Jonathan Vaughters commentary: If we have to have relegation in cycling, there are better ways to do it

Jonathan Vaughters is against promotion/relegation in cycling. He believes it hurts the athletes and destroys teams. It also encourages doping. Vells supports the pro-relevation argument that it will encourage new sponsors to come into the sport via new teams, but he thinks it doesn't work that way. He thinks the current system creates instability and promotes doping and it's bad for the game. The solution is to create a competitive market where the sponsors are competitively bidding for teams and cycling flourish. In the present system, there are many teams competing for a limited number of sponsors. This is bad.

Jonathan Vaughters believes cycling promotion and relegation is a waste of time. He suggests a system in which promotion/relegation looks after the interests of all parties involved.

Jonathan Vaughters thinks cycling's promotion/relegation system is not a good idea. He points to the EPL and other sports with similar systems. In cycling, sponsorship is the most important source of revenue for the teams. In other leagues, there are consistent revenues and the players get a fair chance to climb back up. Cycling's model is unstable and it's already seeing this happen. It's a bad model as it leads to a loss of sponsorship. The best riders and staff leave the team and teams struggle. There are also less financial compensation for teams that drop down to second division.

Jonathan Vaughters suggests a new system for cycling relegation. He suggests that the points allocation system should be closer to the "same race vs. same teams" results. The current system is unfair and doesn't reflect the sport's interests. Vells also proposes that points should only be allocated to races where all the teams at risk of relegation are present. The stable revenue model in cycling is not changing any time soon. It's a good thing cycling doesn’t operate in an unstable sponsorship revenue models.

Jonathan Vaughters thinks cycling needs to change its system to prevent relegation. He suggests that cycling should compensate relegated teams for their losses.   If cycling is to live up to the standard of other sports, it needs a better system. It needs compensation for the loss of sponsorship and for riders.

Jonathan Vaughters thinks there are better ways to organize cycling than relegation. He thinks the UCI should not pay $10 million for each relegated team. The UCi's current budget is funded mainly by the majority revenue source of the race sanctioning fees.

Jonathan Vaughters thinks there are better ways to solve cycling's promotion and relegation.

Jonathan Vaughters thinks cycling's promotion/relegation system is a waste of money. He suggests two better ways to do it.

There are better ways to deal with cycling relegation than UCI payment. UCi gives relegated teams every opportunity to return to the top league.