Gennaio 12, 2026
After years of consulting with European cycling brands and hosting conversations with industry leaders on The Business of Cycling podcast, I’ve observed a fundamental disconnect between European assumptions and American market realities. The brands that succeed aren’t necessarily those with superior products—they’re the ones who recognize that the US isn’t simply a larger version of their home market.
The traditional wisdom suggests that established European brands should leverage their reputation through traditional distribution. Yet many of the EU-to-US expansion success stories I’ve witnessed in recent years have avoided this path.
Consider the mathematics: A European brand operating through traditional US distribution faces a compound disadvantage. Where their domestic operations might sustain healthy margins at 2.2x markup, the US market demands 2.8-3.2x simply to break even after accounting for import duties, extended payment terms, and the costly infrastructure of returns and warranty support. This isn’t a pricing problem—it’s a structural impossibility.
The irony is striking: European brands often produce superior products at lower costs, yet find themselves priced above American competitors who manufacture in higher-cost facilities. The distribution layer doesn’t just add cost; it inverts the natural competitive advantage.
What catches European executives off-guard isn’t just the distribution complexity—it’s the operational cost reality that only becomes apparent after commitment. A competent digital marketing manager who costs €45,000 in Munich or Barcelona commands $120,000 in Denver or Portland. A customer service team that operates efficiently in Amsterdam at €35,000 per representative requires $65,000 per person in Austin.
This isn’t simply wage inflation—it’s a fundamental different labor market. The same talent pool that European cycling brands compete for in the US includes tech companies, outdoor industry giants, and venture-backed startups. You’re not just hiring a marketing manager; you’re competing with Specialized, Trek, and every direct-to-consumer startup that’s raised Series A funding.
The advertising cost differential is equally stark. Where a European brand might achieve sustainable customer acquisition at €30-40 through targeted campaigns in their home markets, the same brand faces $75-100 CAC in the US market. Meta and Google’s algorithm optimization, refined by massive US advertising spending, creates a pay-to-play environment where monthly advertising budgets under $50,000 barely register. I’ve watched European brands burn through their entire annual marketing budget in three months, achieving less reach than they get in Italy with a tenth of the spend.
Perhaps the most counterintuitive insight from my work with European brands: those maintaining European production for the US market are increasingly the exception, not the rule.
Premium European brands are establishing partnerships with Mexican facilities, maintaining design and quality control while dramatically reducing landed costs. Others are creating US-specific product lines manufactured in Asia, reserving European-made products for limited, high-margin offerings.
This shift isn’t just about tariffs and logistics—it’s about offsetting the crushing operational costs of US market presence. When your US team costs 2.5x your European team and your advertising spend yields half the return, the only variable left to manipulate is cost of goods. The brands succeeding aren’t those protecting European manufacturing purity; they’re those willing to sacrifice origin story for survival mathematics.
European brands often approach US expansion with 18-24 month success metrics. This timeline reflects European market dynamics where established distribution networks and cultural proximity enable relatively rapid scaling.
The US market operates on a different clock. Every successful European brand I’ve worked with has required 3-5 years to achieve sustainable profitability, and that’s with strategies optimized for speed over tradition. The brands attempting traditional distribution models often never reach profitability, burning through investment capital while waiting for wholesale orders that never materialize at sustainable margins.
This temporal mismatch creates a vicious cycle. Pressure for quick returns drives brands toward traditional wholesale (promising faster revenue), which increases costs and extends the path to profitability, which increases pressure for quick returns. Meanwhile, the monthly burn rate—inflated by US personnel and advertising costs—creates a ticking clock that most European boards don’t anticipate.
After dozens of these conversations and engagements, I’ve reached an uncomfortable conclusion: the US market may be fundamentally incompatible with traditional European cycling brand economics.
The successes I’m witnessing aren’t really European brands expanding to America—they’re European companies creating American brands that happen to leverage European heritage. The distinction isn’t semantic. It represents a fundamental shift in thinking from market expansion to market creation.
The brands thriving in the US have accepted what many still resist: American consumers don’t want European products at European prices with European service. They want American solutions that incorporate European innovation. The successful European brands aren’t those exporting products—they’re those importing capabilities and reimagining them for American realities.
The brands finding success have developed a radically different approach:
They’re hiring lean, remote-first US teams rather than building traditional offices. They’re partnering with US agencies rather than expanding internal marketing departments. They’re using marketplace fulfillment (Amazon FBA, 3PL partners) rather than establishing their own warehouse infrastructure. Every decision is filtered through a simple question: how do we achieve US market presence without US market costs?
Most importantly, they’re accepting that US success might look completely different from European success. Lower margins, different products, alternative channels—these aren’t compromises but requirements.
The question facing European cycling brands isn’t whether the US market is worth pursuing—with its scale and enthusiasm for cycling, it clearly represents enormous opportunity. The question is whether brands are prepared to do what success actually requires: building an American business, not just extending a European one.
The brands that will define the next decade of EU-to-US success won’t be those with the richest heritage or the most innovative products. They’ll be those willing to challenge every assumption about how a European cycling brand should operate, recognizing that what got them success in Munich or Milan—including their cost structure advantages—may be precisely what prevents it in Minneapolis or Miami.
The math is sobering: higher personnel costs, higher advertising costs, higher distribution complexity, and increasingly, pressure on pricing from both Asian imports and US domestic brands. The path forward isn’t through traditional expansion but through fundamental reimagination.
Like this content? Sign up for the ‘Business of Cycling’ newsletter and receive updates right in your inbox.
