponsor leaves, the team is dead, gone, see ya later. Unless of course they find a different sponsor, then they will be called whatever that sponsor is.


If you want teams and team names and such, you'll have to have a league where teams exist. Those teams will have to be paid by broadcasters. This is what Oleg Tinkoff wants, it's what he keeps *****ing about and saying has to happen.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 12, 2004)

I think I'd stop following if they got [stupid] team names. It would make it sound like all the other sports I have no use for. Go figure, I'm an F1 fan too. No names there either. All sponsor based naming too. Not that sponsor based naming is right...it just seems simpler and transparent to who's bankrolling the operation.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

If teams got names the roster would look like our velogames TDF leauge. lol

lantern rouge
the baguettes
team goodleg


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

9W9W said:


> If teams got names the roster would look like our velogames TDF leauge. lol
> 
> lantern rouge
> the baguettes
> team goodleg


YES! THIS!!

I want to see "Frame Striders" as a team name, I would pay for it.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

MMsRepBike said:


> YES! THIS!!
> 
> I want to see "Frame Striders" as a team name, I would pay for it.


Yeah, and Wingandaprayer.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Oleg Tinkov may be an ahole, but in some way is right about the lack of revenue sharing to the riders.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> Oleg Tinkov may be an ahole, but in some way is right about the lack of revenue sharing to the riders.


I think he's got some good points. Ahole notwithstanding. Killing private ownership of the 3 major tours... I read him talking about better, more fair compensation for riders... More structure and consistency, race organizers working together... 

To hear him interviewed or to read his comments, he comes off as a pathological narcissist and egomaniac. But I've never thought he was stupid... Couldn't agree more acl...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

Jwiffle said:


> They only ever go by the sponsor's name. Can't they be the Sky Condors or the BMC Wolverines? That way the name stays the same even if the sponsor changes? Every other sport gives their teams actual names.


This was tried sometime in the 90s in the US. Criteriums with teams based in different cities. They even had half-times with interviews. Supposed to be very spectator and TV friendly, but didn't last.

While I was googling for that (and couldn't find anything) I noticed that the World Cycling League had its debut this year with 6 franchised teams. This is on the track. The calendar only showed the inaugural weekend in March. Never heard of it.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

ogre said:


> This was tried sometime in the 90s in the US. Criteriums with teams based in different cities. They even had half-times with interviews. Supposed to be very spectator and TV friendly, but didn't last.
> 
> While I was googling for that (and couldn't find anything) I noticed that the World Cycling League had its debut this year with 6 franchised teams. This is on the track. The calendar only showed the inaugural weekend in March. Never heard of it.


that was a silly concept though. And not being the top euro pro league, it was low stakes and uninteresting to the bulk of cycling fans.

I do not think it would be a major change at all for the Protour teams to adopt a 'mascot-name' (or whatever it is called) as some suggest. But revenue sharing it s whole different kettle of fish. Name is one thing, but money means a big political fight.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I find the sponsor-based team names kind of refreshing. There's no BS. Tinkoff even named his team after himself. As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to name my new team Mapei.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Mapei said:


> I find the sponsor-based team names kind of refreshing. There's no BS. Tinkoff even named his team after himself. As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to name my new team Mapei.


I don't know about "refreshing"...many of the American (continental) teams end up with word-soup "names" that are just awkward to spit out in any kind of hurry. "TEAM HOLOWESKO | CITADEL RACING TEAM PRESENTED BY HINCAPIE SPORTSWEAR" was one of the worst word-soup team name offenders this year that I know of. Last year "Team Optum presented by Kelly Benefit Strategies" was another. 

Try having an announcer who doesn't know the rider names spitting out those team names in a bunch sprint...like always happens on NBC or Tour of California or Tour of Utah or the former US Pro Challenge.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Mapei said:


> I find the sponsor-based team names kind of refreshing. There's no BS. Tinkoff even named his team after himself. As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to name my new team Mapei.


doesn't bother me at all either.

though it is silly that we have two teams named 'Lotto'!

Remind me of the long period we had 2 teams in the CFL named the 'Roughriders' (Ottawa and Saskatchewan - they since renamed Ottawa the Redblacks)


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

ogre said:


> This was tried sometime in the 90s in the US. Criteriums with teams based in different cities. They even had half-times with interviews. Supposed to be very spectator and TV friendly, but didn't last.
> 
> While I was googling for that (and couldn't find anything) I noticed that the World Cycling League had its debut this year with 6 franchised teams. This is on the track. The calendar only showed the inaugural weekend in March. Never heard of it.


