ANALYSIS: British fans set to be charged £31 a month to watch cycling as downward spiral continues with Eurosport and ITV losing Tour de France rights
Cycling
In the last few days, British cycling fans have been dealt yet another major blow. Following the news last year that ITV will lose the rights to broadcast the Tour de France after 2025, it has now been confirmed that Eurosport will also be dropping coverage. This means that, for the first time in decades, UK fans will have no free-to-air coverage of the sport’s biggest races, and now also the cheaper alternative is being snatched away from. Instead, the rights have been secured by TNT Sports, formerly BT Sport, a move that will make following the Tour significantly more expensive for regular viewers. Yep, unfortunately for British viewers of the Tour, it’s time to cough up some cash if you want to keep watching the race for yellow.
This latest setback adds to a growing list of concerns about the state of British cycling. From the struggles of INEOS Grenadiers and the surprising departure of Tom Pidcock to Q36.5 Pro Cycling Team, to British Cycling’s controversial World Championships selections and even Sir Chris Hoy’s devastating cancer diagnosis, it feels like one crisis after another. And now, with cycling’s biggest race heading behind yet another paywall, the very future of British cycling engagement is at risk.
What losing ITV and Eurosport means for UK fans
For generations of British fans, ITV’s coverage of the Tour de France has been a staple of the summer. The familiar voices of commentators such as Ned Boulting and, before him, Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen have provided a gateway to the sport, making cycling accessible to the masses. Meanwhile, Eurosport has long been the go-to broadcaster for dedicated cycling fans, offering in-depth coverage of the sport beyond the Tour, including the Giro d’Italia, Vuelta a Espana, and the spring classics.
Losing these channels fundamentally alters the accessibility of cycling in the UK. The move to TNT Sports follows a worrying trend in sports broadcasting, where coverage is increasingly hidden behind expensive paywalls. The shift means UK fans will now need to subscribe to TNT Sports or potentially another streaming service just to watch the Tour de France, resulting in a significant price hike. So what is the price, and can it really be that bad?
It's a whopping £30.99… a month. Compare that to the £6.99 for those who have being watching on Eurosport in recent years, and that’s an eye watering increase. Of course, TNT offers many other sports such as football, boxing and rugby, but not every cycling fan wants that. For years, UK fans have been able to watch the Tour on free to air TV, and now not only is that being snatched away, but the next best option is too. Enjoy both ITV and Eurosport whilst you can in 2025!
The MotoGP warning
The impact of moving a major sport from free-to-air TV to a paywalled service can be seen in MotoGP’s disastrous UK market decline. MotoGP previously enjoyed free-to-air coverage on the BBC but moved behind BT Sport’s paywall (now TNT Sports) in 2013. Since then, UK viewership has plummeted, and the sport has struggled to retain mainstream relevance. According to The Race, the decline in audience numbers has led to a dramatic decrease in British fan engagement.
If cycling follows the same trajectory, it could have dire consequences for the sport’s future in the UK. The Tour de France is the entry point for many fans, without it being easily accessible, fewer people will be inspired to take up cycling or follow the sport’s widerTa
And this comes at exactly the wrong moment for new cycling fans. Thanks to the rise of the likes of Tadej Pogacar and Mathieu van der Poel, and the Netflix documentary Tour de France: Unchained, the sport has boomed in popularity in recent years with more fans than ever drawn to the biggest races. If cycling is to learn anything from Moto GP, it is that these fans can be just as quickly turned away as they were drawn in in the first place.
INEOS Grenadiers’ struggles and Tom Pidcock’s shock departure
The professional cycling landscape in Britain is already showing cracks, and the struggles of the INEOS Grenadiers have been one of the main storyline of the past 12 months. As highlighted in our previous deep dive into INEOS’ decline, the team that once controlled Grand Tours with an iron grip is no longer at the forefront of the sport, and the likes of UAE and Visma have surged ahead. Riders are leaving, the squad is failing to adapt to the new aggressive racing style, and for the first time in years, they feel like an afterthought.
Can you even remember when they last won a grand tour stage? Well done if you can, for those that can’t it was the very first grand tour stage of 2024, at the Giro.
Nothing exemplifies this decline more than Tom Pidcock’s surprise move to Q36.5 Pro Cycling Team at the end of 2024. The double Olympic mountain bike champion and one of the UK’s brightest cycling stars had been expected to lead INEOS into the post-Froome era. Instead, he has opted to join a ProTeam, marking a significant shift in British cycling’s power dynamics. This raises serious questions about the future competitiveness of British-backed teams, but it’s not only the professional teams like INEOS that have seemingly lost their way in recent years.
