ANALYSIS: Is One Cycling the future of cycling? A deep dive into the project's implications on the Tour de France, riders and fans

One Cycling is generating as much excitement as it is controversy in the world of cycling. The project will seek to reshape professional cycling by introducing a new economic model, race formats, and an ambitious calendar designed to bring teams, riders, and fans closer together in a modernised cycling universe.

With substantial financial backing from Saudi Arabian investors and endorsements from some of the most important figures in cycling, the project has been hailed by some as a necessary revolution in a sport long criticised for its ‘old fashioned’ structure.

At the same time, it faces fierce opposition from established organisers and raises significant questions about ethics, tradition, and the future of cycling.

So, let’s take a moment to look at One Cycling, what is the project? What are its strengths and weaknesses? And what other sports have taken on similar initiatives?

So, the financial vision underpinning One Cycling is undeniably one of its most compelling strengths. At a time when professional cycling teams have traditionally relied on sponsorship deals (a model often seen as unstable) the promise of a direct cash incentive has got most teams attention and rightfully so.

Reports from Cyclist indicate that the project boasts a budget of an eye watering $300 million. $300 million! This investment is designed to provide teams with a level of financial stability that could allow them to invest more in performance, infrastructure, and innovation.

The likes of Team | Visma-Lease a Bike CEO Richard Plugge, have been at the forefront of promoting this idea, arguing that “cycling is a sleeping giant” in need of a better, more secure financial foundation (Cyclist).

The proposed model is not merely about handing out cash; it represents a broader rethinking of how teams earn revenue. Rather than depending solely on sponsors, teams could potentially receive earnings from a share of broadcast rights, ticket sales, and VIP packages.

So far, so good then? Yes, at this stage you can see why the sport could massively benefit from this.

The project would also see a shift in the style of races, which is where some fans and teams might start questioning things. Moving away from the traditional long-stage races, the project envisions a series of short, city-centre criterium races that could be hosted on F1-style circuits.

This format promises to bring cycling into urban environments where spectators have the opportunity to see the race multiple times in one day. The idea is to create a concentrated, engaging spectacle that maximizes ticket sales and enhances the overall fan experience.

This is definitely a first check point for where cycling must be careful not to lose the sport in search of business gains. How far should the sport go in its bid to earn more income?

That brings us to the resistance to One Cycling.

Despite these promising innovations, One Cycling faces significant challenges, not least of which is opposition from the traditional organisers, like ASO (the group behind the Tour de France and the Vuelta a Espana) and RCS, which organises the Giro d’Italia, who have unsurprisingly not backed the initiative.

The Tour de France director, Christian Prudhomme, has been vocal in his dismissal of the initiative, stating that it “doesn’t interest” him and implying that the project risks undermining the century-old traditions that define the sport when talking to Cyclism'Actu.

Whilst the organisers of grand tours were always going to have this point of view, they do have a point. Cycling is a sport beautifully rich in culture and tradition, and any initiative should not move away from that but instead enhance it in the modern era.

A critical aspect of the One Cycling project is its proposed integration with the existing UCI framework. UCI chief David Lappartient has stated that the new races will operate within the current system, ensuring that rider safety, regulatory compliance, and established competition rules are maintained.

However, many operational details remain ambiguous, especially concerning the relationship between One Cycling and the UCI points system, which is already confusing enough! This system, which is central to determining team rankings and status, could be disrupted by a parallel series that does not align neatly with the traditional calendar.

And we all know that the last thing cycling needs is to make things even more complex.

The lack of clarity over scheduling, team relegation, and rider eligibility introduces an element of uncertainty that could lead to logistical conflicts and governance issues. If One Cycling’s races end up clashing with established events or if the allocation of UCI points becomes contentious, the project may face additional regulatory challenges. Ultimately, the promise of innovation must be balanced with the need for continuity.

To understand the potential trajectory of One Cycling, it is useful to compare it with similar initiatives in other sports.

The European Super League in football, for instance, was conceived as a way to generate new revenue streams and offer a more match ups between Europe’s top teams. Just ask any football fan how that news was received.

Although the European Super League quickly collapsed amid overwhelming fan protests and political backlash, its brief existence provided valuable lessons on the perils of alienating the fans and riders. Sport is becoming more and more about business, but fans and sportsmen will not always accept that if they can help it.

Similarly, LIV Golf, another Saudi-backed venture, has made headlines for its attempt to disrupt the established order in professional golf. But, the legal battles and regulatory disputes that followed highlight the risks inherent in any project that seeks to overturn entrenched systems.

Historical examples from within the world of sports show that this isn’t necessarily a new issue. In the late 1970s, World Series Cricket, initiated by Kerry Packer, challenged the traditional cricket establishment with innovations such as coloured clothing and night games. Although initially met with resistance, many of these innovations were eventually adopted by mainstream cricket and helped the sport to modernise.

