No Men’s Slopestyle at Rotura ☹️

Great, really f’ed the fans on that one.
somewhat makes sense for the people that may never be in the money/podium. Are the riders given money to cover travel and lodging?

Edit: yes
IMG_6193.jpeg
 
Last edited:
From the rider statement, it sounds like this situation has been brewing behind the scenes for quite a while. Unfortunately, it came to a head at this event.

World Cup riders have similar complaints. In theory, WBD is making money off broadcast rights for these events. Some of that money should be going to the competitors. Personally, I would be more apt to spend the money on a Max subscription to watch the World Cup if I knew some of that not insubstantial money was going to the riders.
 
From the rider statement, it sounds like this situation has been brewing behind the scenes for quite a while. Unfortunately, it came to a head at this event.

World Cup riders have similar complaints. In theory, WBD is making money off broadcast rights for these events. Some of that money should be going to the competitors. Personally, I would be more apt to spend the money on a Max subscription to watch the World Cup if I knew some of that not insubstantial money was going to the riders.
Just like the Spotify subscription $ that goes to the actual artist? They’ll see .0000001% of the revenue.
 
Just like the Spotify subscription $ that goes to the actual artist? They’ll see .0000001% of the revenue.

Works a bit differently - royalties are "negotiated" across industry.
If the song plays more than 6 seconds, the rights holder gets paid.

from the internet

In 2023, Spotify paid out $9 billion to music rightsholders, which is 63% of its annual revenue.


Spotify argued that if we listen to the same song, royalty is only owed once - doesn't matter about proximity.
Akin to purchasing a record and having a listening party at @jmanic's house.

Apple music match is different too - I own the rights, I'm just paying apple to house the music in a cloud jukebox for me.

Different from apple music/Amazon music/Pandora/sxm - which is more like Spotify

Cloud players for these services in commercial establishments pay considerably more.

Terrestrial radio (AM/FM) does not pay royalties. Their argument is that nobody would hear the songs if they didn't play them.
Since they don't charge for their broadcast, there should be no cost to them.
 
Works a bit differently - royalties are "negotiated" across industry.
If the song plays more than 6 seconds, the rights holder gets paid.

from the internet

In 2023, Spotify paid out $9 billion to music rightsholders, which is 63% of its annual revenue.


Spotify argued that if we listen to the same song, royalty is only owed once - doesn't matter about proximity.
Akin to purchasing a record and having a listening party at @jmanic's house.

Apple music match is different too - I own the rights, I'm just paying apple to house the music in a cloud jukebox for me.

Different from apple music/Amazon music/Pandora/sxm - which is more like Spotify

Cloud players for these services in commercial establishments pay considerably more.

Terrestrial radio (AM/FM) does not pay royalties. Their argument is that nobody would hear the songs if they didn't play them.
Since they don't charge for their broadcast, there should be no cost to them.
Totally off topic but the terrestrial comparison is BS. There is no concept of on demand on the radio.
 
Just like the Spotify subscription $ that goes to the actual artist? They’ll see .0000001% of the revenue.
I would argue a closer analogy would be the NFL or even F1 where teams get a percentage of broadcast revenue. One reason why making the playoffs is such a big deal: mo' money. And in F1, the better the team finishes at the end of the season, the more money they get.
 
I would argue a closer analogy would be the NFL or even F1 where teams get a percentage of broadcast revenue. One reason why making the playoffs is such a big deal: mo' money. And in F1, the better the team finishes at the end of the season, the more money they get.
Sounds like you should be negotiating on behalf of the riders. 😁

All I know is that the women's competition was (not) awesome. It was like watching the amatuer class of men's slopestyle, circa 2001.
 
Sounds like you should be negotiating on behalf of the riders. 😁

All I know is that the women's competition was (not) awesome. It was like watching the amatuer class of men's slopestyle, circa 2001.
Perhaps... but without knowing the actual figures involved, it's really just speculation. The general lack of open discussion has also been an issue with the WC racers.

Unfortunately, I agree with you about women's slopestyle. It was great to watch the first ever World Tour women's comp, but as a spectator event that's fun to watch it still has a way to go. But given what women in gymnastics can physically do, I would say it's just a matter of time. Apparently, the women who had to pull out after injuring herself during Speed & Style is on another level compared to the rest of the women, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
I would argue a closer analogy would be the NFL or even F1 where teams get a percentage of broadcast revenue. One reason why making the playoffs is such a big deal: mo' money. And in F1, the better the team finishes at the end of the season, the more money they get.
You’re going to compare F1 and the NFL to Slopestyle? :) The first 2 bring in Billions (with a B). The Slopestyle guys were will to settle for the price of a Tacoma. I don’t think there’s that much $ floating around
 
You’re going to compare F1 and the NFL to Slopestyle? :) The first 2 bring in Billions (with a B). The Slopestyle guys were will to settle for the price of a Tacoma. I don’t think there’s that much $ floating around
Of course, we're dealing with a level of money with far fewer zeros, but the general concept is the same. It's a bit of a chicken-egg situation.

In many ways, mtn bike cycling events have never strayed far from their amateur participation roots.
 
Back
Top Bottom