Key Takeaways:
● World Championships Get Started
● Another Example of Negative Private Equity Impact on Sports
● Continuing Legislative Efforts to Protect College Sports
● Scrutiny on Sports Sponsorship from “Socially Undesirable” Industries
● New Shimano Products
The 2026 World Championships in Montreal are underway, with the elite and U23 individual time trials having been run on a course that highlights the host city. But the event has already produced enough of the usual hiccups and oddities to raise the question once again: has the national team model for road worlds run its course? Australia left roster spots unfilled in the elite men’s and women’s races, presumably to save on the cost of transporting and supporting riders on the ground. New Zealand’s Finn Fisher-Black suggested that his team’s ability to race for each other will be hindered because the riders are paying their own way and are unsupported once there. Although the event is taking place in a neighboring country, USA Cycling’s public documentation says that unless a rider clears its objective Level 1 criteria – which by our count only Matteo Jorgenson met – Level 2 riders must pay a $1,000 service fee, buy their own plane ticket, and cover their own checked luggage to wear the national kit. The UCI’s World Championships are an anachronism that may be overdue for change; it’s one of the few sports in which top-level athletes often have to pay their own way for one of the season’s major races, while many officials from their national federations simultaneously attend with all expenses covered.
Traditionalists may enjoy the national-team format, but it may be time to move to a more modern setup. Consider that a rider of Tim Wellens’ caliber is sitting out to avoid racing against his UAE trade team because – and this has been informally the case for him and many other strong riders over the years – he is extremely well compensated to support those sponsored teammates every other day of the season, rather than help his Belgian countrymen from rival commercial teams like Wout van Aert and Remco Evenepoel. We can point to multiple incidents in past world championship races where the worst case scenario played out, such as 2002 when Mapei was the dominant team, with a stacked international roster. Gilberto Simoni (Lampre) went on a solo break that arguably could’ve won the race, his Italian teammate Paolo Lanfranchi (Mapei) chased him down, which led to Oscar Freire (Spain, but also Mapei) taking out the sprint win for the rainbow jersey. While bowing out in deference to commercial interests may seem against the spirit of the event, it is worth asking why a trade team should pay a rider handsomely only to see them ride for a rival national team, thus preventing their own rider from winning a rainbow jersey? That’s simply too much marketing power and a hugely valuable asset for a team sponsor to ignore. Thus, if national federations are unwilling to support all their riders and staff at the race, trade teams end up filling that role by default. Shouldn’t the world championships be contested by the teams footing the bill? And could that finally anchor a true end-of-season championship climax for the WorldTour?
Opaque national team selection processes and athlete support might be cycling’s latest controversy, but it pales in comparison to the backlash being faced by private equity-owned youth sports companies. A lawsuit recently filed against Black Bear Sports Group, a hockey rink owner/operator and youth hockey tournament organizer that is funded by PE firm Greenberg Traurig, alleges that families were “coerced” to use designated hotels which charged undisclosed fees and paid kickbacks to Black Bear. The practice is appropriately labeled “stay to play,” which is a riff on the phrase used to describe the often exclusive and expensive model dominating youth sports today: “pay to play.” While there has been a groundswell of dissent, dissatisfaction, and criticism against such youth sports programs due to the high cost for families and subsequent exclusion of poor kids from valuable training, play opportunities, and life experiences, this is the first potential class-action lawsuit with teeth. Legislation to bar PE investors from running youth sports businesses is already making the rounds in Washington, DC that would force such owners to sell off their assets and levy penalties against predatory practices like the coercive commerce Black Bear allegedly forced on its participants.
It seems we can’t go a week without a new storyline emerging in the volatile economic and governance playing fields of collegiate athletics, and the Protect College Sports Act is quickly becoming a powder keg. The latest iteration of a federal bill to put guardrails on the spending, profit sharing, NIL oversight, and eligibility rules essentially elevate NCAA sports to the same category as the NBA, MLB and NFL – a league-level enterprise exempt from anti-trust rules. While the bill rolled through committee and passed by majority in the Senate, it will likely stall until the House of Representatives reconvenes in November. And even then, it is expected to be fiercely debated by House members who represent states with schools that could be adversely affected by provisions restricting movement between conferences. Proponents of the legislation have thus far been largely bipartisan, leaning heavily on the economic stability factors.
However, the one voice not represented in any angle of the PCSA’s development has been that of the student athletes, and a recent op-ed spelled out the other looming battle: unionization. Already, football players at Stanford, basketball players at Oregon, and approximately 100 women basketball players from a wide cross-section of other schools have made it clear they will explore bargaining as employees – a traditional precursor to formal unionization. The PCSA puts caps on the revenue sharing and athlete transfers (something we discussed at length in last week’s AIRmail), but literally ignores the rampant spending on administrative athletic department directors, coaching contracts and contract buyouts when a coach leaves a program. While the PCSA seeks to calm the understandably choppy waters in collegiate sports, it may instead set itself up to drown in a sea of labor-related challenges, not the least of which is the athletes demanding a collective bargaining agreement in exchange for their services. And if any of this sounds familiar to those who follow the business of pro road cycling, it’s more or less in the same space as the UCI-Teams-Riders morass that has existed for decades. The UCI sets the governance rules for the team license holders, and the riders have to abide by it in order to obtain a license and ride for a team. Lost in that conversation is the weak “Joint Agreement” that reinforces the UCI’s unilateral oversight, and largely segregates rider associations from UCI committee tables and votes. Again we ask, when will the riders step into a collective bargaining mindset to organize for real change?
