The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) officially announced this Thursday its rejection of the “One Cycling” project, an initiative driven by some of the most powerful teams in the international peloton alongside a Saudi investment fund. After a three-day meeting in Arzon, France, the global governing body of cycling unanimously concluded that the proposal is “incompatible” with its regulatory framework and lacks “sporting coherence.”
With an estimated investment of 300 million dollars from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund (PIF), the plan aimed to reform the professional cycling economic model by creating a closed circuit, with new races partially organized by the teams themselves. Although the UCI appreciated the interest in attracting resources to the sport, its president, David Lappartient, made it clear that the project’s conditions were “unacceptable” and contrary to the UCI’s governance principles.
A model rejected for lack of clarity and governance
The One Cycling project was conceived by teams like Visma-Lease a Bike, Ineos-Grenadiers, and EF Education-EasyPost, supported by consulting firms and aimed at redefining the calendar of competitive cycling. The proposal included giving teams direct equity participation in new competitions, a point that directly violates UCI rules, which prohibit teams from being race owners. In addition, the model proposed a parallel system that would conflict with current competitions, creating a dangerous internal split in the international calendar.
Despite its firm rejection, the UCI expressed its willingness to continue open dialogue with the project’s promoters, particularly regarding the internationalization of the calendar and exploring ways to strengthen cycling’s economy. However, it made clear that any reform must respect established rules and preserve the sport’s unity. As Lappartient stated, “it’s positive that they want to invest in cycling,” but he insisted that they cannot accept a “structurally belligerent” intention or frameworks that undermine governance and competitive fairness.
