AIGCP

26/07/2021

Following last week’s elections, we are pleased to inform that the newly elected AIGCP Management Committee has elected its Board. The appointments are as follows:

- Richard Plugge (Jumbo – Visma) : President
- Alfonso Galilea (Movistar Team): 1st Vice-President
- Carsten Jeppesen (Ineos Grenadiers): 2nd Vice-President
- Elisa Madiot (Groupama – FDJ) : General Secretary
- Philippe Chevallier (AG2R Citroën Team) : Treasurer
- Thibaut Macé (TotalEnergies): Member of the AIGCP Management Committee
- Ricardo Scheidecker (Deceuninck – Quick-Step): Member of the AIGCP Management Committee

The members of the newly elected Management Committee AIGCP thank all who supported them. They will now strive to defend the interests of all professional teams and to work and engage with all stakeholders (riders, UCI and race organizers) towards a better cycling. Health, safety and environment are the immediate challenges facing cycling today. The AIGCP Management Committee is convinced that only a common and global vision will allow us to meet these challenges.

We look forward to sharing the details of this vision in a future meeting with all teams.

28/10/2019

Mr David Lappartient (President of the UCI)
Members of the UCI Management Committee
UNION CYCLISTE INTERNATIONALE

28 October 2019

Dear President,
Dear Members of the UCI Management Committee,

The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you that men’s professional road teams (AIGCP) have serious concerns about the current level and ex*****on of governance of men’s professional road cycling by the UCI.
AIGCP expects urgent action and invites the UCI to a dialogue to work out a governance structure which would have the consent of teams and their riders and which will better serve the growth of men’s professional road cycling.

A summary of our concerns is as follows:

1. UCI’s core task in regard to men’s professional road cycling not being performed at the required level

The level of fair and consistent race refereeing and the management of riders’ safety is below the level it should be. Professional teams and professional riders, as well as many organisers, operate at a high level and in a professional manner. Such a high level is also to be expected from the UCI in regard to race safety and fair and consistent race refereeing, which should have the highest priority for the UCI in its governance of the sport. The UCI’s activities in men’s professional road cycling must focus on this and it should not be distracted from these priorities by other activities which are not the mandated role of a governing body.

Professional road cycling requires a governing body which spends its time and efforts operating professionally in order to ensure a high level of refereeing and in a consistent manner throughout the season, and to no longer grant multiple year licenses to race organisers without thorough prior assessment (and compliance checks during the license term) if race organisers have the quality, the resources, safety measures, the financial guarantees, the budget and sufficient qualified and licensed staff in place to be able to decide if such organisers should be granted the right to host a race in the first place. Safe race conditions should have been UCI’s absolute priority.

2. No Stakeholder Rights: “taxation without representation”

The majority share of the investment into men’s professional road cycling is held by the teams, including their major financial contributions into the UCI. At the same time, the UCI has chosen to structure the governance of men’s professional road cycling in such a way that teams and their riders have no meaningful say at all. In the Professional Cycling Council (governing the UCI WorldTour) the teams only hold two seats out of twelve, with the UCI itself holding half of the seats (6).

Furthermore, the only real power lies in the UCI’s Management Committee, which can introduce and change rules as it sees fit in total isolation and without consultation with the stakeholders including the regulations about men’s professional road cycling. All seats in the Management Committee are occupied by the UCI itself.

As a result, there is no effective representation of the sport’s stakeholders and the UCI has no accountability whatsoever towards the teams and their riders. In reality, the UCI governs men’s professional cycling as it wants. For the teams and riders this amounts to being taxed by a system in which they have absolutely no effective representation.

Even within the flawed attempt at a limited form of democracy which the PCC embodies, the processes are also inconsistent and do not function in the correct manner. The UCI decides what is on the agenda and what is not. Even when it has been previously agreed that certain subjects shall be part of the agenda, the UCI can decide to simply leave them out. And if subjects are raised by the teams, the UCI President (who is not even a member of the PCC) can decline the idea/request without further discussion. The PCC is supposed to be a forum for discussion amongst teams, riders, organisers and the UCI but the manner in which it now functions is the opposite, as the official PCC members cannot discuss a matter if a certain guest of the PCC turns down the motion, a guest who does not have any formal role or voting right in that forum - as is officially the UCI President’s position in the PCC.

