Wout van Aert has signed a contract with Visma-Lease A Bike “for eternity”. He’s not alone as Chris Froome and Michael Woods are said to have “retirement contracts” meaning they can ride for their team as long as they wish. These are just some examples among several of long term contracts and they’re becoming increasingly common.
As a concept it’s great to see longer deals for the stability and security they can signify. But, and there’s always a but, the longer the contract, the more it it is at risk of being broken. Soon we could see a new transfer market as teams trade talent.
To start with all neo-pros have to get two year contracts, the idea being that they need time to settle into the job and two seasons to prove their worth. Plenty start with longer deals with teams keen to attract and retain them. Here a smaller but relevant story out today is that of 17 year old Paul Seixas signing going from Decathlon-Ag2r La Mondiale’s junior team to the World Tour, skipping their U23 squad. Yes Seixas is very talented and has impressed but there’s possibly a defensive component here. The team may quietly prefer to see him do a year in the U23s but they don’t want to lose him to another pro squad who could dangle a big salary (remember they lost Matteo Jorgenson this way as he preferred to sign with Movistar rather than wait). Seixas is one of many neo-pros starting on a three year deal, longer than the regulatory minimum. It’s been part of a trend towards longer contracts, anecdotally at least as duration isn’t always published.
One year deals, the minimum possible, are becoming rarer. One reason is if a rider moves teams then a single season probably isn’t enough to show what they’ve got. Teams sign riders earlier and earlier these days, gone are the days when the Tour de France rest day was a jobs fair. A lot of contracts for next year are written between March and May, plenty before. Yes there’s a UCI rule about not signing before August 1 but pre-contracts are the way around. A rider on a one-year contract, or another with one year remaining, needs results early in the season to bump their value and capitalise on it; they’ll lose bargaining power if not signed by the summer.
Indeed core riders, the kind who are expected to start World Tour classics and do the Tour de France are signed up earlier and earlier. It’s been common to field riders at the Tour de France who are staying with the team the following year. Some have been known to say to riders “sign this renewal or you won’t ride the Tour”. In way this has turned a one year deal into a de facto 18 month deal, a two year into 30 months and so on.
In the last few years we’ve had de jure longer contracts. Think of Egan Bernal at Ineos with a five year deal in January 2022 (weeks before his horror cash), more recently Carlos Rodriguez there on a four year deal. Many key riders are signed up until the end of 2028, think Jonas Vingegaard, Juan Ayuso or Mathieu van der Poel (not coincidentally the end of the three year World Tour cycle when big changes could be due; but that’s another story). See the Women’s World Tour too with Lotte Kopecky and Lorena Wiebes. It’s usually star riders, but not always as stalwarts like Luke Rowe for Ineos or Rudy Molard chez Groupama-FDJ have been locked-in too. At IPT Sylvan Adams has been excited about Derek Gee to the point of signing him up until 2028.
The Big Contract is Tadej Pogačar, the announcement of his renewal/extension with UAE is due. His existing one is interesting alone for the reported break clause of €100 million, as in if a team wants to hire him they’d have to pay UAE this sum. But if for some reason he had become really unhappy on the team, or even if he just wanted to move, it would probably go to arbitration. Clause, schmlause.
Forever?
Van Aert’s news has a bit of spin given it is touted to be for eternity, which is long a time. Particularly for a team that was trying an emergency merger this time last year. A contract is as good as the house. Yes pro cycling teams are increasingly becoming durable franchises; but they are remain brittle. As said here before there’s still no news on Lotto finding a replacement for Dstny; and if Evenepoel departs Soudal-Quickstep do the sponsors stay and pay? Inevitably for “career contracts” Van Aert was beaten by Mathieu van der Poel, the Dutchman’s 10 year deal with Canyon bikes was announced earlier this spring.