The Geosport newsletter summarized some worrisome trends in sports team and event sponsorship, noting that it has evolved from simple “transactional branding into a multi-billion-dollar strategic alliance” which is projected to account for annual spending of almost $200 billion by the year 2030.This rapid growth has brought with it numerous partnerships with what might be called socially undesirable industries. Whereas in the past many sports like auto racing relied on sponsorship deals with tobacco companies like Marlboro, today teams are increasingly wrestling with potential sponsorships from the gambling, cryptocurrency, or “high carbon” industries (the latest euphemism for oil and gas companies.) Gambling partnerships in particular are facing tough scrutiny from many leagues and regulatory pressures in some countries. Britain’s Premier League is instituting a ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsors which is projected to cause an £80 million revenue shortfall in sponsorship funds that will disproportionately affect smaller clubs. Belgium is phasing out all gambling logos by 2028. Many teams are changing their focus to crypto firms or “prediction” markets, though critics say that these are also essentially gambling businesses. “Ultimately, sport sponsorship remains caught between financial survival and moral responsibility. Because sponsorship actively shapes public perceptions, behaviours, and consumption habits, teams and governing bodies can inadvertently promote addiction, environmental degradation, and controversial geopolitics.”
Along the lines of risky bets in the sponsorship marketplace, On footwear announced last week that it had signed French champion soccer player Kylian Mbappé to a multi-year deal – and the deal’s underpinnings may suggest lessons for sponsors in pro cycling. This unexpected partneship is rumored to be higher than the $20 million annual deal he had been offered to stay with former sponsor Nike, and includes equity in the successful On brand. Big-time sports stars switching brand allegiances for a payday is nothing new, but what sets this deal apart from others is that On, as a brand, has never produced a single product for the soccer market. The shoe company, driven by former tennis great Roger Federer, has made significant inroads in the running market and capitalized on Nike’s multi-year slide to become one of the fastest growing footwear companies. At its core, the investment is a bet that the brand association with a sports and media star like Mbappé buys immediate credibility and market presence; On may be able to take a chunk out of Adidas’ and Nike’s market share in the near future. Furthermore, the Mbappé deal underscores a weakness that pro cycling must solve as it seeks greater market share and attention: star power. Due to the fractured broadcast presence within cycling, outside of the sport’s core die-hard fans, no single rider is immediately recognizable or relatable in the general market. Arguably, the endorsement of a star men’s rider would have no effect on the fortunes of a major cycling brand in today’s marketplace, but the endorsement of a star athlete from outside of pro cycling would be measurable. While women’s pro cycling is making inroads through its stars and the power of social media, men’s pro cycling has lagged and is in danger of losing the potential draw of its current power generation, including Pogačar, Van Aert, Van der Poel, and Vingegaard.
Along the lines of cycling brand focus, Shimano launched its widely anticipated next generation road pedals and shoes last week to muted applause, and while we don’t do product reviews, the launch is business noteworthy. “Widely anticipated” is an understatement, given that Mathieu van der Poel basically lost his challenge at April’s Paris-Roubaix after a botched bike exchange when his prototype Dura Ace low-stack cleats would not engage with the replacement bike’s legacy SPD-SL pedals. Race-level, finely tuned equipment that marries the output of human-to-machine is a hallmark of serious cycling, but so is the repetitive trope of changing component standards when innovation is minimal but consumer impacts are forcibly made inevitable. From disc brakes, to 29’er and 32” wheels, to 12 and 13 speed gearing configurations, and even tire clearance, many changes stick because of improved riding experience while others – as the critics point out – are a gamble to reinvigorate flagging sales. Currently, the industry is universally dragging on deadstock, while both the U.S. and European markets are about to be completely reshaped by Asian direct-to-consumer brands as consumers seek value and a lower barrier to entry. At $300 for the new pedal, and up to $500 for the optimized shoes, Shimano – like so many of the bike brands that carry the Japanese company’s components – may have missed the mark and missed the point. The investment in innovation is admirable, but it highlights the need for the industry to pool its resources and reshape a broader consumer strategy that prioritizes new riders and expands participation.
To close out this week, we leave you with a few hot takes that are worth attention:
● A recent op-ed piece in The Guardian takes further aim at the absurdity of the U.S. administration labeling cycling lanes and infrastructure as “woke” and “DEI” garbage. At stake is the perception of cycling as an activity and as a sport, which could impact general participation and investment in racing for years to come.
● Expansion of the ongoing Gulf Conflict has placed Saudi Arabia and Houthi rebels in direct combat. Policy analysts believe this new front, along with Iran’s sustainable military presence and the UAE’s long-standing competition with Saudi Arabia for regional political leadership, will choke down the global oil supply and disrupt energy markets, possibly for years to come. Major bike races operate on thin margins and are heavily dependent on travel and logistics; as both become more expensive, bike racing events in the region could decline.
● Fans will spend the week poring over the World Championship national teams and potential strategies. While Van der Poel made a huge statement with his mammoth 174 km solo win on the Tour of Luxembourg’s finale, Evenepoel and Isaac del Toro are still the favorites based on their Canadian classic wins. The women’s road race may be the main event; with so few races over the last few weeks from which to judge form, all bets are valid, and we could see one of the most exciting races of 2026.