Further, in the event that a UCI proposal in the PCC does not obtain the support of the teams, it is not uncommon that the teams’ representatives are denigrated in the meeting. Such proceedings do not offer a safe environment for open discussions and the opportunity to safely disagree, let alone comply with the UCI’s own regulations.

The Professional Cycling Council is an attempt to create the illusion of stakeholder engagement in order to cover the reality that teams and their riders actually have no say at all. And despite the fact that the teams and their riders have no effective say, the teams are still obliged to make a large financial contribution to the UCI.

3. Interfering in the commercial domain

UCI’s role in men’s professional road cycling is to be the arbiter, managing the (control of) riders’ safety, and executing the license procedures for both teams and organisers. However, the UCI is using its regulatory powers in many ways and forms to, directly and indirectly, interfere in the commercial domain and too often at the expense of UCI’s own stakeholders: the teams with their riders. This is happening more and more, and against the explicit will of the teams and their riders. Some examples of this are as follows:

a) Balance teams (riders) and organisers.

The original balance between teams and organisers consisted of 4-year licenses including Tour de France participation, for which in return the teams were obliged to race a total of 154 racing days in UCI’s WorldTour. This has been unbalanced by the UCI at the expense of the teams and their riders. The number of racing days has now reached 180 days, and the sporting criterion for teams’ licenses (through a points system which includes all races) has heavily unbalanced the teams-organisers parity and has heavily impacted the teams’ key right to freely decide its strategy of where to race, which (national) races to support, and under which terms (beyond the original 154 WorldTour days).

In addition, the UCI has obvious conflicts of interest in this area: the UCI’s own income of license fees grows with an ever-expanding WorldTour calendar, and the UCI is providing WorldTour licenses to races for political benefits (in regards to the federations or organisers concerned) and/or for commercial benefits (putting another race of the UCI World Championships organiser into the WorldTour, explicitly against the will of teams and their riders).

The UCI announced in 2018 its ambition to elevate the level and prestige of second-tier races, currently called HC (Hors Category) races. A more select number of races would form that second tier of races directly beneath the WorldTour races and the qualification HC would be replaced by a more appealing name, the “ProSeries”. Those races would have to meet high standards, especially with regard to safety, and be appealing to teams.

With the announcement of the 2020 ProSeries it became clear that the reality turned out to be the opposite of those ambitions. Instead of a prestigious, selective and appealing category, this second tier of races is set to grow in 2020 by 28.5% (!) in terms of number of races.

With all respect to the event itself, the race in the President’s hometown, the GP Plumelec, has even been promoted to this second tier despite the fact that this race has, in the last 3 years, never been able to attract even a single foreign WorldTeam.

Races have not been registered as ProSeries races on the basis of objective criteria but rather for political reasons and/or personal preferences. Such an expanded second tier of races is one thing, but combining this expansion with the “sporting criterion” procedure (which is part of the process that determines the teams’ licenses and consequently the teams’ future), which operates over the complete calendar rather than over the WorldTour races alone, is clearly greatly prejudicial to the teams. The combination of the expanded calendar of first and second tier races plus the sporting criterion to be determined over the complete calendar further disrupts the commercial balance between race organisers and teams, and heavily undermines the teams’ key right to freely decide their strategies of where to race, which (national) races to support, and under which terms.

Further, it creates the undesirable situation that pressure is put on teams and riders to race ever more days in a season. For these reasons the combination of such expanded first and second tier calendars with the current sporting criterion is not agreed upon by the teams.

UCI’s focus has turned so much to extracting value from WorldTeams that some basic priorities seem to have been forgotten. One of those basic priorities being that the ProSeries are supposed to be a key element of strengthening the second tier of the cycling pyramid; a strong alliance between second-tier teams and second-tier organisers. Second-tier teams, ProTeams, are crucial for a solid basis of the cycling pyramid. Accordingly, offering ProTeams participation guarantees in the races of “their” second tier, the ProSeries, must be a priority and for these obvious reasons, the teams have been demanding from the UCI the implementation of such a mechanism. However, while the UCI has busied itself to promote more races to this new status and creating a system which puts pressure on WorldTeams to participate in these races (i.e. the “sporting criterion”), the UCI has failed to deliver on the long-standing promise to offer ProTeams participation guarantees in the ProSeries. And, despite failing to offer ProTeams any participation guarantees in the ProSeries, the UCI 2020 Reform imposes additional financial obligations on the ProTeams, resulting in the demise of a number of prominent ProTeams.

