Will cycling’s pay gap one day close? Why men and women aren't yet payed the same

In recent years, there is no denying the progress that has been made in women’s cycling. On the face of it, salary minimums, better contracts and rising viewership seem to signal progress in women’s racing. But dig deeper and the gap remains wide, in prize money, team budgets, media access and career security. We explore what the pay-gap in cycling looks like today in October 2025, how women’s cycling has evolved and how far it still has to go, why it persists, and what the implications are for the sport beyond headlines.

Let’s dive straight in - whilst also taking a look at some of the key differences between the two, how women's cycling is growing and all of the main points as to why there is still such a large difference, as well as all of the most frequently asked questions (FAQ).

Professional women’s road racing has come an incredible distance in the past decade. Once relegated to one-day events or oddities, stage races are now firmly part of the calendar. For instance, the Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift launched in 2022 marked a watershed moment for women’s cycling, as finally the women restored their own addition of cycling’s most famous race.

More teams, more media, more exposure. Minimum wages for women’s top-tier teams were introduced in recent years, elevating a degree of professionalism previously absent.

That progress is real: 2025 data from the rider union The Cyclists’ Alliance (TCA) reports that 54% of surveyed women’s WorldTour and ProTeam riders can live solely off their cycling income. At the same time, viewership and commercial interest in women’s races are booming; today’s broadcast audience in some markets rivals, or in hours surpasses, what the sport had five years ago.

Yet the narrative of “closed gap” remains incomplete. Many riders and journalists emphasize that although the shape of the sport for women looks increasingly professional, the scale (budget, salary, media value, etc.) remains much smaller than for men.

When we ask “are men and women paid the same in cycling?” we must consider multiple dimensions: salaries (team contracts), prize money (for races), benefits, and career security. In professional road racing, the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) sets minimum salary levels for the top women’s teams (Women’s WorldTour).

For example, in 2025, the minimum salary for self-employed riders in the Women’s WorldTour reached €62,320, and for employed riders at least €38,000. Meanwhile, the tier below (Continental level) remains almost unregulated in many places, with many riders earning far less.

By contrast, the men’s WorldTour and ProTeam levels enjoy much higher average salaries, much larger team budgets and far greater prize-money pools (though publicly detailed comparisons are less consistent). In race prize money alone: the 2025 Tour de France Femmes prize pool was €259,430 while the men’s equivalent (2025 Tour de France) exceeded €2.3 million.

According to TCA, 84% of women on Continental teams earn under €20,000 annually; 42 % have a second job while racing. Thus “pay parity” remains far from the lived reality for the majority of riders in the women’s peloton.

–Women’s WorldTour minimum salary (2025): €62,320 (self-employed) / €38,000 (employed) for top tier.

–At the Continental level, “over 75 % of WorldTour/Pro riders now hold multi-year contracts; … but 84 % of Continental riders earn under €20,000 annually.”

–2025 Tour de France Femmes general-classification winner takes €50,000.

–2025 men’s Tour de France winner takes approximately €500,000 and the total prize pot for men about ten times that of the women’s equivalent.

–The 2025 Tour de France Femmes drew a TV audience of 25.7 million in France alone across its nine stages.

–It achieved a 31.6 % audience share per stage in France.

–In Australia, the 2025 event logged 11.7 million third-party platform views, a 99% year-on-year increase.

Professional men’s cycling teams often operate with multi-million-euro budgets, backed by long-term sponsors, television rights, and deep commercial deals. By contrast, many women’s teams, even at top tier, remain undercapitalized. A 2019 report noted that the average women’s team budget was around US$200,000 versus US$16 million for men’s WorldTour teams.

Prize money is a visible indicator of value, but it’s also a function of revenue generated from sponsorship, TV rights, race length and media coverage. The race director of the Tour de France Femmes, Marion Rousse, says: “It’s difficult to compare a race with 21 days and one with nine days” when judging prize money. Thus some of the disparity is argued to stem from the structural difference in event length itself.

Media exposure drives sponsorship which drives budget which drives salary. The explosion in viewership of women’s races is promising (see above), yet in most countries media coverage remains significantly less than men’s racing. Less exposure means smaller commercial deals, fewer team sponsors, lower budgets and thus lower pay potential.