Likewise, the American Football League (AFL) in the 1960s challenged the NFL with new ideas regarding play style, marketing, and revenue sharing, ultimately merging with the NFL to create a more dynamic and commercially successful league. These cases illustrate that disruptive initiatives, if carefully negotiated and integrated, can force established institutions to innovate while preserving the essence of the sport.

One Cycling appears to be attempting a similar balancing act. And look, there’s no doubt that cycling must find a way to improve it’s business model in the modern age. But, at what cost?

By pledging to operate within the existing UCI framework, the project appears to be trying to ensure regulatory continuity while still pushing for revolutionary changes in race format and revenue models.

Where there’s money, there’s ethical considerations, and before you know it you’re travelling down a rabbit hole of controversy. On that note, is One Cycling ethical?

One of the most contentious aspects of the One Cycling project is its financial backing from Saudi Arabian investors. This connection has raised serious ethical questions regarding the phenomenon of sportswashing, where nations use high-profile sports investments to improve their global image and distract from domestic human rights issues.

Critics argue that by associating with high-profile sports projects, Saudi Arabia aims to enhance its reputation while diverting attention from its controversial record on free speech, workers’ rights, and LGBTQ+ issues. This ethical dilemma is of course not unique to cycling; similar concerns have been raised in connection with LIV Golf and the recent Saudi investment in boxing.

The ethical debate surrounding One Cycling forces the cycling community (and its fans) to consider the broader implications of accepting such investment. The potential financial benefits and the promise of a modernised, more stable economic model must be weighed against the risk of endorsing practices that some see as morally problematic.

For many, the question is whether the transformative potential of the project justifies the ethical compromises that might come with accepting funding from sources associated with sportswashing.

How far is cycling willing to go to ensure global growth?

Another critical factor in assessing the future of One Cycling is the potential impact on fans, who are the beating heart of the sport. Cycling has traditionally been celebrated as a sport that is accessible and free to watch in person, with the beauty of thousands of fans lining the Alps at the Tour being one of the greatest sights in sport.

The new model proposed by One Cycling, with its emphasis on ticket sales, VIP packages, and concentrated urban races, might impose financial barriers that alter the fan experience. Yes, the Tour’s finish in Paris is always an incredible spectacle, but would 21 stages around Paris or other cities really be the best idea?

Moreover, the commercial viability of the project will depend on the ability to negotiate new broadcast deals. The existing system of broadcast rights is deeply entrenched and varies significantly by country, with regulations in places like France requiring certain races to be shown on free-to-air channels. Just ask the UK fans, who will have to get their wallet out and cough up £31 a month from 2026 onwards to watch cycling with ITV and Eurosport leaving the sport.

The long-term success of One Cycling hinges on several interconnected factors.

First, the project must secure widespread buy-in from the teams and governing bodies that have long held sway over professional cycling. Without the support of key stakeholders like ASO, RCS, and influential European teams, the league may struggle to achieve the critical numbers required for sustainability.

Another significant challenge lies in the logistics of scheduling and integrating the new races with the established cycling calendar. The cycling season is already packed with races and introducing a parallel series of city-centre races could create a scheduling nightmare.

That’s not to say that all of the ideas put forward by One Cycling are poor, they’re certainly not. It is time for cycling to change, but the way it changes must not destroy the culture and tradition of the sport.

Looking to the future, the success of One Cycling will depend not only on its ability to secure investment and negotiate broadcast deals but also on its capacity to navigate the ethical and cultural debates that its funding model has ignited. The project must balance the promise of a modernised, economically robust future with the need to honour the traditions and values that have sustained cycling for over a century.

It is only natural for sports fans to be dismissive of change, but One Cycling is definitely worth giving the time to consider. It’s got ambition, it’s got the funding, and it’s got some of the most influential minds in the sport already on board. It’s ticking a lot of boxes already, but it now must find a way to convince the rest of the sport that it’s ambition will not see the sport stolen away from it’s most important factors: the traditions and the fans!

Maybe there’s another way for One Cycling to go about their initiative, or at least some other ideas for them to consider. For instance, cycling fans and riders are currently up in arms over the UCI’s handling of rider safety after a number of disastrous incidents to kick off 2025.

One Cycling is never going to be able to entirely ‘fix’ the concerns of rider safety, but what if they could create a strategy and clear game plan that would help to eliminate some of the nasty incidents we are becoming all too accustom too. If One Cycling was able to show the sport that they are more than just a business model, they might find more people jumping on board.

The coming months and years will be critical in determining whether One Cycling can overcome the obstacles in its path, or if it will serve as yet another cautionary tale in the long history of attempted sporting revolutions.