The teams’ concerns are not only about the ProSeries. Our letter of 26 September 2019 sets out our concerns regarding the UCI Classics Series. Another example of the UCI pushing ahead with a project for its own interest against the wishes and interests of the teams and riders. The UCI’s written response on 23 October 2019 to the serious concerns raised by the teams, reflects the UCI’s approach generally, which is not to address any of the underlying concerns and to fall back on allegations and insults. It is hugely disappointing to see the UCI not recognising the teams as a “relevant stakeholder” with whom the UCI needs to work for the development of the UCI Classics Series.

b) UCI to market “teams’/riders’ assets” without consultation with teams/riders.

UCI has decided to add another weekend of ‘nation-versus-nation’ racing into the calendar (the first weekend of the World Championships: the Team Relay), which means that the teams lose a weekend of visibility for their sponsors and their recognisable team kits. The riders of the professional teams that pay them can be required for that team relay. The teams had to find out about this via the media, there was no prior consultation with the teams whatsoever despite the fact that the participation of professional riders is the central element of those championships.

The UCI has added Continental Championships to the calendar. Another additional ‘nation-versus-nation’ competition which again takes away visibility from the teams. Again, the teams’ riders may be required to race those races. In addition, the winner of such championships is obliged to wear, for an entire year, the continental championships jersey, which yet again takes away visibility/recognisability from the teams. The UCI should not need to be reminded that all teams are solely funded by the sponsors that appear on their jerseys. Introducing yet another jersey dilutes the value of sponsorship rights and limits the number of sponsors to be presented, even more so because that jersey is worn for an entire year by one of the better riders. So, to weaken such important teams’ rights is a serious matter for all teams.

As in the other examples given, all of this was also decided without any consultation with the teams whilst requiring their professional riders to race at those championships.

The UCI has singlehandedly changed the regulation of on-bike devices in an attempt to hand the teams’ rights to itself and to race organisers, with the potential to cause a major negative impact on the opportunities to commercialise teams and riders business. Yet again, this was done without any consultation with the teams. As before, the UCI has ignored for many months every attempt of the teams/riders to enter into a dialogue about this important subject.

In short.
1. UCI provides no formal accountability whatsoever to its biggest stakeholders in men’s professional road cycling: the teams with their riders.
2. UCI’s most important role, to be a consistent and fair arbiter of the sport and guardian of its safety, is not being performed to any requisite standard.

In regard to the above concerns the AIGCP invites the UCI to enter into a dialogue in order to establish the following in regard to men’s professional road cycling:

1. Increase the level and consistency of the race referees and their decisions.
2. Main focus of UCI as governing body to centre around license procedures, including for race organisers, very strict quality criteria for riders’ safety.
3. Maintain the original balance between (WorldTour) teams and organisers; 4-year licenses including participation in the Tour de France versus an obligation to race in a total of 154 WorldTour days, no further indirect mechanisms to unbalance that and/or to limit the team’s right to choose where to race (beyond the WorldTour).
4. The stakeholders – teams and their riders (together with the race organisers) – to obtain a formal and relevant say in the decision-making process of men’s professional road cycling such that their voice cannot be ignored.
5. The UCI, as a governing body, to not use its regulatory powers to interfere in the commercial domain and/or not to compete with its own stakeholders in the commercial domain.
6. Agreement on what total financial contribution the UCI should require from men’s professional road cycling for its overall functioning as governing body. Then the stakeholders to decide how to fund that amount which is to be paid to the UCI.

We kindly await your response.

Yours sincerely,

AIGCP Management Committee

CC: UCI Professional Cycling Council
UCI Road Commission

26/09/2019

Teams reject key elements of the UCI Reform 2020: “Classics Series”

The AIGCP (the association of men’s professional road cycling teams) hereby confirms that it has informed the UCI that it rejects the current approach and proposed regulatory framework for setting up the anticipated UCI Classics Series as part of the 2020 Reform.

AIGCP’s support for the 2020 Reform approved in September 2018 was conditional on setting up the envisaged competition of one-day races (“Classics Series”) on a consensus basis with all stakeholders, including the teams with their riders, and on the basis of an inclusive business plan and ownership model where the rights of all parties would be recognised and respected. Such Classics Series was meant to be a stepping stone towards the true reform that men’s professional road cycling needs: to change the current broken economical model which over the years has done much harm to the sport, not only the teams and their riders, but also to many race organisers.

