According to reports from Reuters Saudi Arabia plans to invest 125 million euros in the One Cycling project via its Public Investment Fund (PIF). The idea is to create a race series with the most important teams and riders in 2026. TOUR asked former UCI President Brian Cookson whether he believes the race series will materialise and where he sees the problems.
TOUR: According to Reuters, the plans for One Cycling are very concrete - do you believe the reports?
Brian CooksonI don't see any public evidence - so far it's just speculation and rumours. I ask myself: why are these investors investing and where is the return on their investment coming from? Most cycling events cost money instead of bringing in money. That's always the big difficulty with cycling races. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see anything significantly different from projects that have been considered in the past. The only difference is that, with the involvement of the Flanders Classics, a number of One day- and non-Grand Tour stage races could work together to sell their TV rights at a higher price. One danger is that the UCI World Tour could be weakened as an overarching season calendar.
Dominance of A.S.O. makes One Cycling more difficult
TOUR: The special thing about cycling is the dominance of the A.S.O. and its main event, the Tour de France. Why should the A.S.O. support such a project?
Brian CooksonOSA will not do anything that they think could jeopardise the profitability of their events. But they are already organising an event in Saudi Arabia, so they already have good contacts there. Maybe they are more closely linked to the One Cycling project than it seems at the moment.
TOUR: A worldwide TV broadcast would be crucial for the success of One Cycling. Do you think that's realistic?
Brian CooksonNo. The most important cycling events are already televised in most countries via Eurosport and discovery+. I don't see the broadcasters or their subscribers trying to get more cycling coverage or willing to pay more for it. In fact, in many cases it is the organisers who pay for the TV production and not the other way around.
TOUR: Velon tried to create new race formats with the Hammer Series - but that didn't work out. What can we learn from this?
Brian CooksonThere's a reason why cycling has evolved the way it has - a century of experimentation and development has shown what works and what doesn't. The biggest mistake was to introduce a team format. The biggest mistake the Hammer Series made was to introduce a team format. Cycling fans generally don't support teams, they support riders. They have their own favourites that they follow no matter which team they ride for. There may be a degree of national loyalty or interest in a particular team, e.g. Bora-Hansgrohe in Germany, but if a German rider does well in another team, German fans are more happy about it than if an Australian wins in a German team. It's very different in football, where fans have a strong identification with the club and usually also a geographical connection to the teams they support, regardless of where the players come from.
TOUR: In the debate about One Cycling, comparisons are often drawn with football and Formula 1, where revenues have grown. Do these comparisons fit?
Brian Cookson: Not in my opinion. Cycling is a unique sport with completely different economic drivers and an ecosystem that has evolved over more than a century. Ecosystems can change and adapt, but they need a balance if they are to thrive.
Kristian Bauer
Editor
