Every fan knows cycling's funding model has always been dependent on sponsors- so much so that entire teams change their names depending on who is signing the cheques which can be confusing for those used to other sports. After all while Newton Heath became Manchester United in the 1900s, things have been pretty consistent for almost 120 years. Now explain how Reynolds is Banesto is Illes Balears is Caisse d'Eparge is Movistar, or how Lotto-Soudal become Lotto-Fixall for Paris-Nice and then revert back again. Net App? Don't you mean Bora Hansgrohe? And while Fignon did change the ownership model back with Systeme U, the pre-eminence of sponsors hasn't changed.
There was some controversy in the past when Magni persuaded Nivea to sponsor his team, generally held to be the first time a funder from outside the sport was able to come on board, although something similar had happened at the Vuelta before this more famous example. That caused waves then and you can't help but give a wry smile when reading about how much of an issue that is, whereas today the general assumption seems to be that people simply don't care where the money is coming from.
This really came into focus for me over the past few days. Out of the final GC podium in the 2021 Giro, the sponsors behind the teams of first and second place also pop up in the most recent issue of Private Eye. INEOS for their usual greenwashing in relation to their impact on the environment ( never mind the fact the addition of "Grenadiers" is to promote another un-needed addition to the list of items desired by selfish middle-class parents and those type of men who never got over the military fixation that most of us moved past by the time puberty had ended). And let's not forget the Murdoch connection with their previous sponsors.
Bahrain made their regular appearance in the magazine due to their human rights abuses and Tory ex-ministers cosying up to them (in this case Alan Duncan). The Bahrian Wikipedia entry includes this:
'The period between 1975 and 1999 known as the "State Security Law Era", saw wide range of human rights violations including arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, torture and forced exile.[183][184] After the Emir Hamad Al Khalifa (now king) succeeded his father Isa Al Khalifa in 1999, he introduced wide reforms and human rights improved significantly.[185] These moves were described by Amnesty International as representing a "historic period of human rights".[107]
Human rights conditions started to decline by 2007 when torture began to be employed again.[186] In 2011, Human Rights Watch described the country's human rights situation as "dismal".'
And of course bully-in-chief in the UK Home Office makes an appearance (Priti Patel's links to Bahrain Torturer) .
Even third place in the Giro doesn't come with clean hands- while Bike Exchange may seem safe enough let's not forget that initially the team was Orica-Greenedge; while the latter part of the name was simply a placeholder, the headliner is an Australian mining company, again with the associated environmental impact.
Further down the peloton we also have Astana, Israel Start Up and UAE, again not without their political controversies.
The UCI , ASO and RCS in the process of "mondialisation" have also found themselves willing facilitators in allowing the sport to find itself in an awkward position. The Jerusalem start of the Giro in 2018 and the pressure needed before the 2021 UEC European Track Championships were eventually taken away from Belarus were portrayed as using the sport as a unifier as opposed to validating certain actions. I'm not going to get into the rights or wrongs on this here but the issue always comes down to those who say sport isn't about politics, which is pure bullshit- everything is about politics, and those that use this argument are either extremely niave or, more likely, are happy enough with the status quo and generally don't want to improve things for people who aren't them.
So yes the sport needs investment to stay alive- but then actual people need certain sponsors to take responsibilty to allow them to literally stay alive. In a world with so much information and high levels of awareness around how certain countries and international corporations are screwing over the most vulnerable, how much longer are cycling fans going to feel comfortable with our need to see the best men and women racing bikes overriding our basic human empathy and care? As more and more populist right wing regimes go from strength to strength and the Overton Window has been pushed so far that Boris Johnson can emerge from situations, that for anyone with common decency should have resulted in the end of their political career, with increased support my sad conclusion is that many people are just going to feel perfectly okay with this. So how long before BAE or other weapons manufacturers decide to fund a team? What about Team Oath Keepers or QAnon CC? As it stands really Qhubeka Assos are probably the most ethical team and prove that such a set up can exist (albeit with a struggle), so what can be done to attract a higher quality of sponsor for many of the other teams? Maybe, just maybe the UCI could put more of an emphasis on this with this now the important isses of the supertuck, sock height and bidon disposal rules have been put to rest.
