As a repeat of the end of Part I:

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.

I was told that the Diegem event costs about 4MM francs belge (a currency that no longer exists, but I translate that to be about $120,000-$130,000). Vervecken described to La Dernier Heure, a major Belgian sports newspaper, that the event in his town costs a "some" hundreds thousands Euros to organize ("quelques 100.000 Euros"). I can only suppose that the World Cup at Hofstade costs over $200,000 to organize. In both these events, the gate receipts help offset some of the organizational costs. Both are broadcasted live to an audience that I would guess may number in the high tens of thousands of households (Dutch/Flemish language television that would be received in Belgium, Holland). These dollars and audiences are peanuts compared to the Tour de France or even the Tour of Georgia. However, they are enough to support a healthy professional cross circuit in Belgium.

Most of our cyclocross events, if not all, need to have high rider attendance, which results in race entry income as the main source to fund their events. Thus, our better events have a few to several hundred competitor entrants. I noted to my Belgian colleagues as another main difference in our two countries events is that our field are much, much larger. I suspect the number of recreational to competitive cross riders in the US is much higher than in Belgium.

Income at our cross events is supplement by sponsorship, primarily from the cycling industry. Look at the signage at a cross race. What industry do these company and brand names come from? Now, look at the photos on this website. The signage in Belgium features brands and companies which are consumer products or services, as opposed to cycling industry specific. The spectators and television audience in Belgium are consumers and customers of major product and services as opposed to bike racing family and friends.

Why are our cross races not good candidates for receiving this type of broader based sponsor support? One might say that we don’t have television at our events, but there are many road events that have sponsorship income in the low six-figures without television. They have broad based community support, as do the Belgian cross races, and have broad based spectator pull too.

Let’s go back to the goal setting exercise of what is your event. If it’s a sporting event for competition, that’s one thing. If it’s an event for spectators and generating audiences, that features a sporting aspect that is another thing – that’s very different from the first statement. US cross races are the former at this time.

For the latter goal, I would propose that an event would need to be fundamentally designed differently. Our courses are designed for competition as opposed for the spectating. We maximize the course length and technical difficulty within a confined area.

Although both Diegem and Hofstade were basically loops, other courses in Belgium have overlaps using man-made bridges to form figure eights within the course. They all share in common that spectator access is maximized. The course design at these events allowed more spectators and more access of spectators to most of the course. Many of our events do not lend to spectators being able to walk a safe lane next to most of the course and their locations don’t invite people to do so, eg. scenic or other intrinsic value.

These races are also placed in locations with sufficient spectator parking that is accessible to the race course. In addition, these locations also have on-site facilities to host the permenance, have public toilets, have dressing room and shower facilities for the riders, and water and electrical outlets to run hoses and extension cords into the pit.

The ideal locale in the US to fit this model would be a academic campus, eg. high school or college or middle school, or a fair grounds off season, eg. the Renaissance Fair in New York. The former are sure to have showers, dressing rooms, and offices open in the winter months. The latter are set up for large crowds and have generally interesting terrain that spectators may wish to hike around.

Following this model, the first step is to ensure the spectator attractiveness of the events. Note the two web pages of this site dedicated to spectator support. To achieve crowds beyond mere hundreds, spectators need to be more than just the family or friend of a rider at the race. So why would the typical sports fan or family want to come to an event? It needs to be competitive to other recreational options. Why do people come to the local 4^th of July fireworks? It’s a family outing with things to do with friends and family. Races with large spectator bases usually have either developed a community tradition, or have large pre-race publicity and media efforts. These two races in Belgium have evolved into community festivals, where one brings the family for an outing or goes with friends like a giant sports bar.

So is your event spectator appealing and spectator friendly? Who’s going to come? Likely a family. What family things are there at the event other than the race? What are the food specialties at the event? How easy is it to get to the event from the parking lot? How easy is it to get to the parking lot, period, from major civilization? How’s the signage for people to find where they are going? Is there any welcome area to let people know what to look at or where to go? When they walk around the course, will they know what is going on in the race, eg. sound systems at more than one spot?

The second step, and a corollary of the first step, is to simultaneously ensure competitor safety at the same time. To this end, one must have sufficient organizational infrastructure. These two events in Belgium operated with more than 140 volunteers each. We don’t need this many volunteers as most of the people are used for crowd control. However, many of our races don’t have enough volunteers to ensure each of four minimum spectator course crossings have two crossing guards each who stay at post through out the UCI Junior, Women, and Mens races. I said to Peter Van Den Abbeele that the number one thing I have learned at these races is that we can improve upon in the US is spectator control. Although we don’t have the crowds the size of these races, yet, the crowds we do have still need better control measures.

