It was billed as the project to transform cycling, to ensure that the best riders race against each other more often, and allow teams to depend less on billionaire owners. But One Cycling, the latest project to attempt to wrestle some semblance of control away from Tour de France organisers ASO, was dealt what could have been a fatal blow earlier this month, when the UCI, cycling’s world governing body, “unanimously” rejected a proposal to include it in the forthcoming WorldTour calendars. It was, the UCI claimed, "incompatible" and "lacking sporting coherence". It was a damning verdict and that, according to many, was that. Game over. Fin. 

But is that really true?

Unsurprisingly – and very predictably – those behind the project came out (speaking off the record, as they always have done, a fact that has irked many commentators) and put a positive spin on the UCI’s announcement, claiming that they hadn’t asked for the project to be launched in its entirety in 2026, but only requested the inclusion of three new races, the details and locations of which have never been publicly disclosed, but are thought to be in Saudi Arabia, the United States and Colombia.

Additionally, they said that beginning next season was always going to be a tough ask (fact check: incorrect; 2026 was always the initial goal), once again preaching their mantra that, contrary to the perception that many have, One Cycling will be a revolution and not an evolution; a breakaway league, despite initial reports, is not what they’re pursuing. The bottom line is that the project continues, and discussion with the UCI and other stakeholders will continue, something the UCI acknowledged.

What the ambitious venture’s proponents have in their favour is that a majority of teams want One Cycling to happen. Depending on who you ask, there are up to 14 men’s WorldTour teams (and their affiliated women’s teams, if applicable) who will sign-up, three standalone women’s teams, and a couple of men’s ProTeams. Additionally, RCS, the organisers of the Giro d’Italia, and Flanders Classics, promoters of the Tour of Flanders among almost a dozen other races, are also committed. That’s two of the three biggest race organisers giving their consent.

The Giro d'Italia's organisers, RCS, have committed to be part of One Cycling, as have Visma-Lease a Bike and EF Education-EasyPost; UAE Team Emirates-XRG are on the fence. Photo by Zac Williams/SWPix.com.

But cycling doesn’t work as a democracy. It works more as an autocracy, led by the unseen and rarely heard Amaury family, the owners of ASO and the Tour de France. The UCI may govern the sport, but ASO run it. What ASO wants, ASO gets. And ASO doesn't want One Cycling. Like, really, really, really doesn't want One Cycling. Why? Because the current system works financially for them. They fear that any change to the current model would see less money land in their bank accounts each year, and power stripped away from them. Unless ASO is on board, One Cycling has little chance of being forced through.

And that reality is starting to sink in. Privately, some of One Cycling’s key figures are admitting that at least in its current format and make-up, the project is toast. It needs a reboot if it’s going to work. The UCI, and its strongest allies, want the project to start from zero with new figureheads at the negotiation table, and some voices within One Cycling have started warming to that idea. Currently, One Cycling is led by Richard Plugge, the manager of Visma-Lease a Bike, and Mia Norman, the president of EF Cycling. They are respected and admired, but they are also divisive. Many insist the project can never bring everyone on board if those two are its leaders.

Some have also started asking the previously unthinkable: is Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund the right partner? Most fans would agree not, pointing out well-documented human rights abuses in the country, but cycling, like all hard-pressed and financially-struggling sports, is not at liberty to be picky with where it sources its money from. That’s just the harsh truth, however unpalatable.

Moreover, what is also causing frustration is the wishy-washy and vague comments from those behind it, with very few actual details published (something the UCI also commented on, in relation to not seeing the business model) and a lack of substance in the messaging. If One Cycling is so sure it will be a success and benefit everyone in cycling, then its leaders must divulge details. 

Flanders Classics is One Cycling's most enthused race organiser.  Photo by Zac Williams/SWPix.com.

So what’s next? Can One Cycling be saved? Yes, in a roundabout sort of way. It is true that cycling as a whole is in agreement that the sport needs reform. Not just economically (there’s confidence that ASO would concede a little bit of power) but also sportingly: the current WorldTour calendar is over-saturated, makes little to no sense to those who aren’t hardcore fans, and is a loss-making enterprise. The sport can and must do better. Formula One, a niche sport which grew into a global giant, is the inspiration repeatedly cited.

How the sport arrives at a new dawn is what now needs to be discussed. It has been lost on no one that the UCI president David Lappartient and ASO’s CEO Yann Le Moenner (regarded as the most powerful man in the sport) both have strong relationships with key figures in Saudi Arabia, and the expectation in some quarters is that the UCI, supported by ASO, will attempt to come to some agreement with the Saudis, ensuring that up to €300m is invested in the sport. 

Their vision of an improved sport doesn’t align entirely with that of One Cycling’s though. A watered down reform is the most likely outcome, and that isn’t what Plugge and Co. are striving for. Would they be so brave to press the nuclear button and threaten a boycott of the Tour de France or even a breakaway league? The current signs are they wouldn’t, but if push comes to shove and frustrations mount…

This is the story that will keep on rumbling on in the background, with clandestine meetings and the occasional bit of leaked information. Don’t expect anything to happen soon, but equally don’t expect talk of a reform to die down quickly. As one source said, there’s just too much momentum and good will behind the project to see it fizzle out.