Chop n’ change
Arguably the time to lock a rider into a long term contract is when they’re young and on the up. However Visma-LAB have several examples to show a contract isn’t cast in concrete. See Cian Uijtdebroeks who changed teams over the winter after a brief saga, quitting Bora with a year left on his contract. Meanwhile in the opposite direction went Primož Roglič who was also under contract, until suddenly he wasn’t. Staying with Visma-LAB we should see Johannes Staune-Mittet unveiled as a Decathlon-Ag2r rider in the coming days despite the Norwegian having signed a contract with the Dutch squad until the end of 2026. You probably get the picture by now, a contract isn’t always what the headline says and having cited Visma, they’re not unique. Think of DSM and all the riders who have suddenly left before the end of their contract. Releases happen, especially if money greases the wheels.
Small print + T&Cs
We only see the headlines of duration and maybe the salary or an estimate appears in the media too. But contracts worth millions a year run to many pages and there can be all sorts of terms, conditions and more. That long deal could be conditional on achieving results, at least payments and bonuses can be.
Duration risk
It might sound obvious that the longer the deal the more likely it is go in the shredder. A one year deal that turns sour probably only has a few months left to run and both sides can put it down to experience; a five year deal that becomes toxic needs to be confronted.
It’s this duration that allows for divergence. At the time of signing employer and employee are by definition satisfied with each other. The further things get from the day, the greater the chance of one side being frustrated with the other. A rider whose performance goes up a level might ask for more in return; by contrast if the same rider sustains result-altering injuries do the team keep on paying at the old rate or try to agree a settlement? And so on for many more scenarios, think of the criticism dished out to Julian Alaphilippe by his own employer at times.
Conclusion
The longer the contract, the more likely it is to be modified or even broken. What we’ll see next is the knock-on effect with a larger secondary market of contracts where teams can trade riders, for a fee of course. A contract may only be valid for as long as both sides want it to be so.
The UCI’s regulation of this is only just beginning, some rules were tightened after Uijtdebroeks’s case but this was just a tidy-up exercise rather than defining the market rules like we see in other sports, notably soccer. Plus as much as the UCI sets the rules for the sport, it can’t get too far into employment regulation as this is a matter for the civil courts. For now it can only rely on joint agreements… which like long term contracts can always be torn up.
“His existing one is interesting alone for the reported break clause of €100 million, as in if a team wants to hire him they’d have to pay UAE this sum.”
I guess this is a lot of money for the TEAM while for it’s petro-sheik backers it’s a “second’s income shot to hell”.
“Cycling is the new golf” (sadly) becomes more true every day. Or maybe the new football?
I’d be anonymous if I dealt in exaggeration like that
If I dealt in exaggeration like that, I wouldn´t be anonymous no matter how hard I tried 🙂
But, seriously, the point of that termination clause and that preposterous sum of money is what it would cost *the other* team, not whether it´s just pocket money for the team´s backers.
(Although, there is more than one team with oil-rich backers…)
PS I thought “cycling is the new golf” had nothing to do with how much the pro riders are paid and everything to do with cyclists who do not get paid for riding but who have a vastly larger disposable income than the cyclists some 20-30(?) years ago and whose arrival in numbers has not only made high-end bikes outrageously expensive but also moved up the whole prize range from entry level to upper middle class, possibly to a point that is, in the end, not beneficial to anyone.
A couple of very good points – the one opening the post, to begin with 😉
Or may I add “beware that, when fighting Anons, you yourself do not become an Anon… if you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you” !
Keeping an eye on Froome’s results has become a morbid passtime for me, so it’s interesting to note he could ride ‘for eternity’ for IPT. Should we assume there’s some performance requirements? I get you might want to keep him around to go on sponsor rides etc but surely there’s another way to do that contractually?
It seems to me that IPT had a plan to base their all their racing around an in-form Froome. Obviously that didn’t happen. But since then they have turned it around and become an interesting team with a mix of experience and riders like Gee, Blackmore and Williams making breakthroughs.
Is Froome involved in that? A rider-mentor? Is he helping to set strategy and helping riders make these breakthroughs? He does have some personal experience of struggling to make his name and overcoming challenges.
Or maybe, as you say, he’s a nice ornament to attract sponsors. Would love to know more. An inrng deep-dive at some point?
