The genesis of professional cycling in the 20thcentury coincided with the adoption of an economic model based on sponsorship. Even if there was only one yellow jersey at the finish, cycling was still raced as a team. Between 1930 and 1962, the peloton was divided into national teams for the Tour de France. Louison Bobet, Raphaël Géminiani and Jean Robic raced for the French team; Gino Bartali and Fausto Coppi for Italy. The sponsors then took over, with the exception of the 1967 and 1968 Tours. The brands that gave their names to the teams. La Vie claire in the 1980s, US Postal in the 2000s and Sky in the 2010s have, for various reasons, left their mark on the history of the sport.
The question of a return to national teams in the Tour, as is the case for the World Championships or the Olympic Games, comes up regularly. Romain Bardet, one of the most prominent French riders, suggested the idea in the columns of L'Équipe:
"The Tour would be easier to understand. I think it would awaken interest. But how do we do that with the sponsors?"
Title sponsors are crucial to the teams and systematically represent their main source of income, contributing an average of 80% of the budget of a team in the world's top division. Their contribution is estimated at between 20 and 50 million euros a year, according to the interviews we conducted with various professional team managers (4 World Teams, first division; 2 Pro Teams, second division). A form of dependency is taking hold, and the teams are trying to mitigate the effects, but not without difficulty.
Disappearances are not uncommon
By remaining dependent on a sponsor, the risks for a team go as far as the threat of extinction. There seem to be few viable alternatives for generating and managing additional income. Managers are looking to diversify their activities, but alternative revenue channels, such as the sale of merchandising products, remain marginal according to our respondents.
The financial risk for the team is all the greater because it is difficult to see from one year to the next what funding will be available. Sponsors may find themselves forced to stop their investments involuntarily (in the event of bankruptcy, for example), but also because they may want to change their strategy. The general manager of a Pro Team explains:
"You may well have been in contact with the sponsors and know whether they were happy, but when the negotiations begin, which is the crucial moment, that's when you know whether they're satisfied."
Disappearance is not an uncommon scenario : between 2016 and 2023, more than 2 teams (2.25) disappeared on average each year from the world's top two divisions, each comprising 18 teams. This affects even the most successful teams in sporting terms, such as Jumbo-Visma. Ultra-dominant in the 2023 season, during which it won the three Grand Tours (Italy, France and Spain) with three different riders, it was on the verge of disappearing the following summer, its contract with the Jumbo supermarket chain coming to an end and no other sponsor showing any interest in it.
Reducing dependency
Faced with these vulnerabilities, managers are seeking to implement strategies aimed at diversifying their teams' sources of funding. Minimising dependence on title sponsor funding is a first option, which involves minimising the share of title sponsor investments in the team's total budget, without reducing that same budget. According to the general manager of a World Team, however, this is not the most obvious avenue to explore:
"It's difficult to find a sustainable way of financing ourselves. I'd like a bigger percentage of self-financing, that would create more stability."
Another solution could be to increase the number of sponsors, thereby reducing the associated investments and offering more flexible cash management. However, this approach implies splitting the initial visibility offer traditionally dedicated to one or two title sponsors into several offerings, for example under different names depending on the competition. Although this split may appear to destroy some of the value that teams derive from these offers, it seems essential to reduce the permanent pressure on the management of their day-to-day operations.
Managers also want long-term contractual commitments with sponsors to ensure financial stability over several years. But these are very difficult to obtain, because a team cannot guarantee its sponsors that it will take part in the most high-profile events for more than three years. This logic has a major impact on rider recruitment, as the general manager of a top division team told us:
"To plan ahead, you need at least a five-year partnership. Young riders are looking for stability in the team, for a vision. And this projection can't be given over the long term."
The temptation to create a team brand?
In order to make this new sponsorship structure plausible and enhance its value, would it be possible to consider creating team brands that are independent of the sponsors? This is what exists in e-sport and Formula 1, for example, with names like Williams and Maclaren.
The idea behind creating an independent brand is to reconsider the allocation of the visibility available to the team. While some spaces remain reserved for sponsors, others can be reserved for the team's own brand, such as part of its name or inserts on its jersey. The aim of this new approach is to create and strengthen an intellectual property owned by the team, which will add financial value to the visibility offered to sponsors.
The recent purchase of the BORA-Hansgrohe team, which includes Primoz Roglic, winner of the last Critérium du Dauphiné, by Red Bull, which acquired 51% of its legal structure (the company RD Pro Cycling GmbH), adds to the already extensive list of teams owned by their sponsors. These structures have probably succeeded in reducing the risks mentioned.
