The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is facing criticism as it plans to utilize funds earmarked for cyclist safety to finance its legal defense against SRAM, a leading component manufacturer. This move creates a potentially contentious situation where teams sponsored by SRAM may inadvertently be contributing to litigation against their own benefactor. The dispute centers on the UCI’s attempt to implement a Maximum Gear Ratio Standard, intended to enhance rider safety, which SRAM has legally challenged.
The UCI initially sought to test the gear ratio standard at the 2025 Tour of Guangxi WorldTour race in China, believing limiting gear size could reduce crashes. However, SRAM filed an antitrust complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), arguing the rule unfairly disadvantaged its products and the riders who employ them. The BCA ruled in favor of SRAM, finding the UCI’s standard lacked objectivity and transparency, and negatively impacted the company. The UCI has announced its intention to appeal that decision.
Now, according to a summary note obtained by Cyclingnews and confirmed by multiple sources, UCI President David Lappartient requested financial support from stakeholders within the SafeR project to cover the costs of the appeal. SafeR, dedicated to improving safety in men’s and women’s road cycling, is funded through contributions from rider prize money, teams, race organizers, and the UCI itself.
The UCI has reportedly ring-fenced €300,000 (approximately $325,000 USD as of February 20, 2026) from the SafeR budget for its legal battle with SRAM and the Belgian Competition Authority. The impact of this allocation on other planned SafeR initiatives remains unclear. A manager from a WorldTour team with a SRAM sponsorship agreement expressed concern, stating, “They’re using funds from the teams to go against the team’s sponsor.”
The International Association of Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP) voted against the proposal to use SafeR funds for the legal battle. However, the Association of Professional Riders (CPA) and the International Association of Race Organisers (AIOCC) sided with the UCI, ensuring the decision was approved. This division highlights the differing perspectives within the sport regarding the UCI’s approach to safety regulations and its legal strategy.
Background of the Gear Ratio Dispute
The UCI’s proposed Maximum Gear Ratio Standard aimed to limit the distance covered per pedal revolution to 10.46 meters, equivalent to a 54×11 gear combination. The standard was initially based on a 28mm tire size, but concerns arose as teams increasingly utilize larger tires, potentially putting them in violation of the rule even with the same gear ratio. The SRAM cassette design, featuring a 10-tooth smallest sprocket, is directly affected by this regulation.
SRAM argued that the rule unfairly penalized its riders and hindered innovation. SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg stated in September 2025, “This protocol penalizes and discourages innovation and puts our riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage.” The company also pointed to instances of teams, such as Lidl-Trek, modifying their equipment to circumvent similar restrictions, raising questions about the practicality and fairness of the UCI’s approach.
Several teams, including Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, Movistar, Lidl-Trek, EF Education-EasyPost, and Visma-Lease a Bike, utilized SRAM components in 2025 and are considered stakeholders in the BCA’s verdict. Initially, all SafeR stakeholders, including SRAM, had approved testing of the gear ratio standard at the Tour of Guangxi.
UCI Considers Increased Control of SafeR
The lack of consensus among stakeholders prompted Lappartient to propose that the UCI assume greater control over the management of SafeR, reducing the influence of other parties. This proposal will be discussed at the next UCI Management Committee meeting this summer. The move signals a potential shift in the governance of the safety project and raises questions about the future direction of cycling safety initiatives.
The BCA’s ruling emphasized that the UCI’s standard did not meet the necessary requirements for objectivity and transparency. The UCI responded by expressing surprise at the intervention of a Belgian competition authority in a matter it considered within its purview, questioning the international authority of the BCA. “The UCI expresses its surprise at the intervention of a competition authority on a subject desired by all stakeholders of cycling,” read a UCI statement in October 2025.
The UCI has not yet responded to requests for comment on its funding strategy for the appeal. SRAM also declined to comment on the matter.
The decision to fund the appeal using SafeR resources is likely to fuel further debate about the UCI’s priorities and its relationship with component manufacturers. As the UCI prepares to challenge the BCA’s ruling, the cycling world will be watching closely to see how this legal battle unfolds and what impact it will have on the future of the sport.
What comes next is the UCI’s formal appeal to the BCA’s decision, a process that could take several months. The outcome will not only determine the fate of the gear ratio standard but also set a precedent for how the UCI addresses future technical regulations and their potential impact on the industry. Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.
