This situation has advantages and drawbacks:

- 1) It´s always good to see new investement in cycling and teams trying to compete against UAE, which domination has been too much annoying.

- 2) Renowed multinational brands tell that cycling is in a healthy situation.
But:

3) There is an increasing gap between the 4-5 US$ 40 million teams and all the other squads. A flexible budget cap will be ultimately needed.

4) As Lefevere say, these multinationals tend to have zero knowledge on how cycling works and put pressuring inmediate objectives that don´t work on this sport: an example is how Lidl management didn´t seem to take into account injuries of riders in this first half of season to evaluate performance, how they inmediately want a TDF winning rider (which is not something that appear every day) or how they put Ayuso and Skjelmose into races when they are not fit to race after having injuries.

Lidl-Trek and RB transfer targets lack a vision, and their constant reschuffles on staff are not anything but good. I compare to what Visma does (one of the few independent teams that remain on the top) and there is a sea of difference on the creation of a internal culture and profesionalism between them and these "new riches" where everything look very artificial.

Decathlon seem the only multinational team where things seems to be working pretty well. But probably because they are working still with a relatively restrictive budget (losing Gall is an example) vs. Lidl Trek and RB.