Same here. It seemed a huge gamble to sign Froome due to mainly the crash recovery but also his age at the time of the move (which tickled me at the time as I’m about 3 months younger – see also Wayne Rooney’s retirement). It’d be interesting to see what he’s doing because he must be on a chunk of a wage.
How often do you see Froome training with team mates, in his copious social media output? (Assuming you’re not blocked by his racist partner who seems to run his media).
When asked if signing Froome has been value for money Adams has said aloud “absolutely not”. It’s hard to know the whole story but it seems he is not being paid as much as the initial headlines suggested, but still well paid and with a deal that covers him until he is 40, but he’s likely to stop sooner. From the sounds of things it seems like Adams might want the long contract to stop before but this one is harder to break or revise down.
As JV suggests though Froome can have other roles but we just don’t know much, he’s gone from a high profile rider to more discreet, posting the occasional advert on social media, and interviews are rare when there’s probably some interesting stories and things to explain.
I find Froome’s career fascinating. I hope for a well written post-career autobiography. Surely will be one of the most interesting and unusual tales in recent cycling history.
Much to explain, little truth to spare, I’m afraid. Which is common to most autobiographies, but becomes worse when people still have something to lose, be it only that percentage of reputation they might have been able to salvage.
Yes. Fair point. A well written and researched biography, then. There’s a great deal to unpack from a story that should be fascinating in itself and also illuminate the much of the wider story of cycling over the last 15-20 years.
JV, you can do as much research as you like, it doesn’t mean that all the people involved in Froome’s meteoric rise (including himself) are going to start telling the truth, whatever that is.
The truth would be very, very interesting.
An autobiography would be as worthless a read as Armstrong’s were.
I don’t see Froome retiring early, I think he’s shown that he is willing to keep taking the money no matter how bad a cyclist he now is. Plus, he’s 39, so presumably it’s just one more season.
He has every right to do this – Adams signed the contract.
As a side note, I still remember Italian cycling media getting the scoop before any official announcement about Froome having actually signed the rumoured deal because he had suddenly changed some head image on his social media featuring his Zoncolan victory. The photo had – by pure chance, I suppose! – some very visible Palestine flags being waved by tifosi. What a memory to be recalled in days like these.
I respect how Froome keeps winning.
They don’t call Adams the “Israeli-Canadian Donald Trump” for no reason. What kind of moron would pay a salary like this forever? Froome’s an insanely expensive “rent-a-friend” and that seems to be all he is these days.
The “Art of the (bad) Deal”?
This view of contracts not being hard law leaves me with an unpleasant sense of insecurity.
I’d like to see WVA ride for himself in grand tours. He could try to win the mountains and the points jersey in the TdF – it’s a possibility. He already has enough money, so why not sign somewhere for less and not be a domestique?
Retirement contracts are clearly a terrible idea, as Froome is now showing so wonderfully.
“I’d like to see WVA ride for himself in grand tours.”
Thank gawd there’s more to cycling (for some of us anyway) than grand tours – especially since they’ve become way too much radio controlled watts/kg contests. I’d rather see him try to win all 5 monuments along with Pogacar and MVdP.
I said grand tours because WVA already rides for himself in one-day races, Monuments included.
I too would like to see him try to win all five Monuments, and I think he’d have a better chance of doing that if he wasn’t potentially blunting his sharpness in one-day races by training as a grand tour domestique.
Riding for himself in GTs and possibly going for both of the jerseys I mentioned would only be a side-project.
I question why winning all 5 monuments wouldn’t be enough? The man’s just not cut-out in my opinion to be a radio controlled, watts/kg robot, so who cares about Grand Tours?
Inventing something that was not said and then arguing against it.
A complete failure to comprehend what was actually written, even when it’s further explained.
I’m seriously wondering if – after over a decade of railing against them – Larry T is now posting as ‘Anonymous’.
I believe there is more to cycling than the grand tours for the vast majority of us here – and a majority of all road cycling fans with the possible exception of the US of A.