British Cycling’s controversial decisions and a lack of support for riders
That’s right, it’s not just on the road where British cycling is faltering. British Cycling recently made headlines for its controversial decision to send no elite women to the Cyclocross World Championships, a move that was met with widespread criticism. The federation cited financial constraints and selection criteria, but the decision has further alienated female riders and their supporters.
When combined with the increasing cost of following the sport, this paints a picture of a governing body and a wider cycling ecosystem that is failing its athletes and fans alike. If young British riders can’t see a clear pathway to success, and if fans can’t afford to watch their idols compete, how can cycling expect to grow in the UK?
This certainly not the picture of British cycling we became accustomed to following the British cycling boom following the 2008 gold rush on the track.
Adding to the sombre state of British cycling is the devastating news that six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy revealed his terminal cancer diagnosis in Ocotber last year. Hoy’s legacy as one of Britain’s greatest-ever sportsmen is secure, but his illness was horrible news for British cycling fans on a far more important level than the struggles of team’s and television rights.
While unrelated to the sport’s structural problems, Hoy’s diagnosis has hit home for many fans, further dampening spirits at a time when British cycling needs inspiration and hope. Only Hoy’s incredible strength in response to his diagnosis can put a tiny glimmer of happiness on the situation.
Where does British cycling go from here?
The current outlook for British cycling is bleak, make no doubt about it. The loss of free and easily accessible Tour de France coverage will almost certainly reduce fan engagement. INEOS Grenadiers are no longer the powerhouse they once were, and Britain’s most talented rider, Tom Pidcock, has opted to leave the country’s biggest team. The governing body’s questionable decisions are only adding to the discontent, while Sir Chris Hoy’s illness is emotionally devastating.
Aside from Sir Chris Hoy’s illness, you can argue that all of these issues are interlinked. A sport thrives when its stars succeed, when its governing body supports its athletes, and when fans can engage with it easily. Right now, all three of those pillars are crumbling for British cycling.
Read also
If the UK cycling scene is to recover, significant changes must be made. There needs to be an urgent push to ensure cycling remains accessible to all, whether that be through reinstating free-to-air coverage or at least making it more affordable. British teams need to rethink their strategies if they are to remain competitive at the highest level, instead of clinging on to the former glory days. And British Cycling must do more to support its riders, male and female, if it wants to avoid further alienating the cycling community.
British cycling is at a crossroads. If the current trajectory continues, the sport risks losing the very foundation that made it so successful in the first place.
To watch live cycling or any other sport in the U.K. Was never free. Currently to watch ANY live event you must have a TV licence. The current cost of that is £169.00. To add £30 a month (£360 per year) to that now makes it a very expensive sport to follow in the U.K. I refuse to pay for this licence. Strictly speaking I could be jailed for not having one. I'm happy to risk that as I refuse to pay for what is actually a payment to our politically corrupt BBC. Will I pay the £30 a month to watch cycling? I don't know if I will at this moment?
You don't need a licence if you only ever watch on demand or catch up programmes on services other than BBC iPlayer. I understand your principle but I also don’t see why it’s a problem to wait 10-20minutes to watch interesti g cycling action on non-live broadcast. You can follow good live commentary over web radio for many events or read live commentary instead of watching, it’s often far more interesting as your mind focuses more on understanding things than when looking at a screen. Already, I don’t have or want the kind of life where I have to settle down in front on a screen at a dictated time, too busy going somewhere, looking after children, renovating, gardening, cooking, earning money, etc. Now. if races were at 10pm, 2am or the like, yes I might want to plonk onto the sofa and test if I they don’t make me fall asleep ;-)
As if free-to-air cycling coverage was a human right in the UK. Come on, it’s the 21st century, you shouldn’t be surprised you gotta pay for a service. It’s no charity after all.
Big difference between paying for a sport and simple usury. This isn't about cycling it's about football, it's been reported somewhere already that 60% of every subscription goes to shore up these massive contracts they have with football
Exactly, road tax doesn’t go to road upkeep, paying to stream your artists hardly pays them their wage, donating to charity doesn’t help their cause much, very little is transparent anymore. As a conscious consumer you have to take real care who you give your money to. Far better to go support things live when you can and leave the live coverage to age into replays which can be found free. And c’mon £31? That’s a Ryanair flight month to any event with a Netflix subscription. Count up all the subscriptions you need today to watch what used to be shown almost for free on national tv with half the advertising you have to skip through today and tell me we’re not being supremely scammed because enough people fall for it. Has anyone lately seen the pathetic situation that is going to see a true tourist destination or object like the Mona Lisa? If people are prepared to pay for going through such an experience then sellers know they don’t have to care about charging, too few people left who ready to make a statement with their wallet to reign in extortionists.
