Budget Caps

Mathieu van der Poel has signed two deals, one to keep him with the Alpecin-Deceuninck until 2028, the other with bike brand Canyon for ten years. The UCI has also announced a plan to introduce budget caps for professional road cycling in the coming years. These two stories go together.

First here is the full quote from the UCI press release, it’s worth reading in full as the wording raises several issues:

the principle of implementing a budget cap for teams was approved. This aims to preserve sporting fairness by avoiding excessive disparities between teams in terms of budget. A working group will be set up rapidly to present measures to the UCI Management Committee with a view to their application from the next renewal of teams’ UCI Women’s WorldTour and UCI WorldTour licences (for the 2026 season).
– UCI press release, March 2024

The quote comes from the Professional Cycling Council (PCC), a body that is part-UCI, part made up for other groups in the sport representing teams, races, riders and so on.

A budget cap can have merits, as the text above says it can avoid “excessive disparities between teams”. It’s a difficult subject to explore in a blog post because team budgets are typically unknown. Some squads do publish numbers, most don’t. Those listicles every July are invariably hopeless because the numbers they use for the teams that do publish their numbers are wrong, so the rest must be wild guesses. The UCI knows as it reviews the annual budgets of all the teams. It even tells other teams where their budget sits on a graphical scale compared to World Tour rivals. The top teams have budgets between three to four times those of the smallest.

The good news for teams is that budgets have soared in recent years, growing at a rate far above inflation. The budget in Pounds for Team Sky/Ineos, one of the squads to publish accounts, has grown at 12% per annum. Comparable numbers for Ag2r La Mondiale over a similar period show 8% growth. Audience numbers haven’t grown that much over the past decade, if at all: cycling has become increasingly valuable.

The bad news for teams is also this inflation, a sharp rise in costs with no end in sight. Secure a significant budget increase one year from sponsors and a team manager finds their rivals have too (although it’s good for others if rider wages are bid up and that teams can afford more support resources). As cycling becomes more expensive for sponsors the supply of available backers can diminish such that if one sponsor feels their time is up it can be difficult to replace them. However there have been other factors keeping sponsors away and it’s not been price but risk: the sport was riven with doping scandals so few consumer brands wanted to go near, now they are willing to give the sport a hearing.

Above all, if the PCC has approved the principle today, it’s another to agree written rules and then their enforcement. Now all the rules have to be put in clear writing, with monitoring and surveillance explained too. This is, to put it mildly, the hard part and it could fall apart here.

Budget cap, what budget cap?
Is it above the highest level in the World Tour today in order to restrain future inflation or will it seek to cap the budget of the top team, or even the budgets of several top teams in an act of regulatory redistribution? Nevermind, pick any number, and then ask does it have to be Euros, should it be Swiss Francs because that is the UCI’s home currency? But what if a team is funded in, say, US Dollars, British Pounds or Bahraini Dinars and these currencies appreciate relative to the Euro or Swiss Franc, the team’s budget hasn’t gone up but it might move against the cap. Just one little technical detail but it shows how difficult it becomes.

A wider issue is defining the team budget. Obvious you might think, but this brings us to Mathieu van der Poel. His two deals with Alpecin-Deceuninck – strictly speaking Team Ciclismo Mundial BVBA, the legal entity behind the team – and Canyon means he is being paid twice. One out of the Alpecin-Deceuninck team budget and another time from Canyon, the team’s bike sponsor and they’re related, he now comes as a package from Canyon which presumably pays the team as well and supplies bikes. It shows how manufacturers are keen to be linked to star athletes. This is exactly what we saw with Specialized and Peter Sagan, he joined Bora and then Total Energies with the US brand as part of the package. Indeed it’s said Sagan didn’t cost Total much because Specialized was the one paying him but again that’s hearsay. This matters when these are combined because you can’t tell where the team budget starts and finishes.

Off the books
What this means is that trying to work out what a team budget is can be a fraught issue. Bike sponsors are typically every team’s second or third backer after the one or two headline sponsors. They bring millions to the team budget, but if they also pay riders on the side this is “off the books” when it comes to the team budget. These payments are above board, they just don’t flow through the team as the traditional employer.