But the point was, I believe, not that WVA should target and concentrate on a GT, but that he should ride for himself and target a green or a polkadot jersey *instead of* riding for his team captain, as he has done (and as he presumably will continue to do, because it is in his contract and because he is a team player).
The question one could ask is whether that would somehow lessen his chances of doing well in the classics and winning the monuments. I´m far from sure, but I don´t think so
Maybe I’m being Pollyannish, but I get the feeling that Wout really enjoys what he’s been doing. He had a fun, fantastic Vuelta until his crash, and he literally had the defending champion working for him on one stage (yes I know Sepp was never going to compete for the GC). I think VLAB is a different kind of team.
Wout is currently running for greatest wasted talent in cycling history (unless he soon switches on a full Fabian mode), a prize he won’t win, either 🙂 …but I’m happy if he’s having fun. Seriously, he’s entitled to do so and personally I tend to root for “wasted” talents. Victory isn’t everything. Of course, as for now it feels like he doesn’t belong anymore to that Successful Six shortlist, closer to the Philipsen-Pedersen-Girmay-Stuyven-Jorgenson etc. chasing group of top contenders.
That said, VLAB has sure been a very different team… from Jumbo-Visma, no doubt.
Exactly. This is a guy who has the abilities that give him a better chance of winning all five Monuments than any other current rider, with Pogacar matching him.
I’ve always thought that that should have been the focus of his career.
He doesn’t quite have the explosivity in one-day races of MvdP, but he’s much better at climbing.
He’s not as good a climber as Pogacar but is much better at sprinting.
If he had focused solely on one-day racing (and just seeing what he can do in grand tours), he’d have had a good chance of winning all five – something historic.
If Pog doesn’t manage all five, he’s got a lot of grand tour victories to ‘fall back on’.
(I still think Pog was mad not to do the Vuelta – there was a good shot of the Trifecta. No matter how tired he may – or may not – have been, he should have tried for that because it would be unique. And the Vuelta was not a strong field.) He may never have another chance.
I’d dare to say that he was *theoretically* closest to that Strive for Five than Pogi himself (Sanremo is tough for Pog and Roubaix untested, both a lottery even for the strongest, so both tend to need iterations, with currently Pogi not having margin for the latter). As for the hilly ones, WVA can literally be a beast uphill, if he gets advantage thanks to a breakaway in the finale he’s got the potential to break anyone even on serious climbs, let alone shorter ones. Sadly, gregario workout is what probably brings you further away from Classics racing. Hope it can be reverted, anyway, CX might help.
As for Pogi, I respect his decision of going for the three-in-one (or one-in-three?) greatest objective(s) in cycling, 2/3 of that against like, what?, best qualified field you may imagine or thereabouts (not the Giro of course;-) ).
To me as a fan of the sport, technical value means more than generic stats (which I love, too!) irrespective of context.
That said, it’s not like the triple crown is exactly common, and it’s been seriously tried more times, which means that even its statistical value sits probably above the “three GTs” concept, whose meaning can be weighed only against the last 30 years or so due to the Vuelta’s calendar.
Athletically, no doubt the three GTs are a huge feat, however you make it. Technically, making it because you got a Giro where you could literally train and a Vuelta with no serious opposition wouldn’t have been as good. Even Roche’s Triple Crown is seen differently than Merckx’…
I see your point about the trifecta, although I still think he should have gone for it.
I think you’re right about WVA being a stronger contender for all five Monuments than Pog – I admit I’d forgotten about Roubaix!
I’m guessing that Wout couldn’t care less about what any of us think of his “wasted talent.” An underreported story of the past few years is the effect that having children has on top cyclists, who suddenly realize that there is more to life than racing. Both Pogi and Remco are singularly focused on winning, but I don’t think that WVA and JV are, which is fine with me. Like I said before, I might be deluded, but I actually believe that VLAB has a different approach than other teams, especially UAE. And we can judge them for 2024 if you want, but the horrible injuries that derailed the season were not part of the plan.
