UCI CEO Peter Van den Abeele thinks about new World Cup content: “Maybe we should play hard”

Interview The cyclo-cross World Cup is a point of discussion several times a season, and this was no different in the past period. Just under a month before the Cyclo-Cross World Championships, all discussions about the new format of the World Cup are still open. This is what Director of Sport at the UCI, Peter Van den Abeele, said in an open conversation with CyclingFlits.

It was Van den Abeele himself who sounded the alarm in mid-November, due to the lack of interest among riders in the World Cup, which is organized by the UCI and Flanders Classics. Van den Abeele saw leader Lars van der Haar express his dissatisfaction with the busy schedule, and Thibau Nys choose the Superprestige in Niel over the World Cup in nearby Dendermonde, a day later. “I respect riders who choose to take a rest,” he said at the time. “But penalizing the World Cup for a different ranking? If the World Cup is seen as a toy, then we have a problem.”

When the UCI president, David Lappartient, made an even stronger statement to his colleagues DirectVélo, the fence was completely destroyed. “If a motocross rider prefers a national competition while there is a World Cup, he will not compete in the next World Cup and therefore also the Cyclo-cross World Championships. The World Cup is not a competition where you can choose what you want to ride,” the UCI boss argued for stricter rules. Something that riders and teams were not prepared to deal with. Team managers Sven Nys and Jurgen Mettepenningen, among others, asked to reduce the fourteen heats.

The question we ask ourselves, a month before the World Cup. Will the World Cup become smaller in the 2024-2025 season?
“It is clear to me that the rights lie in the hands of Flanders Classics. They have invested an amount related to those fourteen rounds. If it were decided to do fewer heats, you would first have to talk to them about the financial picture. And we are currently working on that. First we need to determine how many heats will be effective: ten, eleven, twelve? We’ll see. And only then can we make the calendar, because the biggest priority remains the World Cup. For the time being, only the dates of the European Championships, national championships and the World Cup have been fixed. Everything else remains to be completed.”

When I hear ten, eleven and twelve, it seems clear to me that the number of heats will be reduced. Was it a failed move by the UCI to go to sixteen, and later fourteen, heats?
“No, no, absolutely not. It’s just that times are changing. In the past, everyone rode a full cross season, and those men hardly competed on the road or in other disciplines. But those little crossers from a few years ago have now become the top cars on the road. Then we have to ensure that we give those men opportunities to continue racing. That is a new situation that we could not possibly have foreseen a few years ago.”

Have you entered into discussions with the riders and the teams, as was requested after Lappartient’s statements?
“There are always riders who contact us personally. I also directly debated certain riders. But these conversations usually happen with the team leaders. Everyone has a certain opinion, but at the end of the day it is up to us to filter together with Flanders Classics. Normally the new calendar is always announced at the World Cup. That will not be the case in Tábor now. We will mainly have to debate there about the number of heats.”

What number are you aiming for?
“Well, what is the ideal number? I don’t know, between ten and twelve, I think. But when there were barely six rounds a few seasons ago – three of which were in Belgium and two in the Netherlands – there was also criticism. At a certain point we no longer had partners with the World Cup. We did everything we could to revive the ranking and make it the most prestigious ranking again. But suddenly there were too many heats, which many thought was not good.”

You talk about the most prestigious classification. There are few riders who currently see the World Cup that way. How are you going to change that?
“Only one solution is needed: the calendar. Organizing every round on a Sunday was a first step in this. Finally, we as the UCI determine the calendar from A to Z. No one has the right to a specific date and the UCI can always rearrange the calendar as it wishes. We have always tried to keep the church in the middle. But then you still have the criticism of: this or that is not good. Maybe we should play it hard, will it be any good?”

Then you mean: no longer allowing other competitions in the relevant World Cup weekends?
“That’s possible. That is a possibility, yes.”

