Dear Editor, I propose to you and your readers a reflection on the WorldTour system, on the future of Professional teams and on the prospects of Italian cycling.

I still remember when, in the early 2000s, I participated in Aigle, at the headquarters of the International Cycling Union, in the presentation of the ProTour project, which later evolved into the current WorldTour. At that time, I held the position of general manager of the Acqua & Sapone – Caffè Mokambo team of Palmiro Masciarelli.

More than twenty years have passed and professional cycling has undergone a profound transformation, both from a sporting perspective and from an economic and organizational one.

The recent statements by Bruno Reverberi, linked to Bardiani's difficulties in returning to the top thirty positions of the UCI world ranking, led me to reflect on an aspect that, in my opinion, deserves further examination. The problem is not the existence of a world ranking, but the possibility for all teams to compete for that ranking through sporting opportunities that are truly comparable.

Today men's professional cycling counts 18 WorldTour teams and 16 ProTeams. The former have guaranteed access to major international competitions, while Professional teams must plan their activities through calendars that also depend on invitations from organizers. It is clear that not all teams can face the season under the same conditions.

Some manage to participate in prestigious competitions, in which important UCI points are awarded. Others, in pursuit of the same objectives, are forced to plan trips to very distant countries, incurring significant costs and without necessarily having the same starting opportunities.

From this arises a very simple question: how can we use a single ranking to determine access to major events if teams do not have the opportunity to compete through a sufficiently uniform calendar?

I do not intend to question the merit of the results achieved, nor the role of organizers, who even before the birth of the ProTour have always exercised their discretion in assigning invitations.

However, I believe that in a system in which ranking also determines the possibility of receiving a wild card, it is appropriate to reflect on how to make the qualification process more balanced and transparent. One possible path could be the identification, within the already existing international calendar, of a group of reference competitions for Professional teams. I am not thinking of creating new races or a separate circuit, which would entail further organizational and economic difficulties.

Rather, I am thinking of a calendar identified by the competent bodies, using already existing events, predominantly ProSeries and other international competitions, in which ProTeams can find uniform participation criteria known before the start of the season.

Each team would naturally maintain the freedom to plan its activities based on available economic resources, sporting objectives and the sustainability of travel. But it would have before it a defined path, with comparable participation opportunities and a results system that can concretely contribute to qualification for major WorldTour events.

A model that could complement and integrate the current ranking, without necessarily replacing it.

In other sports, despite different characteristics, there are clearly identified sporting paths to access higher categories. Cycling does not necessarily need to replicate those systems, but could draw inspiration from them to make the growth path of teams more recognizable. It is not about asking for a guaranteed place, but about knowing through which results and which competitions that place can be conquered.

There is then a second aspect, equally important, which concerns the relationship between cycling, sponsors and territory. Not all companies that invest in this sport are multinationals with commercial interests distributed throughout the world.

There are business realities that operate primarily in their own national markets and that see major races in their own country as a fundamental opportunity for visibility. For an Italian sponsor, for example, participating in the Giro d'Italia can represent one of the main reasons for economically supporting a Professional team. The same principle can apply to a French team with respect to the Tour de France or to a Spanish team with respect to the Vuelta.

It is therefore important that the system knows how to take into account the value of national sporting realities, naturally in compliance with adequate economic, organizational and sporting requirements. When a company loses a credible prospect of visibility, the motivation to invest can also disappear. And when a sponsor abandons cycling, it is not just a brand on jerseys that is lost: there is a risk of losing a structure, jobs, professional skills and opportunities for many young riders.

Italian cycling has been living in a particularly difficult situation for several years as far as the presence of teams at the highest international levels is concerned. We have an extraordinary tradition, recognized professionalism and a sporting heritage that deserves to be valued.

But we must also ask ourselves what concrete prospects we are today able to offer to those who wish to invest in professional cycling. The UCI has already introduced some provisions to favor the participation of ProTeams in ProSeries competitions. It is an important signal, from which one could start to further develop a more structured qualification system.

I do not presume to indicate a definitive solution and I am aware of the complexity of the balances that regulate international cycling. However, I believe that, more than twenty years after the birth of the ProTour, it is legitimate to open a reflection on the evolution of the current model.

A reference Professional calendar, transparent access criteria and a recognizable sporting path towards major events could represent a starting point. Not to guarantee privileges to anyone, but to offer everyone the concrete possibility to compete to achieve their objectives.

Because sporting merit must continue to be the fundamental principle of cycling. But merit, to be truly recognized, must first have the opportunity to express itself.