Ethics CasesSport

Cases · UCI · 2023–2026

Who Owns Pro Cycling? The Fight Over Rights and Reform

In professional road cycling, race organizers own their events' commercial and media rights. In 2023, a group of teams and organizers proposed One Cycling, a project reportedly backed by a company owned by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, to restructure the calendar and pool broadcast rights. In June 2025, the UCI rejected it as incompatible with its governance and lacking sporting coherence. In 2026, the UCI ran a consultation that found broad support for consolidating commercial and media rights with a solidarity mechanism, and for financial fairness measures among teams, though stakeholders disagreed on details. The case asks how revenue and power should be shared in a sport where organizers, teams and riders depend on each other.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. One Cycling is announced, led by a WorldTour team manager with support from other teams.
  2. The UCI Management Committee unanimously declines to include One Cycling in the WorldTour calendars.
  3. The UCI president warns teams and organizers that pursuing the project could cost them licences and calendar places.
  4. WorldTour team Arkéa-B&B Hotels misses the 2026 registration deadline without a sponsor and folds.
  5. The UCI confirms the 2026–2028 WorldTour teams, including a Lotto–Intermarché merger.
  6. Plugge warns of a 'downward spiral'; a separate reform push led by two billionaire team owners is reported.
  7. The UCI launches its 'Future of Road Cycling' consultation.
  8. The UCI publishes a summary of 55 contributions; reports say it favors voluntary pooling for existing races.
  9. Initial orientations are due at the WorldTour seminar in Benidorm.

The ethical issues

  • Fair distribution of revenue between organizers, teams and riders.
  • Influence of state-linked investment funds in sport.
  • Governing body control versus stakeholder-led reform.
  • Financial fairness and competitive balance among teams.
  • Rider safety as part of the economic model.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Race organizersTheir media and commercial rights.
Teams and sponsorsFinancial stability and revenue sharing.
RidersPay, safety and career stability.
The UCIRegulatory authority and growth of the sport.
InvestorsReturns and influence.
Fans and broadcastersCoherent calendars and coverage.

The case

Professional road cycling is popular across five continents, but the UCI itself has said its media exposure and revenue “do not yet fully reflect its potential.”[2] Unlike leagues that pool and share broadcast money, cycling’s biggest asset, its races, belongs to the organizers who stage them. Teams, which carry most of the cost of the sport’s labor, depend almost entirely on sponsors. Reform proposals have centered on who controls and shares commercial and media rights, and on who gets to decide.

Background

The fragility of the team model is not hypothetical. On October 15, 2025, the WorldTour team Arkéa-B&B Hotels reached the deadline to register for a 2026 licence with no sponsor. Its two title sponsors had said that summer they would not continue. “I haven’t submitted anything because I don’t have anything,” its manager told AFP. He had spent months looking for an estimated €20–30 million. Cyclingnews reported that all 150 employees, including 52 riders across three squads, had been told the teams would fold after 21 years.[7] When the UCI confirmed its 2026–2028 WorldTour teams in December 2025, Arkéa-B&B Hotels and Cofidis were out and Lotto had merged with Intermarché.[8]

One Cycling was announced in October 2023, led by Richard Plugge, general manager of the Visma–Lease a Bike team, with support from other WorldTour teams.[1] Velo reported that Visma–Lease a Bike, EF Education–EasyPost, Soudal Quick-Step and race organizer Flanders Classics were linked to the project.[5] It proposed restructuring the calendar into a league and pooling broadcast rights to help teams’ financial stability.[1] Cyclingnews reported that SURJ Sports Investment, controlled by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, was expected to finance it with a €250 million investment and to pay €1 million a year for three years to men’s teams and €250,000 to women’s teams.[4] Velo noted that the financing model was controversial because of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.[5]

Plugge said: “This isn’t about creating a Super League; it’s about working together.”[1] Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme countered that “everywhere and every time cycling has tried to transform itself solely with money, it has failed.”[1] Cyclingnews reported that the Tour’s organizer, ASO, preferred to back the UCI’s own reform plans.[6]