However, the teams lament that no substantial progress has been made in this regard. In fact, the teams’ and riders’ rights are neither being recognised nor respected and the current approach and proposed regulatory framework do not deliver on the promised structure which would finally enable the stakeholders to realise the economic change that this sport desperately needs.

Accordingly, the AIGCP has formally informed the UCI of its rejection of the Classics Series as it is being implemented by the UCI and that no team or contracted rider may be associated with any such Classics Series without the express consent of that team.

Finally, the AIGCP remains committed to contributing to the realisation of the principles of the UCI Reform 2020 it supported in September 2018.

23/03/2019

Congratulations to the members of the AIGCP Management Committee on their re-election for another 2-year term!
Team Sunweb's CEO, Iwan Spekenbrink, re-appointed as President.

28/08/2018

AIGCP Urges UCI to Embrace WorldTour Reform to Drive Sustainable Growth

Calls for team voices to be heard in decision making & for all stakeholders to maintain current rights

La Motte-Servolex, France – 28 August 2018

The International Association of Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP) – which represents 17 WorldTour Teams and 27 Pro-Continental Teams - has called on the international cycling federation (UCI) to adapt its draft reform plans, due to be considered by UCI Management Committee on 28 September, to ensure a more sustainable future for professional Road Cycling.

The AIGCP membership is aligned in its call for the objective of the reform to be that it offers the much needed change to the current economic model, which underpins the professional tiers of men’s professional road racing.

Professional road cycling’s economical model is currently recognised to contain many flaws, and has led to a fragile position for many teams, their riders, and race organisers - both in the first and second tier. Ultimately, cycling is currently far from achieving its full potential.

For decades, the governing body and cycling as a whole have not been able to address this properly and put measures in place which would enable cycling to reach its full potential.

Iwan Spekenbrink, President of the AIGCP and Chief Executive Officer at Team Sunweb said:

“The teams have expressed that the need to start creating a sustainable and viable economic model is a key priority today. They believe that building a stable and flourishing sport is the necessary step to be able to tackle cycling’s biggest issues - from increased investments in safety, anti-doping, and fan-engagement, to offering the much needed secure future for cycling’s stakeholders in the two top tiers. Ultimately, we want to see pro cyclists and other stakeholders enjoy an improved economic position which is more comparable with their counterparts in global sports of similar potential.”

The professional teams believe that the UCI today has a great opportunity to lay the foundations for an improved economic model with the creation of true reform. Therefore, the AIGCP is committed to working with the UCI to offer expert knowledge on how to maximise the sport’s commercial and fan engagement opportunities and, if the right reforms are embraced, it is hopeful of growing cycling to new levels.

Last Friday, 24 August, the teams gathered in Malaga, Spain for AIGCP’s General Assembly. The teams expressed that while the start of a true economic reform is a key objective, it will take time for stability and growth to be realized. The WorldTour and Pro-Continental teams therefore demand that the new reform may in no way mean teams and other stakeholders are placed in vulnerable or less beneficial positions than at present day.

Cycling remains one of the very few global sports where the teams, and their riders, have effectively no say in how the professional top tiers are being run. Ultimately, cycling’s governing body UCI retains the exclusive control over the professional arm of the sport. For cycling to overcome the fragile economic model it has today and to realise sustainable growth, it’s a necessity for teams and organisers to be empowered to help drive the growth of the sport. Teams, organisers, their sponsors and partners have huge experience and have a proven track record in maximising revenues, growing commercial opportunities and engaging fans.

Richard Plugge, Vice President of the AIGCP and Team Director at Team Lotto NL–Jumbo, added:

“The AIGCP wants to work with the UCI to help the sport grow, and to do so the teams and riders need the ability to maximise all opportunities available to them, and bring their expertise to the UCI. We want to be the perfect solution provider for the UCI and work with it, not against it. If cycling is able to modernize its approach as has been done successfully in many other global sports, then the much needed Reform can become reality, which will create sustainable growth for all stakeholders.

“If you look at well-functioning global sports, success has been found in a model where the professional stakeholders have a voice in how the professional leagues are run. Those sports are all examples that show how a sport can grow hugely, both in popularity and revenue, by empowering those who bring the sport alive to work alongside the governing body, and we want to do the same with cycling. We are eager to work with the UCI on this. Teams, their riders, and race organisers bring the necessary expertise which have been largely ignored in the history of our sport. Presently, cycling is a sleeping giant with a big professional potential and we want to wake him up.”

