by 
Rumors of a budget cap in professional cycling have been circulating for some time, but the plans could finally become a reality as early as 2026, according to multiple sources Escape collective that the Union Cycliste Internationale, together with other high-level stakeholders, pushed for a budget cap. This summer, the sport’s world governing body began working with Swiss-based accounting firm PwC, which has previously advised on the introduction of financial regulations in a number of other sports.
PwC presented options for a Financial Fairness Initiative (FFI) to a group of stakeholders at the Road World Championships in Zurich at the end of September. This proposal, a copy of which has been received Escapehighlighted seven financial sustainability models used in other sports, noting which are applicable to cycling’s unique structure and which are not. A small working group has proposed developing a bespoke system specifically for cycling, combining key elements of other models currently used in numerous sports around the world.
The stated aim of the presentation was to “set out the basic principles for the new financial sustainability regulations to be implemented in the 2026 season”.
All 18 WorldTour teams were only informed in detail about the plans before Il Lombardia; a model has not yet been agreed. A team source said: “There is still a lot of discussion to be had before we get close to a decision.”
The preliminary plan for cycling’s model is a mix of a fluctuating budget cap, which limits the amount of money a team can spend on operations per season, and a “luxury cap,” which penalizes teams financially if they exceed a certain rider salary threshold. One possible option is that the money raised from this “tax” could then potentially be distributed among lower-earning teams to level the playing field.
None of these proposals are final, and a stakeholder pushing for the implementation of the FFI said so Escape that the discussions are still at a very early stage. Other models, such as sales-based caps and financial loss limits such as the rules of Financial Fair Play in football, were rejected as not applicable to professional cycling. Any financial sustainability plan would either have to take into account the differences in the tax laws of the registered teams’ individual countries or at least be negotiated collectively between the teams and the UCI.
An attempt to pave the road
After Jumbo-Visma won all three Grand Tours in 2023, UAE Team Emirates has established itself as the sport’s winning team with 81 wins this season. The next best team, Lidl-Trek, counts 42, while bottom team Cofidis has only won five times. According to the PwC presentation, this range of competitive performance correlates very closely with the team budget.
There is general agreement in sport that the richest teams – UAE, Visma, Lidl, Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe and Ineos Grenadiers – all have a significant competitive advantage due to their larger budgets, and the sport is therefore more predictable and less attractive to spectators . But the PwC presentation makes it clear how big the discrepancy is between the top and bottom teams in the sport.
In the 2024 season figures from PwC’s presentation to the UCI’s Budget Cap Working Group, the richest six WorldTeams (i.e. the top third) account for almost half of the total budget of all 18 WorldTeams, and the richest three teams – presumably, but unconfirmed Be UAE, Visma and Ineos – have budgets between 2.3 and 4.5 times the budgets of the three poorest teams. Currently, the gap between the lowest and highest budget WorldTeam is almost 42 million euros.
The amount teams spend on driver salaries is also disproportionate: according to the presentation, two teams spend more than 26 million euros on driver salaries each year, while eight spend less than 9 million euros. Overall, the six richest teams collectively account for 55% of all driver salaries, and all spend at least double and sometimes triple as much as the eight lowest-spending teams.
The discrepancy is also reflected in staff salaries: five teams spend less than 2.7 million euros annually on their employees, while the three teams with the biggest pockets spend between 5.2 and 7.7 million euros per year. In fact, the richest team spends more on staff than the poorest eight teams spend on drivers.
Meanwhile, the two richest teams have annual spending of €4.7 million each on equipment, compared to 10 teams that spend €1.5 million or less; four spend less than one million euros per year. The eight richest teams account for 72.8% of the total equipment costs of all WorldTeams.
All of these numbers point to the same conclusion: there are haves and have-nots in the WorldTour. The question the UCI wants to answer is: what can or should be done about it?
A wait-and-see attitude
Proponents of the budget cap insist that the agreed mechanism should not result in average budgets being cut. Over the last two decades, budgets have increased from an average of 4 million euros in 2004 to 28 million euros in 2024. Any cap would instead serve to bridge the gap between each team’s budget without hurting the sport’s overall growth.
Proponents of the plan hope a cap would improve competitive balance among teams and promote financial stability. It is also hoped that this will make the sport more attractive to spectators, which in turn would increase the value of sponsorship for teams.
Escape reached out to half of the WorldTour teams, but all declined to comment publicly. A senior team source said: “A budget cap is a good idea, but not in the economic system we have in cycling.” Why don’t we invest our energy in a complete reform of the sport’s model and then devote ourselves to the details such as the budget cap Part of a bigger picture?”
The professional riders’ union CPA is against the introduction of a budget cap as currently proposed. Escape reached out to CPA President Adam Hansen several times for comment but did not respond by the time of publication.
Other stakeholders Escape The people contacted claimed that discussions had just begun and therefore it was too early to draw “conclusions” as to whether they agreed with the plans or not.
Did we do a good job with this story?