The rules and governance

The UCI sanctions the WorldTour and Women’s WorldTour, deciding which races are on the calendars and which teams receive licences. Team licences run for three-year cycles and are assessed on ethical, financial, organizational, administrative and sporting criteria, with promotion and relegation based on UCI points.[8] Calendar decisions are made by the UCI Management Committee after votes of its Professional Cycling Council (PCC).[4]

The rejection

On June 12, 2025, the Management Committee, “following the PCC’s vote in this direction,” unanimously declined “as it stands” to include the One Cycling project in the calendars. It said the project, “developed by certain teams and organisers, in collaboration with a sports investment fund, was deemed incompatible with the governance and regulatory framework of the UCI as well as lacking sporting coherence.” The UCI added that it welcomed new investors and wished to continue discussions.[4][5] It also locked in existing WorldTour races for the 2026–2028 cycle, with new applications evaluated in 2028 for possible inclusion from 2029.[5]

In July 2025, UCI President David Lappartient sent a letter, obtained by Cyclingnews, to WorldTour teams and organizers and to SURJ leadership. He wrote that the proposed joint venture would “de facto take over authority to determine a hierarchy among events” and enable its members “to impose their terms on other stakeholders,” which “gives rise to serious sporting – and potentially competition – concerns and creates a potential conflict of interest.” He warned that pursuing the project without authorization could lead to withdrawal of races from the calendars, and that the UCI Licence Commission “may order the withdrawal” of team licences.[6] Cyclingnews reported that One Cycling had shared its business plans only under non-disclosure agreements and that at least one team manager believed the project was in jeopardy.[6]

What the UCI did instead

At the same June 2025 meeting where it turned down One Cycling, the Management Committee adopted its own, smaller measures on how money and places are shared. The UCI’s release said that every race already on the 2025 WorldTour calendars would keep its status, subject to the regulations, for the 2026–2028 cycle. It said that, from 2026, Grand Tour organisers “must invite the three top UCI ProTeams” in addition to the 18 WorldTeams and two wild cards, following an earlier decision to add a 23rd team. The three best ProTeams would also be guaranteed places in every WorldTour stage race.[9] For women’s racing, it approved “a significant increase (+20%)” in the participation allowance that Women’s WorldTour organisers pay to Women’s WorldTeams, and more hotel rooms paid for by organisers of stage races.[9]

The same release reported the UCI’s own finances. Its 2024 result was 25.9 million Swiss francs, mainly because of its Olympic revenue from Paris 2024, investment returns and cost controls. Its reserves “far exceed” a minimum target of 20 million francs.[9] Teams, by contrast, still depended almost entirely on sponsors.[10]

The pressure for deeper change did not go away. In January 2026, Visma–Lease a Bike chief executive Richard Plugge said cycling was “in a downward spiral.” He argued that “it’s up to the UCI to change the business model, and maybe look to the example of the Formula 1, or Moto GP.” He also said that “a lot of relatively big teams are getting in trouble and also organisers are getting in trouble.”[10] He pointed to the Dutch public broadcaster NOS sharply cutting its cycling coverage for 2026, which put more races behind paywalls.[10] Cyclingnews also reported a separate reform effort, first reported by Escape Collective. It was said to be led by two billionaire team owners, Ivan Glasenberg of Pinarello–Q36.5 and Zdeněk Bakala of Soudal Quick-Step, rather than by team managers.[10]

The structure of the debate had therefore shifted. The UCI kept control of the calendar and offered incremental guarantees and a consultation, while those pressing for a pooled, league-style model now included the wealthiest owners in the sport as well as the managers who had backed One Cycling.[2][9][10]

Consultation

In February 2026, the UCI launched a consultation, “Future of Road Cycling,” inviting riders, teams, organizers, federations and others to submit views by April 30 on five themes: calendar and participation, the economic model, fan engagement, safety and the integrity of results. It received 55 contributions.[2] The most common recommendations included a more coherent calendar organized in geographic blocks; “consolidating commercial and media rights, with a solidarity mechanism for distributing the new revenue generated”; a financial fairness mechanism among teams, “such as a budget cap or equivalent”; a stronger second division within “an open, protected pyramid”; and treating safety as “non-negotiable.”[2] The UCI said contributions diverged on the form of financial fairness and “how far commercial and media rights should be consolidated.”[2]