So cap the budget of the team but how do you stop payments outside of the team? A rider getting a discount at their local butchers probably doesn’t need to be included but where does the line fall? What if one team sponsor pays for private jets outside of the squad’s budget; another donates a team bus? Say Ineos the company give each rider a Grenadier car worth €80k while the team cuts salaries by the same amount and, voila, the team budget is reduced by €2.3 million. Do riders risk loosing out if a component of their pay is unrelated to their salaried employment? The moment you introduce a cap is the moment the wealthiest teams are incentivised to look at payments off the books and other means to preserve their financial firepower.

Good luck to those writing down the plans for team budgets, there’s a lot to think about and write-up. I’ve pointed out a couple of issues above but didn’t want to go too far down the path because we only know there’s an agreement in principle, there’s no guidance on the direction it’ll take.

To pre-empt any “meme” style argument of how can the UCI control team budgets when it struggles with sock length or helmet design, there’s a point but there’s also the more serious answer that the budget review, like the licence process, will be done by accountants tasked with reviewing budgets rather than volunteer commissaires who have 1,001 things to do on a race day. So if it’s difficult and fraught with unintended consequences, it can be done.

It’s also worth thinking of what awaits, how would this change the sport? Motorsport’s F1 has introduced a budget cap for its teams, an obvious example to borrow from but instructive too given teams have flouted the rules and several seem to spend as much time in Excel as the windtunnel or test track. Plus the same team won every Grand Prix but one in 2023. For road racing will the sport improve? If teams are on a more equal footing will their varying management styles come to the fore more, will there just be a large degree of luck?

69 thoughts on “Budget Caps”

  1. At a time of financial difficulties in Europe and the USA, the UCI proposes to impose a cap on team budgets. Sounds like the ultimate Socialist Utopia more than a sensible idea to grow the sport and make the whole structure more economically viable.
    I suggest if this madcap idea is implemented, it will be a backward step for the sport and simply see many of the larger sponsors pull the plug. They are after all in the sport to win. Time for lunch, so I have to stop for now but will come back later.

        • Ha Ha True – the idea seems to be to make the teams more attractive to sponsors and, I guess, with the bulk of team owners in agreement. But it’s no panacea by the sounds of it and riven with complexity.

    • Surely if there are “financial difficulties” then reducing the cost of taking part might help?

      One thing I didn’t mention above is that teams have pushed hard to get revenues from others, the zombie “revenue sharing” idea, but they’ve not shown they can control their own costs. If teams are backing the cap, and the PCC includes representation from the teams, then it could be that it is what teams want and maybe their sponsors want.

    • The funny thing about budget caps as an example of a socialist utopia is… (and I know there is the caveat of different context): consider the sports (or “sports”) blessed by budget caps today.

      (Socialist utopias… such as universal suffrage, five working day weeks, holidays, health insurance etc. 😉 )

      • Only on one level.

        Taken as a whole, it shows that one man’s (team owner) socialist utopia is another man’s (non-quarterback player) oppressive serfdom.

  2. The MVDP/Sagan scenario is probably the most likely. I’m not sure that riders will want payment in kind, depending on the sponsor.

    But what’s the difference between Canyon paying $10M to sponsor the team, or paying MVDP $5M on the side + $5M to the team? The only difference is the salary cap hit. The UCI could create a rule that says a team sponsor can’t also sponsor a rider, but this will never fly: the reason why Canyon is paying MVDP on the side (vs other team members) is so they can put him on the website, or use him in adverts.

    Plus, it may have unintended consequences elsewhere: Red Bull sponsors riders on the side. A secondary sponsor might really only want to sponsor a particular star rider anyway.

  3. I think implementing this will not work. Professional teams (mens and womens) in the different tiers of the professional ranks are registered as legal entries in different countries and legal jurisdictions. Some of these countries may have laws preventing salary caps. Only the license is governed by Swiss law. Not the salary paying legal entity of the teams.

      • Wait until an EU citizen loses an opportunity because of the cap. Very hard to square these rules with EU law. Where leagues have done so recently, the spending limits have tended to be linked to turnover, and more explicitly based on ensuring solvency.

          • Though a budget cap – if ever implemented – will tend to reduce the overall sums available to pay riders. That might not matter that much for those making several €million/p.a. over a career of ten years or so but will surely hit those at the more modest end of the WT spectrum. What do middle of the road pro cyclists think about? Wins certainly, but also their potential financial position at the end of a dangerous and gruelling career. There are not many options for the worn-out roadman without qualifications and, in this supporter’s eyes, good luck to any rider able to salt away a million or three and make their post-cyccling life a little more comfortable.

