The UCI has been defeated in its efforts to introduce gear restrictions in the pro peloton, with its appeal against the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) – which had upheld a legal complaint from SRAM – thrown out in court.
According to multiple sources close to Cyclingnews, the Market Court in Brussels ruled on Wednesday in favour of the BCA, which in October had sided with component manufacturer SRAM and blocked the proposed trials surrounding what was officially known as the Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol.
The full court ruling document, later seen by Cyclingnews, states that the UCI's appeal was deemed "admissible, but unfounded".
Latest Videos From
It failed in all its arguments, which sought to pick holes in the procedural approach of the BCA as well as its very authority to act in this case. The UCI also argued that the contributions of several top-level SRAM-sponsored teams in the case were inadmissible, but failed on this count.
The UCI was ordered to pay €1,883.72 to the BCA and €400 to Belgium's Federal Public Service Finance body, as well as making a contribution to the country's legal aid fund.
The legal bill from the whole affair will be much higher – the UCI had ring-fenced €300,000 from the SafeR safety group to fight the case, which was controversial because SafeR includes the association of pro teams, some of which are sponsored by SRAM.
The decision effectively marks the end of the UCI's legal avenues to pursue its proposed gear restriction initiatives in their current guise, forcing it to go back to the drawing board and setting a precedent that could have a significant impact on the governing body's ability to impose equipment regulations in the future.
Cyclingnews has contacted both SRAM and the UCI for comment, and is awaiting response.
How we got here
The appeal centred around the UCI's plans to impose a gear restriction trial at the Tour of Guangxi in mid-October 2025. These restrictions limited riders to a maximum gear ratio equivalent to a 54T at the front and 11T at the rear.
However, because SRAM's top-tier road groupset, Red AXS, is specced with a cassette with a 10-tooth smallest cog, the American brand argued it unfairly penalised riders using its groupset, and by proxy of making its groupsets illegal, SRAM argued that it indirectly labelled its groupsets as unsafe.
On these grounds and others, it sought to block the trial via the Belgian Competition Authority, triggering an investigation by the anti-trust authority to "determine whether the adoption of the ‘Maximum Gearing’ technical standard by the UCI amounts to an anticompetitive decision".
On October 9th, six days before the race was set to begin, it succeeded. The trial was blocked.
"The standard, adopted under disputable conditions, is likely to cause harm to SRAM that is serious and difficult to repair, thereby justifying its suspension," the BCA said in a statement at the time.
"The BCA recognises the legitimacy and importance for a sports regulator such as the UCI to ensure the safety of athletes. However, the procedures for determining technical standards enacted for this purpose, as well as the related tests, must meet essential conditions of proportionality, objectivity, transparency and nondiscrimination in view of the economic consequences of these standards. They cannot result in an undue restriction of competition between sports equipment suppliers."
It marked a world first instance of a national competition authority blocking the moves of an international sports governing body, setting a precedent not just in cycling, but all sport.
The UCI immediately stated its intention to appeal the ruling, and In the months since, the UCI and the BCA had been arguing their cases via an exchange of writs – the formal legal process in which both sides submit their legal documents – including an initial 70-page appeal document from the UCI.
The affair has seen further controversy after Cyclingnews revealed that money from SafeR – an organisation of several cycling stakeholders, including the teams' association (AIGCP) – was being used to fund the appeal, creating the situation whereby SRAM-sponsored teams were effectively funding litigation against their own sponsor.
What now?
Fastforward back to today, and the Market Court in Brussels overseeing the case has ruled in favour of the BCA, throwing out the UCI's appeal.
The ruling means the UCI ultimately faces a legal obligation to reform its standard-setting process.
Future attempts at equipment trials, or even rule-making as a whole, could require the input from teams and the wider industry, such as the WFSGI (World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry), which is a collection of experts from teams, brands, and governing bodies.
Exactly how this plays out is currently unknown, but it's definitely a case of 'watch this space' as it could be transformative to the way the UCI operates and regulates the sport.