I didn't know why the concept didn't take off. I mean, it works for NASCAR (go fast, turn left). 

Articles about National Cycle League - latimes


----------



## azpeterb (Jun 1, 2006)

I'd root for the Indiana Cutters.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

JaeP said:


> I didn't know why the concept didn't take off. I mean, it works for NASCAR (go fast, turn left).
> 
> Articles about National Cycle League - latimes


I remember a friend and I watching the "draft" for that league. It was pretty funny.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

It has happened recently. High Road, Blanco, Slipstream. These are names that were used when a title sponsor was absent. The current model is that the team is a billboard for the sponsor that funds the team.

A few teams have existed long enough that fans who follow closely know that Lotto Jumbo is the old Rabobank, Movistar goes back to Names to, etc. 

It's always been a problem. The sponsor and the star riders are worth more than the team that makes them successful. Needs to change.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

Jwiffle said:


> They only ever go by the sponsor's name. Can't they be the Sky Condors or the BMC Wolverines? That way the name stays the same even if the sponsor changes? Every other sport gives their teams actual names.


If you pony up the main portion of 15-40 million per year, you can name the team whatever you want.


----------



## ewarnerusa (Oct 11, 2007)

We now have the Telenet Fidea Lions.
Nys stelt Telenet Fidea Lions voor: "Als leeuwen het veld induiken"


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

ewarnerusa said:


> We now have the Telenet Fidea Lions.
> Nys stelt Telenet Fidea Lions voor: "Als leeuwen het veld induiken"


via Sven Nys


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> If you pony up the main portion of 15-40 million per year, you can name the team whatever you want.


Therein lies the problem. The team needs to build something worth more than a billboard. Euro soccer has done it, US football has done it (sponsors own branding on stadiums). Somehow a cycling team needs to create a native brand big enough that major sponsors get ROI from paying to be associated with, instead of owning it, top to bottom.

How does THAT happen?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

davidka said:


> Therein lies the problem. The team needs to build something worth more than a billboard. Euro soccer has done it, US football has done it (sponsors own branding on stadiums). Somehow a cycling team needs to create a native brand big enough that major sponsors get ROI from paying to be associated with, instead of owning it, top to bottom.
> 
> How does THAT happen?



Remember...NFL teams DO NOT own the stadiums. Nor do they pay to have them built. NFL teams blackmail cities into building their arenas at their cost on their own municipal bonds that are the taxpayer's problem. Most of the branding on stadiums is NOT the teams nor negotiated by the teams, it is the cities-saddled-in-debt way of trying to pay off the boondoggle of a facility they were blackmailed into building. Further it is not uncommon for primary sporting tenants to further blackmail cities out of their concession their box office and other in-building revenue streams, in the cementing of a contract. If the NFL teams were not saddling others with debt as should be, and actually owned/built their own facilities, it would be far less successful a venture.

Forbes Welcome

In town here for example the NCAA school blackmailed the city into building it a new basketball arena....the CITY sees ZERO/NONE revenue from said basketball play besides concessions, all ticket revenues and so on go directly to the NCAA Athletic Department.







Futbol and Football both have mass popular appeal. Cycling does not have any appeal in the USA.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

The stadiums used to have real names instead of sponsor names. Candlestick Park, Three Rivers Stadiu, The Metrodome, the Astrodome, ect. Now it's too costly not to sell of naming rights.

As a fan of Movistar, the team actually goes back to the 70's. However the 80's is really where the names start. Reynolds, Banesto, Illes Balears, Cassie D'Epargne, and now Movistar and next year who knows. The Movistar sponsorship's contract ends at the end of this year and no announcement yet for next year.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Oleg Tinkov may be an ahole, but in some way is right about the lack of revenue sharing to the riders.


It's not great that the big races are privately owned, or that the TV rights don't go to the teams, but I hope/pray it never goes like basketball or similar where they create a league, and overnight who ever owns the current pro cycling teams is now sitting on a massively expensive license. 

Aren't there a couple of people who owned basket ball teams that agreed to fold them when the NBA formed, but get something like 8% of the NBA revenue for life?

The current system seems to have, basically all but a few teams, scraping by. Sky, BMC and maybe one or two others seem flush with cash, the rest have nothing. The UCI seem to be doing alright and ASO seem to roll in the money. 

The worst example of this I see is how the FAI ended up giving/selling the Formula1 rights to Ecclestone, who just sold them (20 or 30 years later) for $8.5B. That is nuts. That's like if the olympics were sold to Sir Richard Branson for $100.


----------