          • Perhaps, but it will be the effect, not just the aim, that the Commission and Court will consider when deciding whether it breaks competition law.

          • DJW has a point. So it’s very important, in the world of today, that non-millionaire pro cyclists develop other skills and careers beyond riding their bikes. In this sense, the more precocious development of cyclists that we are witnessing is surely good news. Riders will know earlier how successful they can reasonably expect to become, and do a David Veilleux if their prospects are just average.

  4. There are other sports leagues with salary caps besides F1. I have zero knowledge about any of them work or how much cheating is allowed but this isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a case of UCI reinventing the wheel.
    I laugh at those screeching about “socialist utopia” especially if they’re NFL fans as that league seems pretty darn socialistic with salary caps and player drafts despite the oligarchs and plutocrats involved. One team is even a publicly-owned, non-profit corporation.
    The “Can’t beat ’em? Buy ’em!” strategy is too often used by the cash-rich teams to maintain their dominance. Once there’s some sort of financial parity we might even see MORE sponsors pony-up some loot if the team they back has a better chance to deliver publicity for them vs the ones backed by what seems to be the deep, deep pockets of autocratic regimes and/or natural resource extraction cabals?

    • Salary caps ’work’ only when the whole league is centralised under one jurisdiction (i.e. no different tax regimes for Decathlon-Ag2r vs Visma-LAB) where the laws allow salary caps to exist, and they only work when there is a collective belief that those enforcing it will be able to detect every breach and penalise accordingly.

      The F1 partial performance spending cap is unique in European sports in having a spending cap which actually works to some degree. The catch is that was only possible because Liberty Media was allowed to turn it into an American sport!

      The socialist utopia of the NFL only exists on the level of the team owners. The scenario for the players is more along the line of serfdom with the added twist of having a completely mushed up brain before the age of 25.

      Transfer fees are a better idea for cycling, and proven to be compatible with the European sporting system.

      • “Transfer fees are a better idea for cycling, and proven to be compatible with the European sporting system.”
        How does that fix anything? I erred with “salary” cap when I meant budget cap but doesn’t a transfer fee make it easier for “Can’t beat ’em? Buy ’em!” to happen? Sure, a team “selling” a rider gets the loot…so what…they can spend it developing more riders for the rich teams to poach?
        I’m not buying the idea that budget caps only work when there’s some “American” interest in the thing as you note with F1/Liberty Media. Did a budget cap only come in when they took over the show?

        • Technically, yes. The F1 budget cap came into force in 2021 I believe, after Liberty Media bought control in 2017. But a budget cap had loooooong been talked about. Whether this is a sign that it was only implemented because of Liberty Media, or was going to implement with or without them is a different question.

  5. Back from lunch and a short ride.
    Well, with Pogacar showing every sign of being the next Merckx, there will be no need to worry too much about ‘caps’.The sign for five or even ten years and sporting success appears assured is already in play.
    What about the ubiquitous ‘brown envelopes?’ There is simply no way anybody or anything can stop this riff backhand method of enticement.
    The economic/tax regimes across the world would also be impossible to control from Switzerland.
    Sorry, but the UCI should concentrate its efforts on encouraging more financial investment in the sport, not less.

  6. It will be a step backward. This sport is still so small on a relative basis that it needs all the revenues and all the sponsors it can get. Will the competition between teams be imbalanced – probably. But the sport needs more revenues just to stabilize it and when the overall pie gets big enough, that’s when you think about budget caps.

    • Aren’t you more likely to get sponsors if sponsoring is affordable?
      In all walks of life, more money doesn’t stabilise things – precisely the opposite.

    • A budget cap doesn’t prevent investment or sponsorship, sensible/shrewd management could even lead to teams having more in their bank account than they need to survive the current season and create more stability long term as they are no longer on the knife edge.

  7. I can’t see the rider union agreeing to any hard salary cap because it will reduce the income of their members.
    Lets say the average salary of the team now was 22 mil and we implemented a salary cap of 22 mil we would in effect be reducing the income of the riders. Those teams without the ability to pay 22 mil still won’t be able to pay it (no i don’t believe a salary cap would magically increase the money to the less financial teams) whilst the teams above this value have to decrease the amount paid. Thereby decreasing the total amount paid to the riders – a pay cut.
    The majority of the pay cut will be felt by the lower to middle pay riders.

