"We welcome our Saudi friends" - $250 million One Cycling Project enters crucial period as UCI deadline looms

After months upon months of speculation and presentations, the One Cycling project now faces its pivotal moment. In the next ten days, the UCI will make a crucial decision on the WorldTour race calendar for the next three years, an outcome that will either clear a path for One Cycling or push its ambitions further into the future.

With $250 million in potential Saudi investment and major WorldTour teams reportedly ready to sign up, cycling finds itself at a crossroads. Yet, as UCI president David Lappartient's latest comments show, this revolution is anything but guaranteed.

At its core, One Cycling seeks to modernise professional road cycling by fundamentally reshaping its financial and competitive architecture. Backed by Saudi investment via the sports venture SURJ, the project proposes a shift from the sport’s traditional sponsorship dependent model to a more centralised, commercially sustainable structure. Teams would receive a share of broadcast rights, ticketing, and hospitality revenue, while fans and sponsors would be more directly monetised through an envisioned ‘One Cycling Global Race Series.’

The project promises new elements such as: more urban, criterium-style races, tighter narratives, and the commercial packaging long seen in Formula 1. But with those promises come profound risks, chiefly, the disruption of cycling’s historic institutions and the consolidation of power into a new, untested commercial superpower.

So, it comes down to tradition vs capital.

Lappartient, in an interview with Marca, welcomed One Cycling’s intentions, particularly the desire to attract new audiences and diversify revenue streams. “We welcome any initiative to engage the cycling audience and make our sport more attractive, to bring in additional revenue,” he said. “Therefore, all investors are welcome. And we welcome our Saudi friends.”

However, that welcome comes with increasingly firm red lines. The UCI president was clear: any changes must respect existing UCI regulations and honour the integrity of long-standing races. “We have to be careful not to give an advantage to a particular race just because it's part of One Cycling. Paris-Roubaix will always be Paris-Roubaix, whether or not it's part of that project.”

This is where One Cycling’s vision and the sport’s traditional structure begin to clash. According to reports, the proposed model would reshape the racing calendar with new formats and new ownership structures, potentially undermining the position of races organised by the likes of ASO (Tour de France, Paris-Roubaix) and RCS (Giro d’Italia), who have thus far resisted the initiative.

This tension is not new. In fact, One Cycling’s potential has been met with scepticism for some time. In February, our analysis highlighted that the goal is to address cycling’s broken financial model by reducing its dependence on unstable team sponsorships and redistributing revenues more equitably between teams, organisers, and governing bodies. But critics fear it could marginalise traditional races, compromise competitive balance, and concentrate decision making among a handful of stakeholders.

Lappartient echoed this concern in his comments last week, “We need to know exactly what the One Cycling project is all about. We need to understand more about the economic model... It’s clear they have to contribute something to the stakeholders, the cyclists, the organizers. Not just destabilize what we have already.”

It’s a delicate line to walk. While few deny that the current economic structure of cycling is fragile (team budgets remain almost entirely dependent on title sponsors, with minimal revenue from the races themselves) the path to reform is treacherous. The memory of past failed breakaway leagues still lingers. For One Cycling to succeed, it must offer stability and inclusiveness, not disruption disguised as progress.

This is why Lappartient’s warning that “it’s something we must all build together, not just by a few,” cuts to the heart of the current dilemma. For the UCI, One Cycling cannot simply be a coalition of ambitious teams and wealthy investors. It must be a unified vision that respects the ecosystem of riders, organisers, and fans.

That ecosystem is watching closely. According to reports, teams such as Visma | Lease a Bike, EF Education–EasyPost, Ineos Grenadiers, Soudal – Quick-Step, Lidl-Trek, and Red Bull – BORA – hansgrohe are prepared to buy in. The proposed investment, reported to be in the region of $250 million, would underpin a long-term business plan with shared revenue, event innovation, and potentially a new calendar structure that complements or competes with existing WorldTour events.

But the UCI now holds the cards. Its upcoming decision on the WorldTour calendar is effectively a gatekeeper move. Approving a structure that accommodates or validates One Cycling’s ambitions would signal tacit support. Denying it or delaying it past 2026, as Lappartient hinted, could stall the project indefinitely, especially if it fails to win over powerful race organisers like ASO and RCS.

Without doubt, the next few weeks are crucial. And right now, it seems that the UCI faces an uphill battle to convince the teams not to agree to this lucrative proposition.