Cycling’s Power Struggle: Why the UCI Just Dealt a Major Blow to the Future of the Sport
A quarter of a billion euros. That’s the estimated investment riding on the ambitious ‘One Cycling’ project, a plan to overhaul professional cycling’s business model. But on Thursday, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) effectively put the project on ice, rejecting its bid for inclusion in the 2026 WorldTour calendars. This isn’t just a setback for teams like Visma-Lease a Bike and EF Education-EasyPost; it’s a pivotal moment that could reshape the future of professional cycling, forcing a reckoning with its financial structures and governance.
The Rise and Fall (For Now) of One Cycling
For months, whispers of One Cycling have circulated, promising a more stable financial future for teams and race organizers. The core idea, spearheaded by Visma-Lease a Bike manager Richard Plugge, revolves around collective bargaining for TV rights and a more equitable distribution of revenue. Currently, teams are heavily reliant on sponsorship, a volatile income stream. One Cycling aimed to provide a more predictable and substantial financial base, backed by significant investment from SURJ Sports Investment, linked to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF).
The UCI’s rejection, delivered alongside the confirmation of the 2026-2028 WorldTour calendars, was blunt. The project was deemed “incompatible with the governance and regulatory framework” and lacking “sporting coherence.” While the UCI left the door slightly ajar for future discussions, the immediate impact is clear: One Cycling, as currently conceived, cannot operate within the established structure of the sport’s premier events.
The Saudi Investment Controversy
The proposed investment, reportedly between €250-€300 million with payouts of €1 million for men’s teams and €250,000 for women’s teams, wasn’t the sole reason for the UCI’s hesitation. The source of the funding – Saudi Arabia’s PIF – raised significant ethical concerns. With a documented record of human rights abuses, including a surge in executions as reported by CNN, the involvement of Saudi money sparked accusations of sportswashing. The UCI, under pressure from various stakeholders, appears to have prioritized ethical considerations alongside its regulatory concerns.
What Does This Mean for the Future of Cycling?
The UCI’s decision doesn’t necessarily signal the end of reform in professional cycling, but it does highlight the challenges of disrupting a deeply entrenched system. Several potential scenarios could unfold:
- Alternative Calendar: One Cycling could attempt to establish a parallel calendar of events, independent of the WorldTour. However, without the prestige and visibility of the UCI-sanctioned races, its success is far from guaranteed.
- Negotiated Compromise: The UCI may be open to revisiting aspects of the One Cycling proposal, potentially incorporating elements of collective bargaining and revenue sharing within its existing framework.
- Status Quo: The sport could revert to its current model, with teams continuing to grapple with financial instability and reliance on sponsorship.
A Boost for Women’s Cycling Amidst the Turmoil
Interestingly, the UCI’s announcement wasn’t entirely negative. Significant improvements to the Women’s WorldTour calendar were unveiled, including a shift in dates for the Giro d’Italia Women to overlap with the men’s race, increasing media exposure. The addition of Dwars door Vlaanderen – À travers la Flandre to the calendar and a 20% increase in participation allowances for teams further demonstrate a commitment to growing the women’s side of the sport. This suggests the UCI is willing to embrace change, but on its own terms.
The future of professional cycling is at a crossroads. The rejection of One Cycling underscores the complex interplay of financial interests, ethical considerations, and governance structures. While the immediate future remains uncertain, one thing is clear: the sport needs a sustainable financial model to thrive. The UCI’s decision may have stalled one particular solution, but it has also opened the door for further dialogue and, hopefully, a more equitable and stable future for all involved.
What changes do you think are most crucial for the long-term health of professional cycling? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
