UCI Budget Cap Explained: Why Teams Said No, And What Cycling Should Focus On Next
The UCI’s proposed team budget cap has sparked strong reactions across the sport, with teams, including several smaller ones, refusing to sign on. At first glance, this seems like a debate about spending limits, but it reveals something deeper about cycling’s governance and the need for meaningful rider engagement.
What Is a Budget Cap?
In many sports, leagues set limits on how much teams can spend. Done well, caps can manage costs and improve competitive balance. Done poorly, they create loopholes, uneven bargaining power, and inconsistent outcomes. We’ve seen this with the Melbourne Storm in the NRL. Caps only work when athletes most affected are involved from the start and rules exist within a transparent governance system.
Why Was a Cap Proposed?
Cycling’s financial model is fragile. I know this firsthand. My to-be cycling team collapsed before the 2023 season. Teams depend heavily on single sponsors, budgets have surged, and the gap between the top and bottom of the World Tour keeps widening. The UCI says a cap would limit extreme disparities and help stabilise the sport. These concerns are real, but a cap alone cannot fix structural weaknesses in cycling’s funding.
Why Riders Should Oppose It
A cap directly affects riders’ livelihoods. It influences earnings, support, and career security. Yet it’s unclear how riders were included in the consultation. Decisions with major employment consequences made without meaningful rider engagement erode trust.
Many riders have experienced financial instability. During COVID, some teams cut salaries dramatically with little consultation. Without a strong framework protecting rider rights, a new spending limit risks becoming a ceiling rather than creating a fairer system.
Why Smaller Teams Said No
It is significant that some smaller teams rejected the cap. If redistribution mechanisms were included, you might expect them to support it. The fact they did not raises questions:
- What exactly was the proposal?
- Were impacts modelled and explained?
- Was consultation genuine?
- Is cycling prepared to address deeper structural issues, or are we reaching for quick fixes?
Cycling still has no revenue sharing and limited financial stability for teams. Without addressing these foundations, a cap may only reinforce existing gaps.
What Cycling Actually Needs
Real reform requires more than a cap. The sport needs stronger governance, financial transparency, and meaningful rider participation. Any future changes should prioritise:
- Rider representation in policy design
- Stable funding models and revenue mechanisms
- Clear contract protections and working standards
- Safeguarding pathways for women, who currently have fewer protections
A modern, enforceable rider agreement, shaped with independent athlete representation, would form the foundation for structural reforms. Without it, proposals like a budget cap risk repeating familiar patterns.
Moving Forward
This is an opportunity. The failure of the budget cap is not the end—it should mark the beginning of a broader, more transparent discussion about cycling governance and how riders, teams, and organisers share responsibility for its future.
Cycling deserves a system that supports long-term stability, fair competition, and safe, sustainable careers. That can only happen when riders are at the table and reform addresses underlying structures, not temporary restrictions.