A professional sport has to support talent at all levels. While top women’s riders may now earn respectable salaries, the pipeline often breaks down in lower tiers. The 2025 TCA survey shows that riders outside the top two tiers are overwhelmingly financially insecure. If young women cannot rely on cycling as a full-time profession, the talent pool and depth of the sport suffer, which in turn limits commercial growth.

Men’s cycling has had more than a century of sustained commercial build-up, while women’s professional road racing is relatively new in its modern form. That’s not to say women’s racing is ‘new,’ at that is entirely false. But, the current wave of viewership, investment, and equality improvements, is relatively new. Therefore, the economic infrastructure, sponsorship hierarchies and media tradition are further behind.

For riders earning under €20,000 annually (as many do), cycling remains a part-time job or simply unsustainable long-term. The TCA found that newer professionals (1-2 years experience) increasingly consider quitting due to financial concerns. Without stable income, teams with budget constraints may prioritise short contracts, limiting continuity and development for athletes.

Lower budgets often mean fewer support staff, less investment in training camps, less equipment margin and fewer racing opportunities. That can limit performance progression and widen the gap between top-tier women and their male or male-budgeted rivals.

When prize-money, sponsorship deals and media exposure remain lower, athletes may struggle to build long-term earnings via endorsements, brand deals or media opportunities. That impacts post-racing careers, and the ability to retire with financial confidence.

“Definitely it was very special, but I think eventually we will get where we should be. The goal of every rider is to one day have a daughter that competes in sports and laughs at the times when there were differences between men and women,” said Katarzyna Niewiadoma, after her 2024 Tour de France Femmes win.

“The easiest thing would be to completely scrap the whole cycling model and start again,” Grace Brown (TCA president) summarising the 2025 survey findings.

“It’s not just about opening new doors for riders and fans; it’s also about uplifting all the women involved in and around cycling,” Kate Veronneau (Zwift head of Women’s Strategy) on investment in women’s cycling.

The recent surge in viewership and media attention on women’s cycling provides perhaps the most promising route to narrowing pay gaps. To reiterate, the 2025 Tour de France Femmes attracted 25.7 million viewers in France and achieved record audience shares.

What that signals: sponsors and broadcasters are increasingly recognizing women’s cycling as a product (remember, sport is a product to broadcasters) with audience pull. With growth in “attention” comes growth in commercial value, better team budgets, higher salaries, larger prize-pools. In this respect, women’s cycling is no longer just catching up, it’s a growth opportunity for broadcasters and sponsors, as well as those competing.

If the commercial model scales then the pay disparities become more about historical lag than structural inevitabilities. The challenge is sustaining investment long enough for it to mature.

Short answer: No, not yet.

At the top level, women’s professional cycling has made meaningful gains, minimum salaries, better contract structures, larger audiences. But major gaps remain in prize money, team budgets, income for lower-tier women, and media exposure.

Women’s cycling is still structurally smaller in scale than men’s: fewer long stage races, less historical revenue accumulation, fewer deep sponsorship deals. Many women riders, especially those in lower tiers or Continental teams, remain financially insecure, some earning under €20,000 per year, or working second jobs. However, momentum is growing: broadcast audiences are spiking, sponsorship is rising, and commercial value is clearer than ever. In practical terms: while the “top women” in cycling may earn mid/upper five-figure to low six-figure salaries plus endorsements, many male professionals at similar levels still earn substantially more, both in direct salary and via indirect revenue.

Men and women in professional cycling are not yet paid the same, and, actually, the gap in some areas is still large. But the story is not one of stagnation, it’s one of transition. Women’s professional road cycling has matured as a business from fragmented beginnings into a product with global audiences, commercial investment and elite athletic performance. Still, large segments of the female peloton remain insecure, under-paid, and under-exposed.

Remember, no one is denying that cycling had supremely talented women’s riders during the 20th century, when the men’s sport became globally popular. It just never had the business drive or commercial elements of the men’s, but that is starting to change.

In the end, the value of women’s cycling isn’t just measured in euros and contract, it’s measured in fairness and sustainability. As one rider put it: for equal effort and equal suffering, there should be equal reward. The next few years will show whether the sport embraces that principle, or lets it slip again.