Aftermath

SportBusiness reported that the UCI would push for a structure to pool rights, making it an entry condition for new top-tier races, while existing organizers keep their assets and any pooling of TV rights would be voluntary.[3] The UCI said initial orientations would be presented in Benidorm on December 9–10, 2026, and the first measures could come as early as 2029.[2] Lappartient said that “what unites the different families of cycling is far more important than what can sometimes divide them.”[2]

The core dilemma

Organizers built cycling’s great races and own their rights. Teams and riders provide the spectacle but depend on sponsors. Reformers want pooled rights and fairer distribution; some proposals come with outside money. How should power and revenue be shared, and who should lead the change?

Competing values

  • Property rights of organizers vs. fair shares for teams and riders.
  • Tradition vs. modernization.
  • Governing body oversight vs. stakeholder-led initiatives.
  • New investment vs. independence from state-linked funds.

Strongest arguments

For centralization: pooled rights could grow total revenue and fund teams and safety, reducing reliance on sponsors.

For organizers: they invested in and built the races; forced pooling could destabilize historic events.

On One Cycling’s rejection: supporters saw protection of governance; critics saw a missed chance for reform.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether revenue is distributed fairly among those who create the sport’s value.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs the potential growth from centralization against disruption risks.

Rights

A rights lens considers organizers’ property rights and riders’ rights to safe working conditions and fair pay.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are a UCI official designing reform. Stakeholders include organizers, teams and riders. Less visible are smaller races and women’s teams. The codes are UCI regulations and competition law.
  2. Gather facts. What do the consultation results show? Beware favoring the loudest stakeholder.
  3. Test options. (a) Mandatory pooling. (b) Voluntary pooling with incentives. (c) No change.
  4. Check codes and law. Check competition law and existing contracts.
  5. Decide and document. Record the reasons and impacts.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Present orientations and consult again.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the One Cycling rejection and the consultation’s findings.
  • Contested: how far rights should be pooled; whether budget caps are fair; the role of outside investors.

Why this case matters

Cycling’s reform debate is a case study in how a sport divides revenue and power, and how outside capital can push or complicate reform.

Key terms

Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Sportswashing
Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.
Conflict of interest
A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should teams and riders share in race media revenues? On what basis?
  2. Was the UCI right to reject One Cycling? Did its reported Saudi backing matter?
  3. Should pooling of rights be mandatory for existing races?
  4. Is a budget cap fair in a sport where teams depend on sponsors?

Sources

  1. UCI rejects One Cycling with damning description of proposed racing reforms — BikeRadar
  2. Professional road cycling: UCI consultation reveals broad consensus on safety, financial fairness, the calendar, and commercial and media rights — Union Cycliste Internationale
  3. UCI sets out plans for rights centralisation — SportBusiness
  4. UCI rejects One Cycling project inclusion in WorldTour (June 12, 2025) — Cyclingnews
  5. One Cycling project rebuffed by UCI... for now (June 12, 2025) — Velo
  6. UCI puts One Cycling 'on notice' in letter warning teams and organisers they could lose their licences (July 17, 2025) — Cyclingnews
  7. 'I don't have anything' – Arkéa-B&B Hotels run out of road as bid to continue into 2026 collapses (Oct. 15, 2025) — Cyclingnews
  8. UCI confirms 2026 WorldTour and Women's WorldTour teams (Dec. 10, 2025) — Cycling Weekly
  9. The UCI approves the 2026 calendars for the UCI Women's WorldTour and UCI WorldTour, and takes measures to support the development of cycling (June 2025) — Union Cycliste Internationale
  10. 'There are so many better examples than what we have in cycling' – Plugge expresses urgent need for financial reform (Jan. 15, 2026) — Cyclingnews