The performance difference between cheaper bikes and top end bikes won’t make the difference in being a successful cyclist.

Anyone can pick up a bike and start training and racing in competitions and be talent scouted in the same way that you would in football, it’s what happens here in Australia.

Yes a football is cheaper than a bike, but it’s not 0.0001% type stuff like Formula 1. Where you legitimately need to pay millions just to get a look in.

Theres plenty of people on $8,000 bikes I pass on my 8 year old bike worth $2,000.

Peter Sagan started career winning on Tesco bike that he took from his sister.

But I think most accessible sport is running. You just need some shoes. Open the door and you are good to go (run). For games like football you also need the ball, playground and other people.

At the top level of any sport, the expense comes from the coaching, exercise science, travel and other support over the course of years. That's true whether the game is cycling, or football. A $20,000 bike is peanuts in comparison to this cost. Unless you are at the top 0.001 percent of cyclists, better/more training has a much bigger impact than gear. $1,000 gets you a competitive road bike that you can win your local races with. Even cheaper if you buy used.

> From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.

This is what wealthy countries do as well. Most wealthy nations have programs to identify and develop top-level athletes. An obvious example being the very lucrative scholarships offered at American universities.

I've never seen so many young people on bikes in the UK as I do now. Sure, the bikes are likely stolen and the kids up to no good, but at least one of them has TdF potential

At levels lower than the very top, it's easier and cheaper to lose 10 pounds of your own body than 10 pounds of bike. You can go far - even into racing at low levels - on rather cheap equipment.

If you do well on a cheap bike in a local race someone will notice and start asking if you belong on a major team with money. The teams with money want to win, they cannot afford to keep out a poor person who otherwise is good.

I'm not sure how that's any different than football (soccer) or football (American) or anything else.

You need talent as a kid. You need money to fund travel and equipment (either from mom & dad, or the local academy/development squad, or donors). You need to find a coach who can get the most out of your genetics AND find a path for you to go pro. And on and on.

What makes the largest difference is how physically fit and how well you can ride (technique) rather than equipment.

Money can help in any sport, but talent and physical attributes trumps all. At least with cycling, people can cycle almost anywhere. Sports like golf are hard to break into if someone doesn't have money because rounds and practice almost always have ongoing costs.