The UCI said no (and we weren’t surprised). The One Cycling project—a kind of super league envisioned by some of the most prominent WorldTour teams—was labeled “incompatible” and “lacking sporting coherence.” But can we really afford to dismiss it so easily? Or are we witnessing the beginning of a fracture that could change—and perhaps harm—professional cycling for many years to come?
An idea born from systemic malaise
One Cycling wasn’t born out of whimsy. It emerged from a real discomfort. Professional cycling lives in a state of fragile economic balance, where teams survive almost exclusively thanks to their title sponsors. There are no shared TV rights, no centralized system of revenue redistribution, and teams—despite facing enormous costs—own no structural assets. If a sponsor pulls out, the team may disappear.
On top of that, there’s a bloated calendar, with too many races, few truly global events, and limited opportunities for the top riders to face each other multiple times per year. One Cycling is a radical response to all this: to create a closed or at least autonomous league, built on modern business principles and designed to attract new investments—particularly from outside Europe.
The big “no” from the UCI (and a monopoly to protect)
The UCI has decided not to include One Cycling in the men’s and women’s WorldTour calendars starting in 2026. The reasoning is clear: incompatible governance, structure inconsistent with international regulations. But let’s pause for a moment—was anyone really expecting a “yes”?
The UCI effectively holds a monopoly over professional cycling governance. It not only decides who can compete but also profits from many of the rules it enforces. One example? The famous UCI sticker found on every frame approved for racing: a paid seal that brings in millions. Manufacturers must pay to compete in recognized events. But that’s not all—the UCI also earns through licensing fees, registration rights, team contributions, and shares in race revenues. Defending its power and revenue streams is therefore not only expected—it’s virtually automatic.
The real blow: ASO picks a side
But the biggest setback for One Cycling wasn’t the UCI’s rejection. That was expected. The stronger—and more unexpected—signal came from ASO, the powerful company that organizes the Tour de France, Vuelta a España, Paris-Roubaix, and many other key races. In the past, ASO itself seemed close to breaking away from the UCI to form its own independent circuit. That was during the “ProTour vs the Classics” era, when dissatisfaction ran high.
Today, however, ASO has clearly chosen not to support One Cycling, leaving the project without the sport’s most prestigious races. This is the real stumbling block: without the Tour, any super league risks being born incomplete. And it’s paradoxical that ASO—once seen as the most likely disruptor—is now the stabilizing force. Perhaps because a new system run by teams would also strip power from traditional race organizers?
CART vs IndyCar: A tale worth remembering
In the 1990s, American motorsport faced a nearly identical situation. CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams), formed by the top teams in U.S. open-wheel racing, broke away from the traditional structure and clashed with the Indy Racing League—created by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to preserve control over the iconic Indy 500.
Here’s a direct comparison to better understand the parallels:
The result of that sporting war was devastating: two competing series, overlapping events, confused sponsors, and divided fans. It wasn’t until 2008 that the two sides reunited, but American motorsport has never fully regained the prestige of its golden era. A lesson that cycling would do well to remember.
Revolution or déjà vu? Other sports that faced global federative splits
Cycling wouldn’t be the first sport to experience a clash between governing bodies and commercial interests. Here are some examples:
-
Football (UEFA vs Super League): In 2021, some of Europe’s wealthiest clubs launched a plan for a Super League independent of UEFA. The initiative was firmly rejected by football authorities, but the discontent that led to it hasn’t disappeared. The battle has moved to the legal arena and is far from over.
-
Boxing: Over the years, the absence of a single global authority has led to dozens of federations (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO…), duplicate titles, and confusion among fans and media. The result? Disorientation and a steady decline in popularity, especially among younger audiences.
-
Cricket (India vs ICC): The creation of the Indian Premier League disrupted the global balance of the sport, creating tensions with the International Cricket Council. Today, India dominates commercially—but at the expense of international parity.
In all these cases, conflict did not improve the sport. On the contrary—it created fractures, regulatory complications, and a loss of credibility.
The paradox of success
Is it really true that the current system is no longer sustainable? On closer inspection, no. In recent years, professional cycling has seen unprecedented growth. The creation of the WorldTour attracted high-level sponsors and multimillion-dollar budgets, raising the sporting level, media coverage, and global popularity of races. Crowded roads during Grand Tours and strong television ratings are proof of this.
In many respects, the UCI has capitalized on this momentum. It has standardized regulations, promoted international expansion, and increased the visibility of women’s cycling. But it has also exercised increasingly tight control, leveraging its regulatory and economic monopoly: from the UCI sticker on bikes, to technical rules, to organizing and licensing WorldTour events.
This centralization of power, however, has created imbalances. Countries like Italy—with a deep-rooted cycling tradition but more limited financial resources—have been sidelined. Meanwhile, investments have flowed into wealthier or emerging nations, such as the United Arab Emirates, who are now major players. But those who bring the money no longer want to remain passive backers—they want to help write the rules.
Can the UCI manage its own power?
And this is where the real battle lies. The One Cycling project is not just a provocation—it’s a consequence. It’s the flip side of the strategy the UCI has pursued in recent years: a model that brought undeniable benefits, but also centralized power and sparked new tensions.
The real question, then, isn’t whether cycling is headed for collapse. It’s whether the UCI will be able to manage the instability it helped create. Can it hold together a system that is increasingly global, wealthy, and full of diverging interests?
One Cycling may not be the right answer. But it’s a clear signal: those who invest today want a say. And if the front door is shut too quickly, someone might come in through the window—whether or not they carry the UCI’s seal of approval.