    And i don’t see it as absolutely needed. Its not like soccer where the same teams dominate for a very long time. In cycling a team might be well funded now but its momentary. UAE and visma were no where 5 – 10 years ago. INEOS has had a large budget but has been cutting riders. In cycling a dominate team is temporary.

      • Try to appreciate that the first sentence only refers to the option thereby mentioned and does not preclude or discuss any other option not highlighted.
        Although since most of the team’s budget go to rider salary its difficult to see how you can reduce budget but not salary.

        • Considering the salary cap, of all sports currently using one, is adjusted from season to season it doesn’t stop salaries increasing, it means teams have to think about the way it’s spent rather than just writing bigger cheques.

          The bottom of the market is already set by the UCIs minimum wage rules, this is aiming to put a lid on the already sizeable advantage some teams have.

          If this means Visma and UAE stop buying up the second tier teams GC leaders to work for Jonas and Tadej, this should lead to better racing across the board as those teams can no longer assert such control over the race and then there are more potential strategies and winners than pace JV/Pog to 3km and let them go.

  8. On a related subject, maybe riders out of contract at the end of a current year are placed in a pool of uncontracted riders and the lowest ranked team gets first pick from this group. (Known as a Draft here in Australian Football, and also various US sports). Then the next lowest team has their pick, and so on until the highest ranked team has their pick.

    Once all teams have taken one rider from the pool, the lowest ranked team has it’s second pick and so on up the rankings until the highest ranked team has it’s second pick. As you can no doubt guess the process repeats until the pool of “Draftees” is exhausted.

    This is obviously not the answer to all of Cycling’s ills, but The Draft has become a fairer way of distributing talent within the sports that use the process. Of course, there will still be brown paper bags of cash, etc. However the talent is spread more widely.

    • “The Draft has become a fairer way of distributing talent within the sports that use the process.”
      Which is something the “haves” certainly do NOT want! “Can’t beat ’em? Buy ’em!” is working just fine for them.
      The claims of “At a time of financial difficulties in Europe and the USA, the UCI proposes to impose a cap on team budgets.” (let’s ignore what exactly these “financial difficulties” might be?) make it sound like less money would come into the sport rather than more.
      But can that be proven vs what I mentioned – that more parity in the sport might actually encourage more investment from sponsors if their team had more chance to deliver the exposure they seek?

    • The problem with that is you remove any say from the riders when they are out of contract. In most leagues with a draft, like the NFL, you get drafted out of college but once that first 4-5 year contract is up you hit the open market as a free agent. I’d hate a system that gives riders less agency and just have to go where they are told. A draft for U23s/ pro Conti riders into the world tour might be more acceptable though.

    • Drafts are great for domestic sport competitions where the whole competition can be run under a single jurisdiction. Trying to run a draft in a diverse international sport where over half of the top level races are in locations subject to the EU’s Restraint of Trade laws is a complete non-starter.

      Transfer fees are probably a better idea for cycling than a draft, not least because football proves they are compatible with the European open market system.

  9. There are 2 issues with budget caps as shown by several sports in Eurppe/US but most recently Rugby Union.
    The issues are
    1) they need to be effectively policed. Mush has already been written about this given the complexity and number of tax regimes involved, and
    2) in order to a competitive “league”, every team must spend up to the budget cap. This is important because otherwise the situation between the haves & have nots remains unequal. It is also why the cap level is of vital importance.
    I suspect the UCI will make its study and then quietly place it in the drawer marked “too hard”.
    This also assumes that they will not run into legal problems with teams threatening restrictive practice lawsuits.

    • Rugby is definitely an example of the problem of enforcing a salary cap. Saracens, in England, found lots of ways round it including using image rights, providing benefits in kind (zero interest mortgages) and a number of other ruses. I would guess that if cycling were to try it they would have to use the concept of marquee riders whose remuneration is outside of the salary cap.

        • Quite.

          And the thing about a budget cap means the squeeze is on everywhere else to afford the top earners.

          So what would a team do if its budget needed to be reduced to meet the cap? Well firstly they’d likely cut back on ‘swannies’, mechanics and other staff. Then they’d try to employ those left at a lower salary. Then they’d make their squad smaller and do less races. Capping their stars salaries would be the very last thing to occur.

