'Cycling’s revenues do not reflect its global popularity': I read the UCI's consultation on pro cycling so you don't have to

Today, the UCI published an 8,000 word, 40 page document outlining changes that could improve the “Future of Road Cycling”. Suggestions include (but are clearly not limited to) a more coherent calendar, a structural reform of the economics of pro cycling, and ‘safety scores’ for finish stretches in a bid to improve rider safety.

There’s also talk of a financial fairness mechanism like a budget or salary cap, carefully managed growth of women’s cycling, modernised fan engagement, and GPS trackers in races, and “data-led equipment rules”.

How did we get here? Why was the document needed? And, what concrete changes will actually arise from its creation? Let me answer those questions.

The background

In February, cycling's governing body launched a wide-ranging consultation on the future of road cycling, pithily called the "Future of Road Cycling".

The goal was to find ways to improve pro cycling, and to make it sustainable. Race organisers, riders, teams, other stakeholders and their umbrella bodies were all asked to contribute.

It is now September, and on Friday morning, a press release plopped into my inbox sent by the UCI, promising a consultation that reveals a "broad consensus on safety, financial fairness, the calendar, and commercial and media rights". Along with this, an 8,000 word, “summary” of the main themes of the consultation was sent out, and I have now read all of it. It is quite the Friday page-turner, and has already been presented to members of the UCI Management Committee at the UCI Road World Championships in Montréal.

There's a lot in there, with 55 different 'stakeholders' (a horrible word) responding with detailed contributions, including Rapha and The Cyclists' Alliance, both of which we've heard from already. Interestingly, 26 race organisers responded, but not ASO, the organisers of the Tour de France, Vuelta a España and Paris-Roubaix and others, and RCS, the organisers of the Giro d'Italia. While they were covered by their umbrella body, perhaps they think everything is working for them at the moment.

Also, shout out to Niamh Fisher-Black, Simon Carr, Juliette Berthet, Jordan Jegat, Jonas Hem Hvideberg and the riders of Uno-X Mobility, and Océane Mahé, all of whom responded individually to the consultation, rather than relying on their teams or unions to do the responding for them. Good to see there are some engaged riders in the peloton.

Everything boils down to five "pillars": the calendar and participation (competition format, events calendar, organisation of the racing and team pyramid, participation rules, internationalisation of cycling, and development obligations); the economic model (management of commercial rights; creation of new commercial rights and sharing of the value created; solidarity between levels; financial rules; regulations on rider transfers); fan engagement (digital platform; promotion; TV production; integration of AI and new technologies); safety (race course; behaviour; equipment; new technologies); and integrity of results (officiating consistency; anti-doping; technological fraud).

There are essentially a lot of suggestions, which may or may not see the light of day, although this does appear to be a start, a solid jumping off point. The authors write: "The UCI is open to seriously considering these proposals, and the next step will be exactly that: in-depth, collaborative stakeholder consultation to turn the most promising ideas into a consensual, durable model for the future of professional road cycling."

CALENDAR AND PARTICIPATION

The calendar and participation is the pillar that drew the most responses, with submissions calling for a more coherent calendar, built on geographical blocks, which makes sense. The summary talks of fewer overlaps and a clearer seasonal narrative, which is something that I've been calling for for a while, and is an area which has seen some success, with the Vuelta Femenina moving to after the men's Vuelta a España next year, for example. There were also proposals for shorter stage races and a revised points system, along with new participation obligations for teams.

ECONOMICS

On the economics of pro cycling, the part that has been the subject of heated debate, there was a lot suggested, with the consultation revealing "a clear will, shared by all stakeholders, in favour of structural reform". How that actually happens is the million dollar question, with the One Cycling project a thing of the past; Chris Marshall-Bell and Escape have reported that a new project, called the Collective Cycling Group is in the wings, bringing together teams trying to reform pro cycling.

The UCI consultation reads: "Contributors converge on a shared diagnosis: cycling’s revenues do not reflect its global popularity, teams typically depend on a single title sponsor and secondary sponsors for over 90% of their budget, and organiser cost escalation is outpacing revenue growth. Organisers generally support the concept of a shared commercial venture to maximise revenue."

That is fair, but how that happens is a mystery, especially without the cooperation of cycling's most important race organiser, ASO, and the Tour de France. The UCI authors write: "The UCI also specifies that it recognises the commercial rights of existing organisers, and that any system for pooling rights will be based on voluntary participation and shared governance." That roadblock might prevent any wholesale reform, then.

However, there was a lot of talk in the submissions of consolidation of commercial and media rights and some kind of financial fairness mechanism, so perhaps these are not utopian ideals and there is some kind of consensus on these being useful to the sport. Work on agent regulation and the transfer system is already underway, the UCI says. Interestingly, it also shoots down a franchise-system based WorldTour as it "is something that is contrary to the European sporting model and the sporting philosophy promoted by the UCI, and will not be contemplated".

FAN ENGAGEMENT

In terms of fan engagement, there is "genuine optimism that cycling can convert its large but passive audience into active, loyal fandom, and that the tools to do so largely already exist". A unified digital platform is one suggestion for this, as well as standardised and better-quality data, as well as "calendar legibility". The growth of women's cycling is seen as a key area for expansion, as long as the "structural pitfalls" of men's cycling are avoided, which is interesting.

SAFETY

It is no surprise that safety was the biggest concern for the riders who responded to the consultation. Apparently, the problems and credible solutions are largely agreed upon, and the UCI has a lot of the "necessary infrastructure" through its SafeR programme. GPS tracking rears its head here again, as well as safer race courses, and fewer vehicles at races. Cattily, the UCI report reads: "The UCI regrets that certain stakeholders claim safety is their priority while making decisions that contradict that objective."

Suggestions for this include addressing course design, safety scoring for the final kilometres of routes, mandatory rider safety education, as well as reducing speeds through "data-led equipment rules". The UCI has already attempted the latter, through rules on the width of handlebars, and an attempt to introduce gear restrictions.

INTEGRITY OF RESULTS

On integrity of results, the submissions largely were about better officiating, modernising anti-doping, and tackling technological fraud. Proposals included a VAR-style thing for commissaires, and using AI to find anomalies in biological passports.

'HEALTHY TENSION' ALL ROUND

That's the report, with a lot of agreement clear, but also "areas of healthy tension – most notably the balance between generating new revenue and redistributing it, and the sequencing of cost control versus value-sharing". Those areas of healthy tension remain difficult to resolve. It remains to be seen what the next steps are, or if anything will be implemented.

UCI president David Lappartient had this to say: "Road cycling is currently experiencing unprecedented growth. That success comes with responsibilities: to identify new areas for progress and to write the next chapter of our sport together. The first of these responsibilities is safety. It is not negotiable, and it will move forward at an even faster pace than the other parts of the reform.

"The result of this consultation is remarkable, both in the diversity and the quality of the responses received. What unites the different families of cycling is far more important than what can sometimes divide them. The report presented today lays the groundwork for the thorough, collaborative work still ahead of us as we build a new model for our sport. I warmly thank everyone who took part in this consultation, and I am confident about our continued work together."