The Tour of Beijing failed but globalisation hasn’t

Tom Palmer Columnist

By Tom Palmer, Tom Palmer is a Roar Expert


2 Have your say

    MTN Qhubeka competing at the Tour of Langkawi - with an African team winning best team at a Malaysian race, cycling is spreading across the globe (Image: MTN Qhubeka)

    Related coverage

    We’re about to see the last Tour of Beijing. You’ll know it as the race that materialised out of thin air, or an agreement between the local government and the UCI.

    You may also know it as the only professional race with more security guards than spectators.

    The end of the Tour of Beijing is not a failure of globalisation. It’s a setback for the UCI but in the long run it could be a good thing for the sport’s global cultural and economic growth.

    Endowed with World Tour status and tacked onto the end of the season calendar, the UCI stage-managed the affair and World Tour teams were forced to show up.

    The Chinese end provided the cheque book and some freshly minted highways.

    The result was a race that resembled one of those pro-cycling computer games – where a uniform peloton shuffles along a generic, barricaded road through what looks like a featureless void, all contained in a grey haze. It’s a race transplant.

    We’ll soon witness the final days of this rejected organ of the World Tour. The race will be put to rest, literally coughing and with tainted blood: the air quality has been cited as a health issue and the food was shown to lead to false positive drug tests.

    Your best guess of how enthusiastic the athletes are about racing it is probably close to the mark.

    The widely cited impetus for the venture was ‘the globalisation of cycling’ and many commentators are calling its failure a signal of the failure of cycling’s globalisation project.

    Well, that’s ridiculous. Nothing has failed except a poor attempt at inserting the ‘World Tour’ into a lucrative market.

    The problem isn’t China. In fact in terms of countries that hold professional road cycling races, China is relatively advanced. China had hosted unique and character-filled tours for a long time before the UCI dreamed this one up. The brilliant and other-worldly Qinghai Lake, for example, easily ranks as one of the most memorable and spectacular races I’ve ever seen.

    The cycling world does not lose China with the Tour of Beijing, there are still five other significant international professional races there: Qinghai, Hainan, Taihu, China 1 and China 2. Maybe those will get a boost once the biggest teams, sponsors and media are no longer devoted to Beijing at the end of the year.

    Most of those tours are already attended by numerous World Tour teams – and of their own accord. Belkin and Astana were both well represented in editions of those that I’ve attended. Because of its sponsor, Belkin was internally driven there to achieve a global reach.

    Various top teams who want in on Asian racing – and African, Australasian, and South American for that matter – have been appearing in races all over the globe for decades, chasing UCI points and new markets for commercial links.

    One rich history that has always fascinated me is the decades-old and seemingly random link between Japan and Italy. It is visible in a host of commercial and cultural exchanges between teams, races, riders, sponsors and fans.

    The globalisation of cycling is about more than our governing body chasing one particularly lucrative market. The real globalisation of cycling involves increasing and strengthening the totality of global cycling connections.

    The UCI is infatuated with China for financial reasons, which is probably warranted, but the conversation around the Tour of Beijing shows that as it pertains to cycling, the term ‘globalisation’ has been hijacked and reduced to being the label given to the UCI’s exercise of trying to stick its hands into Chinese pockets.

    Globalisation is not just a UCI project. Globalisation is a reality of the 21st century, and a very positive one for that matter. Losing the Tour of Beijing won’t stop it. In this century, as in the last, new cultures will find cycling and cycling players will find new markets.

    We have a Polish world champ for the first time. That’s pretty cool. Can you imagine what the sport will be like by the time we have our first Chinese one? Fascinating, I think.

    Globalisation gets me excited, less so the UCI. Compared to the untapped opportunities for growth our globe offers, the Tour of Beijing was a misguided foray. It was stale and problematic, and still men-only, still Euro-centric.

    The growth toward a richer global culture of cycling is not necessarily harmed by this one screw-up. I’ll keep a close eye on China’s post-Tour of Beijing era; there’s a fascinating cycling world there already.

    I’ll also be looking elsewhere at the multitude of racing cultures both established and sprouting in every corner of the world. MTN Qhubeka, the world-beating team that is emerging from Africa, is a good example.

    The failure of the Tour of Beijing might indicate a weakness, not in the idea of the globalisation of cycling, but a weakness of the UCI’s World Tour.

    The sport is diverse and diversifying. It has rich cultures that are ever-evolving. The geographical, economic and cultural boundaries of the sport will be redrawn over time.

    Is the UCI’s ‘World Tour’ the best instrument to accommodate that growth?

    Tom Palmer is a former professional road cyclist riding for Drapac Professional Cycling from 2007 to 2014 before hanging up the cleats to pursue a tertiary education and non-sporting career.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (2)

    • Roar Guru

      October 3rd 2014 @ 9:42pm
      Simon Smale said | October 3rd 2014 @ 9:42pm | ! Report

      Cyclings issue is, as always, to placate the traditionalists whilst also catering for the revolutionaries who see cyclingcentral global potential. There will always be a battle to fit everything in around the Spring Classics, Grand Tours, Americas Calendar, and the Tour Down Under etc. some sense of over-arching governance is essential.

      I think the World Tour is a great way to expand cycling around the world, and to ensure the main teams attend as many of the events as possible, it would be difficult to grow the cycling brand in new markets if none of the established stars or recognisable teams turned up to the races. There will be teething issues though, and the Tour of Beijing is one of those bumps in the road.

      Hopefully the UCI will learn from this and the issues will be ironed out during the coming seasons.

      • October 4th 2014 @ 4:27am
        Wombat said | October 4th 2014 @ 4:27am | ! Report

        Tour of Beijing failed because it was a “manufactured product” immediately promoted to/imposed on the World Team. Other events such as TdU served an “apprenticeship” rising “through the grades” where riders/teams/UCI got a clear read on the race itself/the capacity of it’s organisation/financial support and support from the public and relevant levels of government.

        Qinghai Lake probably has the biggest profile and at least has “a track record”. There could at least be a case for it’s promotion but perhaps distance from major centres is a drawback. One could put up cases for Langkawi or Tour of Turkey. IF Alberta were to be promoted, it would be at the expense of one or both the Laurentian one-day races. Is there a case for promoting Tour de San Luis (ARG) at some point in the future ?

        Why aren’t any of the US races World Tour ?? The Americans themselves are the issue. The bulk of their existing domestic teams aren’t willing to “pony up” to Pro Conti level and sign on to the Bio Passport and the organisers of TOC/Utah/Colorado go “oh no, we can’t leave out our American domestic teams ….. the fans wouldn’t stand for it and it’ll break the poor little All-American hearts of the riders”.

        I fully agree with the need to balance tradition with (sensible) international expansion. The major counter issue is the financial health of the economies of some of the traditional nations. Sponsor dollars are harder to come by, both for teams and races and the resources of regional authorities (especially in Spain) have less to throw at promoting cycling races. A number of existing SPA races are, apparently, on life support and it may be a case of die or drop to a lower level (as some FRA/ITA races have) to survive at all.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.