      • I’d guess they sell plenty to the tri-jocks, but since their federation changed the rules to allow more aero-trickery than the UCI does, using ’em in stage races wouldn’t seem like much of good marketing spend IMHO. Their techno trickery adds nothing to the sport other than expensive techno trickery and the idea that the bike makes a difference between winning and losing…which in the case of solo against-the-clock efforts could be the case.
        OTOH perhaps THAT is why the things still exist – MARKETING, MARKETING, MARKETING? I always hate to read things like “The bike that won X!” when the bike just sits there motionless (well, it’s supposed to by the rules) unless someone climbs on and starts pedaling it.

  10. How does any kind of cap allow for performance-based rewards? They must be a legitimate means of increasing pay for individuals and teams.

    What role would the Bosman ruling have on out-of-contract riders? You can’t have such restraint on trade in the labour market as a ‘Draft’ implies. Sure there is a market for labour and a going rate, but to limit the way this market operates could affect a rider’s chance in ways that have nothing to do with worth and everything to do with the teams’ spending powers as set by rules outside their willingness to spend.
    – Or such a rule does nothing to end dominance of the high spenders.

    Last, who at the UCI actually has the authority to assume control over the spending habits of wilful billionaires now bankrolling the sport? !

  11. A budget cap is long overdue. Bring on the socialist utopia.

    People will do dodgy things to get round it, I’ve no doubt, but that’s not a reason to continue a system that produces less entertaining sport through ultra-strong teams. Even with dodgy goings-on, it’ll be an improvement.

  12. I agree with you that a budget cap should produce a more entertaining sport but I have less than zero confidence in the UCI policing the cap effectively.
    Take just one simple example. If Canyon do wind tunnel testing on their latest release, spending millions in the process, those teams riding Canyon will get the benefit but the spending is outwith their cap. Similarly how do you value a bike manufacturer supplying bikes to a team for free. In my mind there are just too many variables and we are talking about a governing body that struggles to measure a rider’s socks.

  13. “Similarly how do you value a bike manufacturer supplying bikes to a team for free.”
    The cost of the bicycles is a rounding error compared to the fat chex they write to the teams to use them. R & D (and more accurately, MARKETING) costs incurred by the bike importers/distributors should have zero affect on a team’s overall budget, which is what is being capped.
    And let’s be honest here – any “benefit” from “wind tunnel testing” is a less than a “marginal gain” IMHO..the guy who wins any given race could have won the same race using the bike ridden by the guy who came in dead-last. It’s how that bike is pedaled that makes the difference between winning and losing – the sport’s not (yet anyway) F1.

    • You have, maybe deliberately, missed the point that I’m trying to make. A team, any team, that receives a benefit, in kind, financially, or performance wise from the efforts of a third party must have that benefit included in their cap otherwise it is pointless having the cap. You could just outsource, all your R&D, medical, nutrition etc etc costs to a third party and it would be outwith the cap. The point about bike suppliers was just a very simple example of this. Without an enormous regulatory system agreed by all parties it is impossible to police and thus worthless.
      For what it’s worth I disagree with your comment about all winners could win on any bike but that’s a discussion for another day.

      • As I pointed out in my first comment, this idea’s not new so UCI doesn’t need to dream up their own rules when other sports governing bodies have already dealt with all (or most) of these issues already, as in your bike supplier example. Bikes are not an expense for pro teams, they get as many as they can eat + fat chex for choosing one makers decal vs another. No secrets there.
        Meanwhile, I’ll eagerly wait for the discussion about how the bike the rider pedals (unless it’s motorized) makes the difference between winning and losing. IMHO one of the UCI’s main missions is to make sure that never becomes a fact vs just marketing-maven bullspeak.

      • Outsourcing of that kind is only an issue though if all the providers are willing to provide those goods or services for free. Otherwise the spend would form part of the team’s capped budget.
        Yes, bike manufacturers would be willing to provide bikes for free, as would clothing providers, helmet providers etc, as they benefit from the exposure…but that all happens already…would nutritionists and doctors be willing to provide their services for free? That seems unlikely to me…
        And all of these things seem like minimal gains, compared to the massive gains found by having a budget that’s £30m larger than another team…so exceptions like this shouldn’t undermine the concept in my view…perfect is the enemy of good, and all that…

  14. Aside from the sponsorships how do teams make money? I suppose they sell some merch. Are there events where tickets are sold? Do they get any taste of the Broadcast rights money?

