This in response to McQuaid's logic as explained in a Velonews piece by John Wilcockson
If Pat McQuad would write his statements down, take 30 minutes to proof read them and then censor himself, he might be better off. If we go along with his pyramid metaphor even a cursory knowledge of world archeology would confirm that there are plenty of flat-top pyramid structures all around the world. In the business and administration of world cycling there's nothing inherently wrong with the UCI controlling a structure that only goes so far. Professional athletics has changed... and the patriarchal/feudal system espoused by the UCI no longer is in sync with the professional dynamic. Attempting to lay a guilt trip on the riders and teams who might entertain another vision for the sport is merely McQuaid protecting his own increasingly marginalized piece of turf.
A pro league might be the new start the sport needs, if and only if, the teams are prepared to address their own deficiencies when it comes to marketing and sponsor ROI. Cervelo was on the right track when they created their Test team vision. A team who's bottom line was broader than the top step of the podium. Manufacturers supply millions of dollars worth of product to teams and then go begging for access. Riding is only 50% of a professional cyclist's job description, the other 50% is serving the needs of sponsors. Watch a NASCAR post-race interview to see how it's supposed to be done.
All parties have a long way to go expand the sport's audience, revenue and rider benefits. I'm not convinced that taking the point of the pyramid away from the UCI is any riskier than the status quo
I think the American model of sponsorship is crass and insulting to the intelligence of the viewing / listening public. As they real of a shopping list degrades the skill and achievement of the individual. I understand that NASCAR driver could not get to the finish line without the car but the car is covered in the adverts of the sponsor.