Actually, Pogi famously skipped big races where he would have been the main favourite for personal reasons. And that wasn’t even about children ^___^
I can’t see an especially different approach at all at Visma. They’re even more obsessed with TDF than the rest, especially UAE (see under “UAE bosses won’t ever allow Pogi to race the Giro because he’d put the TDF at stake” or the equally laughable second version “they send him at the Giro because he won’t have any more chance at the TDF”).
If you refer to pushing the boundaries, then, ok, UAE isn’t a good counter-example, both team are probably going further than anybody else. And all those crashes might be unlucky random events – or not. Even if tr4m4d0l is now forbidden.
I’m interested in cycling.
I’m uninterested in the familial relationships of strangers and in speculating on the psychologies of those involved.
(And I can’t know anything about the latter anyway.)
I realise I’m in the minority in our society on this, it seems.
@J Evans Had Homer thought the same about the Troy war, the Iliad would have lost some of its best verses… (e.g. Il. VI 390-502)
^___^
gabriele, I’m pretty sure that the only link between Homer and Troy was when McClure told Homer that his marriage to Selma was just a sham to help his career.
(And with that, I’ll get my coat.)
Agreed, I don’t call WVA wasted talent.
He has a big list of wins and podiums – it might not be as big as MVdP or Pogi, but in my opinion at least 30-40% of Jonas Vingegaard’s yellow jerseys belong on WVA’s shelf.
WVA did way more than block the wind for Jonas – he put the nail in Pogi’s coffin, so to speak, more or less, in a way that other climbing lieutenant’s can’t. I’m going to look for an example to support this, but I remember watching those stages and thinking, this is WVA’s tour win, not Jonas’.
And these are rides that no one else on the planet could have done. That’s why I’ll always have him in my top 5 of this current era.
@CA
I totally agree with you re:WVA’s role in Vingo’s TDF victories, more notably 2022 whereas 2023 was more about Vingo alone (let me add a subtler example from 2022: people think Tadej was just wrong following Roglič’s attacks on Galibier, and he probably was, in hindisght, if one considers Rogla’s subsequent problems. But what people often don’t take into account is that while the Galibier battle was on, WVA was on the front and there was a lot of terrain before the Granon, meaning that if Rogla was allowed to escape, he’d be soon on WVA’s wheel ahead, and Tadej alone should have pulled anyone else on the flat at full speed against a steaming WVA whose only task would have been delivering his teammate on the final ascent. The race would have been gone anyway, and probably with a heavier deficit).
That said, even if we’re speaking of an impressive peak of performance, until now heavier victories are still missing, and long term continuity too. Of course it’s an athlete which by his own nature doesn’t fit usual categories, but this can’t be enough of an “excuse” when weighing results against potential (for now).
Being owed a good share of a GT isn’t enough to get you legendary status. Three riders I’ve been fan of. Richie Porte is the legitimate owner of a very significant share of the final yellow jerseys both for 2013 and 2015, besides being in his own right a TDF podiumer and a week-long stage race machine. Of course he’s got his good footnote in the bigger history of cycling things, but few would label him an absolute champion, a great name of his era or even as one among the top 5 GC men of the 10s. Plus, many observers will agree he actually didn’t match expectations. The much missed Scarponi could well be considered a key share-holder of a Giro and a Vuelta, at least, whose final winners wouldn’t have got ’em without him. Plus, “his” personal Giro and several short stage races as Tirreno, Catalunya or Trentino (now Tour of the Alps). Yet, he’s remembered as a huge supporting character, not a lead. Jan Ullrich is widely seen as a wasted über talent. An athletical prodigy beyond comparison. Not only won he a TDF (and a Vuelta, Olympic gold, ITT worlds etc.), most consider that he could have had Riis’ TDF, too. But. This isn’t enough to shift the overall balance between talent and results. And I could go on, of course.
Top 5 of current era would require to dislodge Vingo (I might agree on that although not fully convinced) as Pogi, Remco, Mathieu and Rogla are clearly several steps above Wout, for now.
Gabriele – some very good points. I still will always place WVA above Porte. It’s a personal thing, WVA has a very solid list of one day race wins before turning off his personal ambitions to work for the team.
