If you think of Diegem as a USAC National Prestige criterium level event and Hofstade at the level of a US based UCI calendar road race, then we in the US do have the capabilities to organize events at these levels as described in this travelogue.

Many of the basic points of race organization noted in this travelogue have been already replicated in the US, as can be seen in the Verge Series in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, which are very much analogous to the Karcher Super Prestige Series. Kudos are due to Adam Meyers Hodge and others involved in the Verge Series for their excellent emulation of the Super Prestige concept in the US.

What we are missing are the spectators, media, and consequently the levels of sponsorship needed to fund logistics of the level of races in Belgium. Not all of the events in Belgium have live TV coverage, however they do have large masses of spectators, which has been built up over the ages through the cycling based culture, especially in Flanders. Additionally, the events seem to have the support of the local communities and thus local civil governments. I can only imagine that the merchants in Diegem benefit from the purchases from incoming spectator traffic.

As the saying goes, Rome was not built in a day, and Belgian cross culture evolved over many decades. Professionally, I’m a corporate commercial strategist. Thus, in the same commercial strategic mindset, the following is my two cents on growth strategies for events.

The first step is to understand what your event really is. When I am assigned as President to a new race, this is one of the questions I ask verbally of the head organizers. It’s the same question that leaders of a company or commercial enterprise must ask: what is my company or product? The recent emergence of US cyclocross races entering on the UCI international calendar reminds me of the same occurrence in the early to mid 90’s as many road events under went the same transition. And for the road events that have been on and off the international calendar, they too had to face this question of what are they, which is distinctly opposed to the question of what you want to be.

In relation to the road world, many of our cross events have evolved up from the stage of being "parking lot/industrial mall races". Organizers have found a property, likely a park or other public property, that the owners, usually a municipality, will permit a sporting event. Lots of plastic tape, plastic stakes, a basic sound system, motivated club members, a lot of lost sleep, and you have a cross race. This works.* All that really is needed is to ensure the course is safe for competitors and their support groups (see footnotes).

So if this works, why take the next step and do more? If the goal of the organizers is to have good race for competitors, eg. technically challenging, but safe racing, then most cross races that I’ve seen in the US meet this end. The courses are designed to maximize the technical challenges in a limited amount of land space that the organizers have been able to secure. Thus, most courses have a lot of zig-zags, doubling back, chicanes. The courses are good for racing and competition – however may not be the situation for developing a spectator base.

In the early 90’s, strategically it was important for the US to have road events on the UCI calendar so that US based riders could earn UCI points. These points were very important for establishing a rider’s value to professional teams, which were mostly European based. Thus, there was an initiative from USPRO to have more races enter the calendar.

In the mid-2000’s, the increase in US cross races entering the UCI calendar has allowed more of our riders to earn UCI points. However, these points do not have the same value to riders as they did for the PRO road races in the 90’s. Primarily, UCI cyclocross points become a start line position advantage tool, much like frequent flyer programs allow early boarding and premium position seats on planes. This advantage ultimately gives a rider better positioning for national or world championships, which for US riders are the biggest sources of sponsorship exposure.

To this end of having points, our current system in the US works with the races at the level they are at now. The top riders are now going onto a circuit that features UCI points, that allows these riders to earn better and better starting positions here and in Europe.

To the end of a professional circuit as I have described of the Belgian races, then our system is not there. A professional circuit generates enough income to support long-lasting enduring race organizations as well as teams of riders who can earn enough income to ride and train full time. (see Part II for more commentary on developing a professional level)