To ensure sufficient organizational infrastructure, the organizing committees in Europe are composed of people with decades of experience and thus provide continuity of operating experience. Events in the US are often driven by the passion, soul, and sweat of one or two individuals. Once these individuals tire, burn out, or become financially strapped, the event dies and so does the organizational operating experience. This phenomena has been noted in Europe, as exemplified by comments that Roger Legeay (directeur sportif of Lemond on the Z team and of the current Credit Agricole team) made to me last winter, as he has seen so many races come and go in the US over the last twenty years. A succession plan of race organization lead would need to be created. I see this type of organization in place at the Gran Prix de Beauce, where the president of the race organizing committee changes every two or so years. This helps prevent burn out.

The next level of augmentation would come in form of community involvement. As noted in other travelogues, I’ve seen at Belgium road races the cooperatives of clubs to organize races (note the plural). This allows small clubs to have the manpower of large organizations. They share help at each others races. The two races in Rhode Island this year, WE Stedman and Casters, had two clubs helping each other. To organize a race the size of Diegem, several clubs would need to combine and coordinate. The Tour de France goes to the extreme by having the "Friends of the Tour de France" organization to help provide a constant flow of volunteers (see Tour de France travelogues).

The cyclocross race in Diegem for sure had the support of the town of Diegem, which shut down for the day. I suspect that 10,000 spectators led to many race day purchases from local merchants. I certainly contributed with my patisserie purchases in the morning and the evening along with the lunch I bought. The mayor of the town was the official starter and the course encompassed most of the town.

So is there a US locale that has a civil government looking for an off-season means to bring in out of town, out of state spectator traffic that would offer the facilities needed to house a Diegem level event?

The fourth step is the overall public relations and media generation of the sport and the events within the sport. Spectators don’t come in the first years of an event because of word of mouth. They come because they have seen the event advertised. The first year of the NYC Invitational, Threshold Sports blitzed the NYC metro area with advertising – radio spots, large posters at the train stations, ads in the local papers. It didn’t hurt either having LA coming on a Concord jet post-Tour de France. The petite crit course was maxed with spectators at 150,000 with NYC police turning spectators away from getting to the course because of the over-sized crowds. In my 15 years living in the NYC metro area, this by far was the largest cycling promotion in the metro area, far exceeding the crowds gathered for the start of the Tour de Trump in front of the Trump Plaza in 1989.

Granted, LA was making his only US appearance after the Tour, however the locale lent itself for tourism. The course was held in the abandoned areas of Wall Street, which are dead on the weekends. South Seaport was a major attraction within walking distance and plenty of dining and drinking options for the spectators, with major public transportation options to get to the course.

Scaling down this concept, we don’t have, yet, the LA of cyclocross. After seeing Geoff Procter’s Euro Camp in action, we will over time. I think his program and one’s like it are the best endeavors to make a high level Belgian cross event possible in the US. Why? Look at the road model. When I started in cycling out west, the largest crowds were seen at Nevada City and North Boulder Park, 20,000-50,000 in size. We know see a half million in Philly and San Francisco, with the climb up Brass Bald Mountain in North Georgia looking as crowded as an Alp pass during the Tour de France. How did the professional road circuit develop so well over the past twenty years?

This is my hypothesis --- as our riders from the 84 Olympics era, mostly on the 7-Eleven team, began to gain more and more experience and fame in European road races. As they returned to the US to race, they brought this fame and also helped teach the newer generations how to be competitive at the Euro levels. This return of the "heroes" effect did two things: publicity value for events that so and so who won races in Europe is riding at this event; and the quality of the top domestic teams tactics and training improved leading to better quality racing.

We see the same effect in Australia. The success from their initial national team turned Euro pro in the mid-90’s has produced a new batch of Aussie successes fueled by the program by their national coach to place riders into continental pro teams in Europe. Their top riders are very essential in helping promote Oz’s top pro race, the Tour Down Under. These riders give back to the sport through publicity and helping train new riders.

If this model holds true for American cross, it behooves our organizers to work closely with the riders that are achieving successes in Europe to work synergistically on promoting interest in the sport and key event in the US. If our riders only come back from European success and make demands on our organizers, then US cross will not grow as has the road-side of cycling. Likewise, the organizers here need to reach out to these riders for collaboration.

An intermediate strategy that has been initially employed is to bring a stream of European pro’s over to the US. The USPRO championships at Philly, Dupont, and Tour of Georgia have all employed this strategy to gain publicity. In two years that I can think of, one Euro pro (an Italian, and then a Belgian) in each of those years was brought over. There needs to be a more consistent stream and more than one. A few up and coming U23’s from Belgium and Holland, and possibly the Czech Republic, (the leading cross nations), would add spice to our circuits. Local media only needs to know that these are up and comers in the Euro circuit to play up the publicity and they’ll go head to head with our best. To help entice the Euro U23’s, the UCI points are nice, but their media is better. A consortium of organizers here could invite over the Flemish sports press. Key sports writers from Flanders and Holland would love to come over here to cover the growing cross phenomena and the U23’s from their neighborhoods that have come over. The sponsors of these Euro U23’s would love the exposure.

That’s my two cents worth, for what it’s worth. I appreciate your consideration.