    So we have (maybe):
    – Broadcast rights?
    – Tickets & Concessions?
    – Money from UCI? F1 pays teams for example
    – Prize Money – assuming riders and staff keep this

      • Teams can make a profit but they’re not there to return money to investors etc, the sponsors would ask why they are putting more in than necessary or the owners would pay themselves more. Generally the budget is designed so income matches costs.

    • It’s mainly, read essentially, sponsorship income. Prize money is shared among riders and staff so it doesn’t go into the team budget and if it does it goes right back out. Races pay teams small sums called “participation fees” but these don’t cover expenses. And teams pay the UCI for their licence, the UCI doesn’t make much on this as it’s spent on staff, anti-doping etc.

      There are also very little TV rights to share, see https://inrng.com/2019/01/revenue-sharing-revisited/ for more.

    • It isn’t a line item labelled as ‘broadcast rights’ or ‘revenue share’ as such, but teams are paid by race organisers in terms of a fixed payment per day of racing, reimbursement of transport costs and a bunch of payments-in-kind such as free accommodation at all races and non-European races also providing free flights and support vehicles.

      The advantage of this model ahead of a revenue sharing model is that providing these payments to the teams is accepted as a cost of running a race, and therefore they get paid even by races where the net revenue is negative and the loss is covered by a regional government tourism body.

  15. @DaveRides. Come on Dave and other like minded readers.
    If you have ever organized races, you would know how difficult using other people’s’ money – local/regional government, for promoting events is. Facilities yes, cash difficult. I could name you many that have fallen by the wayside with unsustainable models like this. Tour of Britain or Yorkshire Classic in the UK anybody? Plenty more examples in mainland Europe. Like many of these models, they eventually run out of local/regional goodwill and patience or find some of the money has mysteriously gone missing. The sport needs to concentrate on growth in a sustainable way, where investors get a return on their investment and the sport provides an exciting spectacle in return. There is NO other serious option!

    The whole idea of the UCI cap is almost crazy. You can’t make people equal, no matter what financial straightjacket you try to impose from above. People are people and by definition different and inventive. I think we have seen some of the best racing for many years recently. Hopefully a good sign for growth both in supporters/fans and investors.

    Modern road and traffic conditions are of far more of a concern than financial ‘caps’.

    • “The sport needs to concentrate on growth in a sustainable way, where investors get a return on their investment and the sport provides an exciting spectacle in return. There is NO other serious option!”
      In your view, but maybe some of us think things are OK as they are? More sport, less business! I’m not sold on the “growth” argument…reminds me too much of the greedy corporate philosophy that growth is more important than anything…which we’ve seen plenty of times is not the case.
      PS- I admit to never promoting any races but am married to someone who has…so I’ve heard all about what a tough and usually thankless job it is.

    • There is a crowding out effect between team sponsoring and race sponsoring. Maybe at this point in time, it’s races that need more sponsoring.

  16. Another question is how do you enforce transgressions?

    A couple of English Premier League football teams have had points deductions this season for breaking “financial fair play rules”. That’s just about workable in a league-based sport, where points have real currency at both the top and bottom of the league. But points have pretty much zero currency in cycling, unless you are knocking round right at the bottom of the WorldTour category.

    But if not points deductions for transgression – then what? Can you imagine the uproar if the result of the Tour de France was in dispute for years while some court case about team budgets played out in Geneva? And in any case – cycling is a weird hybrid of team and individual sport, and there are all sorts of questions about punishing an individual for a transgression of the team.

    Left-field idea: if the issue is about controlling spiralling costs – ban TT bikes. All TTs have to be ridden on a bike (and with clothing, helmet …) that meets the same rules as required for a road stage. (OK, I jest – but only slightly. The increase in *speed* of professional cycling has not, I’d suggest, improved the *sport*, while driving in significant additional cost).

  17. Introduce a maximum salary along with the budget cap, and the teams won’t lower the wages of other riders and/or just get rid of other employees in order to pay for the very top riders. Two million euros a year would be fine: no-one needs more than that.

    • “10 more years on a Canyon, what did he do to deserve that?”
      He cashed the checks and kept riding them even after the handlebar snapped.
      Mollema’s still riding SRAM after his infamous video comments – it’s all about the sponsorship money. Does anyone believe the average pro team wouldn’t switch out pretty much anything they use/endorse if a more lucrative sponsorship deal came along?

Comments are closed.