2024 was a down season of course, but he did win a major classic before a big crash. Had a down summer and then came back and on his second GT of the year “only” won 3 stages.
I think everyone is blinded by the massive expectations they had of WVA. I really hope he has a career resurgence and wins another Monument or two, he has been very close over the years to adding to his Milan San Remo.
@CA Agreed, of course it’s about expectations. Were we speaking of, dunno, Trentin, it would have been a great season. That said, Kuurne is a Classic but not a “major” one, and Wout still raced more days and kms than in any other previous season (close to 2023). Actually, 2024 looks rather a further point on the same downward curve marked by 2023 already, instead of an especially bad year. As for crashes, just compare with Roglič. Anyway, I’m confident he’ll be back, be it only for an Indian summer of sort between his 30 and 35. The CX-only long early phase should help with longevity. Much will be also about Visma taking the QS path (decline but keeping some core strong points, e.g. sprinting boost, and developing new areas) or the Ineos one (utter confusion once your previous privilege setting is no longer available). Or going back to UAE status, who knows.
Wout had an amazing 2022. Just that Tour de France he had puts him up amongst the greats, and to be forever remembered. An amazing stage win in yellow, 2 stage wins in the green jersey, towing his teammate in the yellow jersey up a climb and breaking the GC rival in the process. That was amazing.
His ’23 and ’24 havn’t been as great. Still some good results. But… he’s not done yet. Though, even if he were, 2022 will live forever.
I’m with you on this. That’s why I place Freddy Maertens or Ocaña among the strongest ever (as Fuente among climbers), although they expressed their *full* potential for a couple of seasons only (plus a few other seasons on a lower level, which were still better than most athletes ever have, and which confirmed theirs wasn’t a case of “one shot magic season”, rather raw talent that had to overcome several inner or external obstacles to fully shine). If you just sum up points or victories they don’t belong the top, but a wholesome analysis should acknowledge they’re the cream of this sport all the same, probably more than Saronni or Jalabert who are above them all in the, say, PCS alltime ranking!
That said, even if Maertens or Ocaña can be deemed stronger than Merckx in a given moment… Merckx is still Merckx and sits above them all, rightly so in this case. Same reasoning which works on a smaller talent scale, of course.
I really trust in Wout to get some more heavy trophies, but the sensation for now it that he underachieved. No negative evaluation on that, I even tend to prefer underachievers, just a “factual” (the adjective makes little sense in this context, ok…) estimation of sort.
For example, I’d say that Nibali’s got a palmarés which corresponds broadly to his talent, even if he came so close to win a couple of big things more (Vuelta, Liège, Olympics)… but he could as well lose some of the races he eventually won. If anything, one’s left wondering about those few and late tests on the cobbles, but the overall balance is consistent. Same for, dunno, Boonen (despite that lack of Sanremo), Cancellara, Bettini, Contador etc.
On the contrary the impression left by, say, Tom Dumoulin or Sagan is that despite their impressive peaks they didn’t touch, for different reasons, the full scope of their potential.
One of the themes behind this article is the difficulty in predicting future trajectory. Sky/Ineos have unearthed a series of so-called next big things but for various reasons none have lived up to the high hopes placed on them. Wasn’t Ivan Sosa the future several years ago?
This might end up killing for good smaller teams, especially Professionals and indipendent U23, unless some new regulation is introduced. A part of the sport which has been already struggling for years due to different reasons. Euskaltel, Bingoal are in a tight spot and Zalf is saying adieu.
Not the best for cyclists, I’m afraid, although some of them might think that this way they’ll get greater, more professional and richer opportunities. Many others just won’t have a chance (unless they’re French, I guess) and the access to the pro world will generally become more complicated, thus actually reducing the overall distributed talent level, unless, of course, a whole new grassroot system is properly put into place. If the latter was eventually carried out and if it worked, the whole process might even be good for the sport, as professional teams often were anything but professional. If nothing at all is done, young athletes are going to become more and more disposable cannon fodder on a market akin to publishing/libraries where books are given 2 weeks of shelf time (at best) to go bestseller or die. Of course such a dual market has got bigger prizes for the survivors, but the quality of the environment gets worse.
