Cycling Esports for the elite: Where to from here?

Currently, I’m examining our current position, and I’m uncertain if our pathway is conducive to the sport’s success.

If I were to say, “Train like you did last year, but aim for an 80w FTP increase,” you might consider me crazy. Yet, in cycling esports, we often follow the same path, expecting different results.

Many consider accepting the UCI tick essential, but do we genuinely require their endorsement? As a board member for multiple sporting organizations, I believe their role in governance appears nonexistent.

Take F1 Esports, for instance. The FIA, the equivalent of UCI in cycling, governs it. However, the FIA provides clear rules and guidelines to Esports platforms, ensuring a coherent understanding of how to enforce regulations for global contests and events.

After that, the Esports platform takes charge, determining how to promote and manage their events and advertise and market their product, all within the framework of rules and regulations established by the FIA.

Similarly, we have the NZ Esports Federation in New Zealand, which focuses solely on esports. Guided by the International Federation of Esports, its mission is to represent, coordinate, and administer esports globally, raising awareness and ensuring open access to the sport.

So, why not embrace a Global Federation whose mission aligns better with ours than the UCI’s? I envision multiple World Championships each year, hosted on different platforms, allowing elite riders to showcase their skills and establish themselves as brands, potentially generating more interest in the sport.

For marketing, we’ve narrowed it down to one major event per year rather than four or five events annually. If MyWhoosh encounters technical issues or other issues during the Cycling Esports World Championships, it could be disastrous for the sport’s progression, possibly hindering its chances of inclusion in prestigious events like the Olympics.

The mishaps Zwift experienced during the Olympics highlighted the consequences of inadequate governance. Technical failures can jeopardize the event’s integrity without clear directives, rules, and safeguards.

The missed opportunity for Zwift at the Olympics highlighted the consequences of inadequate governance. The UCI could be held accountable in this scenario. 

What guidance did they provide to Zwift? Were there established rules and regulations to ensure the optimal presentation of the event? What criteria were set, such as bandwidth requirements or contingency plans, to safeguard against potential failures?

Each platform offers unique functionality, yet we must adhere to a single standard for annual races. It differs from gaming consoles like PS and Xbox, where identical games receive acclaim despite platform distinctions.

Each platform has multiple characteristics and features, so why are we compelled to conform to a single standard for an annual race to promote the sport? 

While we could argue that they are identical in terms of what’s required to race, such as pedaling a bike fast, the comparison between PS and Xbox is notable. Each brand embraces and celebrates the same game with identical features on these gaming consoles.

Hosting Championships on each platform wouldn’t be catastrophic if one encounters technical issues. It would still showcase Cycling Esports to the world, proving its credibility and resilience.

We need technical guidance and hardware solutions to enhance the sport’s credibility. While some platforms collaborate with manufacturers, others maintain the status quo, indicating a lack of direction from higher authorities.

Governance is crucial in addressing discrepancies like inaccurate wattage readings and ensuring competition fairness. Without it, platforms operate independently, which may hinder the sport’s future growth.

Once again, governance is precisely what’s lacking. Without it, each platform is simply doing its own thing, which may be great in the short term but poses challenges for the future. We witnessed the failure of the million-dollar race on MyWhoosh, much like Zwift did on the big stage. 

Could the failures of both platforms be attributed to a lack of rules and regulations? It’s entirely possible. If the events involved an Esports Federation, would it have possessed the technical insights necessary to ensure success if it had been in charge?

The recent improvements by Zwift demonstrate the benefits of a focused approach to platform development. Platforms can evolve beyond hosting single annual events by engaging the community and enhancing user experience.

Narrowing down marketing opportunities for all platforms is the worst possible scenario if esports are to survive and thrive. 

How can MyWhoosh improve its platform when all the focus is on one race a year? While they constantly make minor improvements, could they be much better?

Sorting out many things for the elite begins at the top. Establishing a Cycling Esports body with representatives from each platform responsible for advising the UCI or Esports Federation would ensure a clear and consistent directive for all involved in the sport. This body can determine verification procedures and criteria for running national championships or worlds on each platform. 

Only when the best entity presents a clear and accurate document to drive Esports forward will we see real progress in the elite arena. 

However, the most crucial question is, what’s the best and most recognizable racing series or league to focus on for growth? Is prioritizing elite racing premature when the hardware isn’t at the required level for credibility? 

The answers to these questions will become apparent as platforms take different paths.

By Kev Opele