I think when you talk about watching things live, you were specifically talking about watching the cycling races in person? I wanted to add in support of your argument that if we are talking generally about experiencing things live e.g. watching music performances/concerts, broadway plays, stadium sports, etc. we now need to pay an ever more expensive service fee to Live Nation / Ticketek / TicketMaster. There was even a recent news article about the service fee being more expensive than the ticket itself! (It was a children's ticket of $4 and the service fee was a fixed price of ~$8. What makes this news even crazier is that you could buy a ticket at the booth in person and not be charged a service fee, yet you are actually being serviced by someone at the booth?!)
I agree but there comes a point when you feel you are being ripped off. There is always a tipping point. The 30 notes plus might be just that for some.
I catch most cycling events on Max/BR Sports which I'm grandfathered in on since I've had a streaming account with them for so long. The rest I catch on Peacock. I might miss some lesser known races but I can still catch most of them on Max. Being in the US, I've spend a lot over the years, but I do miss the days of Versus, most of which is on Peacock now.
Yeah, welcome to cycling "coverage" in the US. During the days of VS, we could watch most of the most interesting. But when NBC bought it, it was all downhill. I don't even know how to watch most of it anymore. I was hoping GCN+ would buy the rights to all of it, but they apparently couldn't make a profit either.
I think this is less about the cycling scene more about Warner Brothers / TNT cutting costs to "move everything to one platform" and in turn gather every sport they can to subsidise their £1Bn contracts with football. It's all about football and has been on the cards since the demise of GCN+. This is about big companies playing fast and lose with smaller sports to suit the mass market sports, Cycling coverage in the UK is a mere pawn
Technically speaking, this is government sponsored monopolies. If they didn't support the whole concept of "copywright", the price would be much lower. Cycling races would have to come up with a better model, yes, but the price to watch the races would be much, much lower. - An Economist
Yet, road cycling at top level is one of the few sports you can often go see live for free but have to pay to watch on tv, weird sport, no?
Just in
Play for FREE! Fantasy Tour of Flanders
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
Popular news
Latest comments
- You are completely wrongvappaxbipmv05-04-2025
- Tadej has a little more chance. It will be an exciting race and the most important thing is that no one gets hurt.
maria2024202405-04-2025 - Whatever happens tomorrow... it'll be a hell of a raceslappers6605-04-2025
- Exactly Tadej, the cancer of modern society. Full of good-for-nothing people who gain visibility and importance on social media mocking, humiliating (and worse things) to earn money. But it's the follower's fault, no followers, no "influencers".maria2024202405-04-2025
- Great commentCaralladas05-04-2025
- i’m such a sucker for those group-hug, happy ending moments between competitors, largely because it’s so WASN’T that way in my younger, stronger days. (on that note, i have this hope that somewhere down the road, maybe fifteen or twenty years, a middle aged wout and mathieu will go for a pleasure ride together in flanders, and reminisce about the days when they were the young, strong monsters that stalked the cobbles.)OCexile05-04-2025
- Just like Dwars door Vlaanderen, the Ronde van Vlaanderen was/is NOT on MAX. Get your facts straight.Ben04-04-2025
- You might bounce more for the same power, but not the same speed. Sending 20 kgs over a jump at 20 kph will fly just as far as 10 kgs at the same speed. Again, Galileo demonstrated this.acem8204-04-2025
- So, you're saying that doing a bunch of small hops on a bike is easier if you're heavier? Why do people buy lighter bikes, then? Why do they generally feel better and faster? An appeal to "rhythm" is not helpful either, as the right "rhythm" might be on the lighter or heavier side of things, and as it varies, it's likely a wash either way. Then we are left with the physics truth that it takes less power to lift lighter things than heavier things.acem8204-04-2025
- No, weight doesn't affect the ability to go into the wind at all. It's all CdA vs power at that point. For example, it's "obvious" that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. But, absent wind resistance, it's not true (Galileo demonstrated this). An appeal to "obviousness" doesn't matter when the physics is clear. And yes, you have to be able to hold everything else constant, or you can't determine anything! So, imagine a 300 watt rider at 80 kgs with a CdA of 2.0, then imagine that same rider at 70 kgs with a CdA of 2.0. (Assume ideal tire pressure for both, same bike.) Which one can ride over a bumpy road fastest? The lighter one, as he doesn't have to lift as much. That's also why when they test bikes on 5 star cobbled sectors, the MTB goes faster than even a cobble-build road bike. Even though rolling resistance is higher on a flat road, and the CdA is junk, it smooths out the cobbles, allowing the person to not lift as much as they otherwise would.acem8204-04-2025