About AIGCP
The International Association of Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP) represents 17 WorldTour Teams and 27 Pro-Continental Teams. Based in La Motte-Servolex, France the organisation is the only official recognised body that represents the interests and needs of professional cycling teams. In spite of this, AIGCP does not currently have representation within the UCI’s decision-making structure.

For more information
Tom Lloyd
VERO Communications
[email protected]
+44 207 812 6589 / +44 7824 807 743

10/03/2017

AIGCP informs that last Friday 3rd March 2017, its General Assembly elected a new Management Committee for a 2-year term. We are pleased to inform of the following appointments to key roles:

- Iwan Spekenbrink (Team Sunweb) is re-appointed as President
- Richard Plugge (Team Lotto NL – Jumbo) is re-appointed as Vice-President and Treasurer
- Alfonso Galilea (Movistar Team) is appointed as Deputy Vice-President
- Shayne Bannan (Orica – Scott) is appointed as General Secretary

The following team representatives complete the 7-member AIGCP Management Committee: Philippe Chevallier (AG2R La Mondiale), Carsten Jeppesen (Team Sky) and Ricardo Scheidecker (Quick - Step Floors).

The new AIGCP Management Committee looks forward to strengthening its relationship with all partners as it fulfils its mandate of furthering the rights and growth of all professional teams over the next 2 years.

13/09/2016

AIGCP President, Iwan Spekenbrink, stated that “teams are happy that UCI and Messrs. Cookson, Van Damme and Lappartient listened to their concerns and acted upon them. The next months will be used to shape a permanent formula for future editions of the TTT UCI World Championships.”

The UCI and the AIGCP have agreed on a number of adjustments to the 2016 UCI Road World Championships Men's Team Time Trial format, ensuring a maximum of UCI WorldTeams will take part in the event to be held in just a few weeks in Doha, Qatar.

10/08/2016

WorldTeams to skip the 2016 Team-Time-Trial World Championships

AIGCP informs that an overwhelming majority of its WorldTour members voted to skip the 2016 Team-Time-Trial World Championships in light of UCI’s unwillingness to offer fair and consistent terms of participation. This position was adopted at the July 1st AIGCP General Assembly and was ratified earlier this week after UCI failed again to address the demands of WorldTeams which are compelled under UCI regulations to participate in UCI’s TTT World Championships at their expense.

This situation is highly irregular in the context of professional road cycling,

•insofar as the WorldTour licence should only compel the teams that are granted one to take part in the events which are granted a WorldTour licence by an independent Licence Commission;

•and even when required to take part in a WorldTour event, WorldTeams are always granted a participation allowance to cover some of their costs;

•insofar as it evidences the fact that the governing body has passed exceptional legislation which solely favors the one road competition it owns and commercially exploits.

The abovementioned terms of participation which exist nowhere else in the sport are undeniably abusive and reveal the abuse of power which UCI incurs in when it enforces them solely for the one road competition it operates. All WorldTeams are expected to skip the TTT World Championships until these abusive practices are abolished.

12/03/2016

Very wise decision to cancel tomorrows stage in Tirreno. high priority to the safety of the peloton... AIGCP's president, said: important step for cycling, proof that organizers, teams, riders and the UCI have to work together. Further, ensures that the put a lot of effort in the redaction of the Extreme Weather Protocol. Kudos to Mauro and his team at RCS to take good care of the peloton.

08/03/2016

please follow us on twitter as well!

21/08/2015

“Safety of riders put first in tomorrow's team time trial”

The AIGCP welcomes the decision of the UCI to annul the time differences in tomorrow Team Time Trial towards the general classification and not have the team time trial contribute World Tour points. It is the outcome of a meeting about the safety of the team time trial course between UCI, CPA (riders' association) and the AIGCP, yesterday evening and which was respected by Unipublic (organiser of the Vuelta a España). AIGCP appreciates the consultation amongst stakeholders which took place which led to this decision based on consensus amongst the stakeholders.

Although teams invest a lot of time and energy in this discipline, they see that the safety of the riders is their top priority.

Furthermore, the AIGCP will take the initiative to study the existing
procedure to get courses designed and approved in consultation with the UCI, CPA and AIOCC (organisers' association) in the UCI Safety Commission and will there provoke a discussion on existing rules concerning the minimum requirement of safe courses and specifically of (team) time trial courses.

26/06/2015

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aigcp-teams-association-defends-proposed-worldtour-reforms