But then there will be more criticism. Mandating or banning, such as Lappartient’s statements about excluding riders from a World Cup, often hit the other parties hard.
“Absolute. That’s why I’m talking about the calendar. You really shouldn’t make strict regulations. You can arrange everything, just by filling in the calendar. But is that what everyone wants? I don’t think so either. Sometimes I don’t understand the riders very well. Certainly Lars van der Haar’s explanation. He was often very anti-World Cup in his statements. What should we do then? A concentrated World Cup with a round every Saturday and Sunday, from mid-December to the end of January? That is also possible.”

Plenty of solutions, it seems.
“Gosh, I have a lot of ideas, but I’m not alone either. I also have to explain everything to the UCI director committee. Why is this possible? Why would we do it this way? But I’m not going to announce that yet. If they read it in the media, nothing will come of it.”

Do you find the criticism from the riders and teams annoying?
“Sure, but that has always been the case in cyclocross. The cross is a very interesting and beautiful sport. Telegenic, fun for the spectators, compact. Yet in that small world there are always people who try to give their opinion. Often without well-founded arguments. That’s frustrating. When you later sit at the table with those same people, they say: but that was not the intention. But in the meantime, things are escalating in the media.”

Do you think the perception is too anti-UCI?
“Always. An international federation is like a government. Nobody likes government. It’s the same with us, but without UCI you have no cycling. We and Flanders Classics also want the best for the sport. When you see the energy Flanders Classics puts into the World Cup: it is real high level. Everything looks really professional thanks to them. And that also costs something, which makes it frustrating for them to read that negative criticism. Everyone can work together hand in hand and make the sport more beautiful. But sometimes it seems like people don’t want that in cross country.”

What do you think is the biggest sticking point in this whole discussion?
“In fact, the sport here in Flanders is so big and so entrenched that it has become too easy for top athletes. You hardly have to move. As a rider in our region you can leave at 10 a.m. in the morning. You drive to a World Cup in Belgium or the Netherlands, and in the evening you are already sitting on your couch at home. That has always been the unfortunate inconvenience of the Cyclocross World Cup.”

Are you advocating less or more spread between different countries and regions?
“Spread is important to us. That is why we have always suggested that the heats take place in the United States. But there has always been a lot of criticism about that too. So maybe we should change our tactics there. Don’t know. These are also matters that we discuss at Flanders Classics. Can one World Cup survive in America? Two is always better.”

Is it appropriate to organize in regions where the sport is not alive?
“I think the World Cup also has many international success stories. Benidorm, Dublin: all great proof that cyclocross is alive, also abroad. The difficulty lies in getting the riders there, without complaining: yes, now we have to travel back. If you watch the Mountain Bike World Cup, this year it starts in Brazil. Later you come back to Europe and at the end of the season you go to the United States. Three continents participate without complaint.”

Should the World Cup serve as an example?
“We haven’t figured that out yet. But what we see: in mountain biking, all the top riders go to all the heats. However, the prize money and starting money cannot be compared to the cross. In mountain biking it passes peanuts, while there is really a lot of money to be made in cross country at the moment. Especially among the ladies. There you will also see an international field of participants. The problem lies with men, but we can also anticipate that. It is abundantly clear that Hulst is a success story, just like Hoogerheide. Roubaix and Liévin were too. Those heats close to the borders will also continue to be an important part of the World Cup.”

However, the ambitions were great. New York, Johannesburg, London, Munich were mentioned as potential locations not long ago.
“City marketing remains an important factor that we want to respond to. There are a number of cities in England that would like to get in. A great example is the organizers of the Glasgow World Cup. They were disappointed that cyclo-cross was not part of the Super World Championship, and are interested in organizing a cyclo-cross in the future. The list of candidates at Flanders Classics is quite long, but again, the final vision will only be worked out at the World Cup.”

Listen to the WF Podcast about Van den Abeele’s statements from 1.05.

Listen to “Spicy UCI language around the World Cups and road enthusiasts can come out of hibernation” on Spreaker.