Class & division in cycling

There was quite a stir when this story was published a while ago, although I think the issues mentioned (and then some) are even more applicable now within general society on the while and in particular within cycling. In Europe cycling was always a working class sport, something which remains true at the competitive end (to a large degree) but which has drastically changed overall, where it is very much a middle class and expensive pastime these days, much as it’s always been in many countries outside of Europe, which is a conversation I’ve had with many a top ride from Colombia to Iran and back via Australia and the USA - it’s strange how we assume things to be the same in other countries, when it’s often the complete opposite.

There are a number of issues that are guaranteed to raise eyebrows and ire, one in particular being social class and the perceived ever-growing divide between rich and poor.

Sure enough there have always been social and financial divides in society, and while over time many have made the struggle up that slippery social ladder, the rungs in the middle do seem to be spaced ever further apart these days, including within cycling.

As a sport cycling, for the most part, was always seen as a working class sport, and even more so in nations without a great depth of cycling history and culture to fortify and give it credibility – in countries such as the UK and Australia.

The UK cycling scene was very much a working class dominated and underground sport, where those of a middle class standing rarely ventured, and when they did so were perhaps not made as openly welcome as they could or should have been. It was a rough and tough scene, where there was once very little hope of ever making cycling a viable career option. The openings were simply not there, and the funding to attempt it as a privateer was way beyond the bounds of the average working class rider – not to mention the lack of support from a society hardly aware that the sport existed. In fact, when approaching one sports editor at a daily newspaper he laughed in my face “It’s a joke sport” came his reply, oh how his words have changed.

As with so many sports cycling was also often seen as something that required inherent hardship and a hunger to survive, and those with a more privileged background were thought to simply not be tough enough. As much as this may grind many gears, there is still a grain or two of truth in their; most of the great riders of the past came from humble or tough  backgrounds, and they really had to fight against huge odds to make their way – much as the majority of the Colombian riders still do today.

Fast-forward to somewhere around 2008 and things begun to change in the UK, largely down to the Olympic success achieved on the velodrome. Four years on and against overwhelming cultural odds cycling had hit the big time on the island, and everybody was suddenly a cyclist, and an expert on the subject. It really did happen virtually overnight, and in no small part down to the achievements of Bradley Wiggins, a devout working class hero who appealed to the masses and all social classes.

At that time they used to say that cycling was the new golf, which never struck a cord with me. Although there’s little doubting the fact that its social status was raised higher than the clubhouse roof with one huge birdie racking putt. This swift status ramping changed the very foundations of cycling forever – globally.

The days of hand-me-down bikes and hand-crafted kit were long gone. It was $250 Rapha shorts and $10,000 Pinarello’s all the way. Cycling became an expensive buy in sport, and one that was pushed way beyond the financial means of many. Now, naturally this has its benefits – we all like plush shorts, designer shoes and fast bikes, but we can’t all afford them.

From working class to middle class in the blink of a yellow jersey and a bag full of Olympic bling, the wedge was hammered through social structure of the established the cycling world. 

Yes, this rapid turnaround is largely MAMIL and MAWIL driven, and who knows how long it will last, and what has been the cost to the health of the sport in general?

With cycling being far more highly equipment driven than it once was this boom has escalated technological growth, and that leans very much towards the upper end of the financial scale. Clearly most recent bikes and gear are aimed at the prime end of the market, and who can blame manufacturers for that? Make a new version every year and its bingo at the factory. 

The obvious downside of this is the rapidly increasing cost factor of cycling has caused a gaping divide within the sport, and priced or deterred many younger (and older) riders from taking up cycling. This in turn has impacted directly on the numbers of U18 and U16 riders lining up to ride and race, the very riders the sport needs to survive in the not so long term.

There’s no way to turn the clocks back, and few of us would want to go back to the days of woollen shorts and hand me down and over-sized steel frames (dating from the time when every day was Eroica day), but surely, at grass roots the playing field does need to be levelled some before that grass simply fades away.

You can’t really put a price restriction on racing gear for younger riders, but somewhere in there some form of balance needs to be found to allow things to flourish on a more even footing, There needs to be a base level where a regular kid can turn up, ride, race and have a crack at the whip without that huge financial buy in and maintenance factor. 

They don’t have to be of Olympic calibre, most of us aren’t - the sport would be so much richer for the narrowing of that divide.