Wout van Aert has signed a contract with Visma-Lease A Bike for eternity. Hes not alone as Chris Froome and Michael Woods are said to have retirement contracts meaning they can ride for their team as long as they wish. These are just some examples among several of long term contracts and theyre becoming increasingly common.As a concept its great to see longer deals for the stability and security they can signify. But, and theres always a but, the longer the contract, the more it gets broken. Soon we could see a new transfer market for riders as deals are broken and teams trade talent.To start with all neo-pros have to get two year contracts, the idea being that they need time to settle into the job and two seasons to prove their worth. Plenty start with longer deals with teams keen to attract and retain them. Here a smaller but relevant story out today is that of 17 year old Paul Seixas signing going from Decathlon-Ag2r La Mondiales junior team to the World Tour, skipping their U23 squad. Yes Seixas is very talented and has impressed but theres possibly a defensive component here. The team may quietly prefer to see him do a year in the U23s but they dont want to lose him to another pro squad who could dangle a big salary (remember they lost Matteo Jorgenson this way as he preferred to sign with Movistar rather than wait). Seixas is one of many neo-pros starting on a three year deal, longer than the regulatory minimum. Its been part of a trend towards longer contracts, anecdotally at least as duration isnt always published.One year deals, the minimum possible, are becoming rarer. One reason is if a rider moves teams then a single season probably isnt enough to show what theyve got. Teams sign riders earlier and earlier these days, gone are the days when the Tour de France rest day was a jobs fair. A lot of contracts for next year are written between March and May, plenty before. Yes theres a UCI rule about not signing before August 1 but pre-contracts are the way around. A rider on a one-year contract, or another with one year remaining, needs results early in the season to bump their value and capitalise on it; theyll lose bargaining power if not signed by the summer.Indeed core riders, the kind who are expected to start World Tour classics and do the Tour de France are signed up earlier and earlier. Its been common to field riders at the Tour de France who are staying with the team the following year. Some have been known to say to riders sign this renewal or you wont ride the Tour. In way this has turned a one year deal into a de facto 18 month deal, a two year into 30 months and so on.In the last few years weve had de jure longer contracts. Think of Egan Bernal at Ineos with a five year deal in January 2022 (weeks before his horror cash), more recently Carlos Rodriguez there on a four year deal. Many key riders are signed up until the end of 2028, think Jonas Vingegaard, Juan Ayuso or Mathieu van der Poel (not coincidentally the end of the three year World Tour cycle when big changes could be due; but thats another story). See the Womens World Tour too with Lotte Kopecky and Lorena Wiebes. Its usually star riders, but not always as stalwarts like Luke Rowe for Ineos or Rudy Molard chez Groupama-FDJ have been locked-in too. At IPT Sylvan Adams has been excited about Derek Gee to the point of signing him up until 2028.The Big Contract is Tadej Pogaar, the announcement of his renewal/extension with UAE is due. His existing one is interesting alone for the reported break clause of 100 million, as in if a team wants to hire him theyd have to pay UAE this sum. But if for some reason he had become really unhappy on the team, or even if he just wanted to move, it would probably go to arbitration. Clause, schmlause.Forever?Van Aerts news has a bit of spin given it is touted to be for eternity, which is long a time. Particularly for a team that was trying an emergency merger this time last year. A contract is as good as the house. Yes pro cycling teams are increasingly becoming durable franchises; but they are remain brittle. As said here before theres still no news on Lotto finding a replacement for Dstny; and if Evenepoel departs Soudal-Quickstep do the sponsors stay and pay? Inevitably for career contracts Van Aert was beaten by Mathieu van der Poel, the Dutchmans 10 year deal with Canyon bikes was announced earlier this spring.Chop n changeArguably the time to lock a rider into a long term contract is when theyre young and on the up. However Visma-LAB have several examples to show a contract isnt cast in concrete. See Cian Uijtdebroeks who changed teams over the winter after a brief saga, quitting Bora with a year left on his contract. Meanwhile in the opposite direction went Primo Rogli who was also under contract, until suddenly he wasnt. Staying with Visma-LAB we should see Johannes Staune-Mittet unveiled as a Decathlon-Ag2r rider in the coming days despite the Norwegian having signed a contract with the Dutch squad until the end of 2026. You probably get the picture by now, a contract isnt always what the headline says and having cited Visma, theyre not unique. Think of DSM and all the riders who have suddenly left before the end of their contract. Releases happen, especially if money greases the wheels.Small print + T&CsWe only see the headlines of duration and maybe the salary or an estimate appears in the media too. But contracts worth millions a year run to many pages and there can be all sorts of terms, conditions and more. That long deal could be conditional on achieving results, at least payments and bonuses can be.Duration riskIt might sound obvious that the longer the deal the more likely it is go in the shredder. A one year deal that turns sour probably only has a few months left to run and both sides can put it down to experience; a five year deal that becomes toxic needs to be confronted.Its this duration that allows for divergence. At the time of signing employer and employee are by definition satisfied with each other. The further things get from the day, the greater the chance of one side being frustrated with the other. A rider whose performance goes up a level might ask for more in return; by contrast if the same rider sustains result-altering injuries do the team keep on paying at the old rate or try to agree a settlement? And so on for many more scenarios, think of the criticism dished out to Julian Alaphilippe by his own employer at times.ConclusionThe longer the contract, the more likely it is to be modified or even broken. What well see next is the knock-on effect with a larger secondary market of contracts where teams can trade riders, for a fee of course. A contract may only be valid for as long as both sides want it to be so.The UCIs regulation of this is only just beginning, some rules were tightened after Uijtdebroekss case but this was just a tidy-up exercise rather than defining the market rules like we see in other sports, notably soccer. Plus as much as the UCI sets the rules for the sport, it cant get too far into employment regulation as this is a matter for the civil courts. For now it can only rely on joint agreements which like long term contracts can always be torn up.The post The Paradox of Long Contracts first appeared on The Inner Ring.