In football agents generate their income as a % of the fee on the transfer. However in cycling it must be as a % of the rider salary as trnsfer fees are still rare. I wonder if its agents also pushing this model as they secure themselfs more long term income and can build up a portfolio of long term committed riders. Instead of unsecure short term.
Agents will like this indeed as they stand to gain from more transactions and more complexity too.
Would worry for smaller teams as a big team can try to get a rider to break the contract, they have more money and lawyers, and a small team might really count on one rider.
That’s where some kind of system of rules/regulation can help so everyone, in theory, is more equal.
Yes, but…
Possibly the way forward is for the small teams to sign their kids on 3 or 4 year contracts and allow the transfers after 2, with the break clauses requiring meaty transfer fees. It then becomes very profitable to throw resource into talent development as these teams reap the new income stream.
This is already happening informally. I would love to see it formalized for just the reason you describe.
“…as in if a team wants to hire him they’d have to pay UAE this sum.”
How can this even apply to any other team, when the other teams are not privy to TP’s contract? More specifically, how can a contract between one team and its riders contractually bind all other teams?
OR, is this really a liquidated damages provision, that, in addition to having to buy out his contract, TP himself would have to pony up another 100K? And TP would be asking a new team to kick that into the deal?
Pardon the question, but the report about this contract provision is not really clear.
All academic as I can’t see a transfer given what Mauro has done for TP’s fitness.
They don’t need to know TP’s contract terms. They simply make him an offer and if he likes it and is still under contract to UAE the hiring team would have to pay UAE the transfer fee. If the hiring team won’t/can’t, TP can’t accept the offer. If TP will be out of contract when the new contract starts, they won’t have to pay a transfer fee.
I really doubt that UAE expect anyone to pay up — this is essentially a “no poaching while under contract” preventative provision. That may sound strange because a contract is a contract, except in reality it doesn’t quite work that way. An unhappy athlete who wants out can be an unmotivated salary drain and it makes more sense to allow someone to buy out that athlete’s contract if the team isn’t going to get results anyway. The ridiculous transfer fee discourages other teams from waving huge contracts to entice an athlete to move. 100M isn’t just enormous for cycling, it’s hefty even for football (unless you’re Todd Boehly, of course)
Excellent post. This is why I want to see a legitimate transfer market just like in other sports. It would be great for smaller teams with good recruitment and allow easier movement of “bad fits.”
Yeah, it should have been done years ago, but cycling resists it. A Pro Conti, or development team could sell a future star and ensure their future for years if they get a decent transfer fee. At the moment, nothing……
It’s crazy to think that not even 10 years ago the trend was in the opposite direction and the majority of riders were struggling to secure even 2 year contracts. Anything above 2 years was rare.
@J Evans Yes, I remember that episode. Looks like you also sometimes indulge in having a peek at *familial relationships* 😛
But only fictional ones ;o)
I’m just not interested in the supposed personalities of sports people. It’s all PR anyway, so you’ve no idea what they’re actually like.
I was discussing with my (Lithuanian) wife and explaining to her that I have no real idea what the Iliad even is. In the UK, the classics (and also philosophy) are not taught – at all – in schools. Any British person who knows anything about these has either studied them at university or in their own time. (‘Barbarians’ was my wife’s quote.)
The British education system is not only nationalistic (we do Shakespeare, of course), but also focused solely on creating ‘workers’. So, they don’t bother with the classics and philosophy. And people like me – most British people – no literally nothing about them.
This always shocks Europeans that I know.
Caveats: this was true ‘back in the day’, and it still seems to be largely the case these days.
So, me saying ‘not taught – at all’ was hyperbolic.
But hardly anyone studies these at school in Britain.
And none of this includes private schools (attended by 7% of Britons).
