An average rider salary of half a million, a 33% increase in the total men's WorldTour budget since 2022, the Women's WorldTour budget doubling to €70 million, it seems like professional cycling has never had it so good. It’s true that these figures – recently revealed by La Gazzetta dello Sport – paint a rosy picture; bigger salaries means more budget from sponsors who are clearly seeing a return on their investment. But is it quite that simple? Does more money mean better racing? Is this a true indication of the state of the sport?
It’s firstly worth noting that the average salary in both the men’s and women’s WorldTours are skewed by a select few, extremely well-paid individuals. The most notable of these is three-time Tour de France winner and current world champion Tadej Pogačar, who was reportedly being paid in excess of six million euros by UAE Team Emirates at the start of the year – a number that will no doubt have increased after his exploits this season. Primož Roglič is also estimated to be on around €4.5 million at Red Bull-Bora Hansgrohe while Jonas Vingegaard is at €4.0 million with Visma-Lease a Bike. On the women’s side of the sport, Demi Vollering was rumoured to have been offered one million euros from UAE Team ADQ at the start of this season – though this was never substantiated and she has since signed for FDJ Suez.
With these high salaries also comes long contracts for the best riders. Pogačar is signed with UAE until 2030, while Van Aert revealed he has agreed to ride for Visma until the end of his career. Long-term job stability isn’t a worry for the best of the best in the WorldTour, but not everyone is quite so lucky. As of November this year, there was an estimated 100 riders still without a contract in the men’s peloton – these included some well-established professionals including the likes of Nairo Quintana, Elia Viviani and Esteban Chaves. One or two year contracts are still the norm for most – guaranteed employment and the wealth enjoyed by the top riders is not necessarily trickling down.
This also has an impact on the racing itself. Teams who have the most money to buy up the best riders can often dominate and neutralise – last year saw Visma-Lease a Bike (then Jumbo-Visma) scoop up all three Grand Tour victories, while this year UAE Team Emirates have had a monopoly (though mostly through one outstanding rider.) When the best teams and riders are winning everything, it’s harder for smaller teams to get a chance at going for results themselves – Pogačar won six stages of this year’s Tour, many of them on days which would usually be considered chances for lesser-known riders to take a shot at victory from an opportunistic breakaway. It could be argued that the racing is less dynamic and exciting for this reason, but – perhaps more pressingly – it means that smaller teams are not getting as many chances at victory. Fewer wins equals less return for sponsors, and makes it harder for riders to find contract renewals, perpetuating the cycle of the rich continuing to get richer, while many fight for scraps behind.
Of course, there’s not one rule for all. Though it undoubtedly helps, money doesn’t always equate to success in cycling. Big budget teams can often underperform despite the unbridled access they have to resources – Ineos Grenadiers are currently going through their worst years yet despite being one of the richest squads. There are many reasons for the British team’s decline, but one suggestion is that the interest of the team’s owner Jim Ratcliffe has switched to football and his role at Manchester United. Perhaps it isn’t just funding teams need to perform, but also guidance and focus from those who are injecting the cash. Smaller teams like EF Education-EasyPost and Intermarché-Wanty have regularly punched above their weight in terms of performance despite smaller budgets – maybe money isn’t necessarily everything.
Part of the instability experienced by many riders is also down to the precarious business model of the sport as a whole. While many big brands, companies and governments are seeing the value in investing in cycling teams right now, there’s no guarantee that this interest will last forever. As soon as businesses begin struggling financially, the first place they are likely to cut spending is in sponsorship, and teams are solely reliant on them to stay afloat. In the women’s peloton, it’s all too common to see teams fold as they are unable to find sponsors – Lifeplus-Wahoo being the most recent example. On the men’s side, Qhubeka-NextHash, Africa's top cycling team, ceased operations at the end of 2021 due to financial uncertainty and a fruitless search for a title sponsor investment that would have allowed the team to survive.
Diversifying the income sources teams have access to is a solution that has been suggested multiple times by key stakeholders. WorldTour squads getting a piece of the pie when it comes to revenue generated by TV rights and viewership is a key part of the ethos behind One Cycling, a new structure for professional cycling spearheaded by Richard Plugge, the current boss of Visma-Lease a Bike. His idea is to aggregate all parties – teams, race organisers and the UCI – under one unified umbrella where profits are shared out. Presently, the only stakeholders making significant money from cycling are ASO and RCS, organisers of the Giro d’Italia.
So while these recently-released figures on budgets and salaries show that the sport is at a healthy financial level right now, there’s no guarantee of how long this will last. Because they don't get money from anywhere outside of sponsorships, the future of many teams teeters precariously on factors outside of their control.
While the numbers should be looked at with a critical eye, there’s no denying that we should also consider the many positive implications of increased salaries and budgets. It means that the sport is growing and the interest in professional racing is peaking. Despite the cycling industry going through a slump as a whole, the WorldTour still continues to grow and thrive. The women’s side has especially seen unprecedented growth in the last few seasons – changing from a sport where few were paid a liveable wage to one where minimum salaries are stipulated at the WorldTour level and will also be at Pro Continental level as of next year.
The issues at hand are whether the newfound wealth pro cycling has come into should be more evenly distributed throughout the sport, and whether it’s sustainable without diversifying income sources. If sponsors start to lose interest, where do teams turn to for funding to survive? Pogačar may enjoy his millions of euros and stable contract, but what about those who don’t know if they will have a job the following year? If the same teams and riders are earning so much more compared to their peers, how can others get a chance to win? Do we want a sport dominated by a select few? These are questions that will undoubtedly confront professional cycling in the coming years, perhaps sooner than later.