A (deliberately) rather simple/simplist yet effective introduction to that scene:
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/tr/homer-iliad/intro/essay/vi-466-502
You outline a general issue, and a deep middle to long term change driven by political reasons, although it was met by different grades of resistance through different countries. There are of course other more complex aspects related to the needs of mass education which must try to integrate very different social backgrounds be it in terms of class, cultural capital, origins.
Suffice it to say that Europe soon got a common currency but not a shade of a (partly) shared literary (or, better said, cultural) syllabus. I can’t recall in history any successful broad political project implying the merging of vast territories with such a lack of the corresponding cultural programmes and policies, be it only to grant an effective exercise of “imperial” power. Something is being done but too little and too late.
However, Shakespeare and the Simpson are an excellent starting point.
Ok, now I guess we deserve to be scolded by inrng or some Anon because this is the wildest OT…
Richard S wrote -“INRNG: Come for the cycling analysis, stay for the discourse on the psychology of luxury goods and the rise of wealth inequality.”
Now we can add discourse on the UK education system?
There’s some kind of/sort of big races coming this weekend, what are the chances of our host offering a preview of such things?
Or one could check this out – https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/the-rouleur-journal
No snarky comment opportunities, but some good journalism about bicycle racing.
Let me go Larry (or “that Anon who looked like Larry”) and complain because I miss some post on yesterday’s ITT Worlds, both men’s and women’s, which were among the best races this season, and probably among the best ITTs in recent years. May we hope for a full Worlds post including all the races?
Remco performing that way with no available data because of the startline accident was definitely classy and the top 10 level was quite astonishing.
Brown on her part… “ops, she did it again”, she really went state of grace (^____^) great effort management, brutal finale, I feel sorry for Vollering but that was so deserved for the FDJ athlete. I will root for Longo Borghini for the rainbow but I won’t feel bad if Vollering gets it after such a comllicated season. Again, great overall level, which means extra kudos for Niedermaier with her climber body type (she’s U23 champion at least) and Neben, toptenning at nearly 50.
A small correction: Antonia Niedermaier was the silver medalist both in 2024, 30 s after Anniina Ahtosalo (who is not a climber), and in 2023, 60 s after Zoe Bäckstedt.
Re: Niedermaier I meant that she became U23 ITT World champion yesterday, at least, although she lost the general podium.
I´ll save you from the Simpsons catchphrase – but I did completely forget that the women´s U/23 events are held within the elite women’s events.
It would perhaps be forgivable if this was new or out of the ordinary…but my sole excuse is that the 2024 European Championships were still foremost on my mind…
Apropos Vollering and long term contracts: does she really not have a team for next year?
Rumour has it she’s off to FDJ – but nothing confirmed
A lateral element is that when an athlete switches through several teams along his or her career, it makes it easier to appreciate talent, it’s like you could observe the same object from different POVs… of course, it’s also nice when you have the Pinot/FDJ cases etc. because of the human factor, the narrative and so on, but in order to better understand the intrinsic technical value an athlete brings along with him or her, changing team shows a lot. Sometimes… that not much really changes, but some other times changes can be very significant.
When great riders switch teams it puts a big dent in the BS that equipment is such a big deal.
Equipment *is* a big deal, if or when it isn´t quite as good – in every aspect – as that of the competition.
That, perhaps, is a concept easier to grasp and to accept by all those who are convinced – quite possibly rightly, I might add – that, at this level, one bike cannot be in any meaningful way better than the others?
If we take, for instance, the this year´s Van Rysel bikes that seemingly gave wings to quite a few Decathlon AG2R riders, they didn´t have to be superior to every other brand, if they were better than the BMCs of last year (and the BMCs, for some reason, just weren´t as good as they should´ve been).
PS When great riders switch teams, the equipment often comes along 🙂
“Equipment *is* a big deal, if or when it isn´t quite as good – in every aspect – as that of the competition.”
And your evidence for this is…
I wonder if we will start to see a loan market (if the regulations allow it).
Top teams sign a promising young rider on a 5 year deal, then lend him to a small team for a season or two, to build experience (and hopefully collect some good results)