Brussels court rejects UCI gear limit appeal in warning for sports governing bodies everywhere

Dave Rome

The UCI has failed in its attempt to overturn a Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) ruling that blocked its proposed maximum gear ratio test, which was originally proposed on safety grounds for the 2025 Tour of Guangxi. The Brussels Court of Appeal rejected the governing body’s appeal on Wednesday and ordered the UCI to pay costs.

The ruling was issued Wednesday morning by the court’s 19th chamber, which handles competition cases. The court’s decision closes the immediate dispute but raises a broader question: if cycling's governing body must meet public-regulation standards when setting equipment rules, which other federations are now exposed to the same scrutiny?

How did we get here?

The UCI tried to introduce a rule limiting how big a gear riders could use in road races, and implemented a test at the Tour of Guangxi. SRAM drivetrains were the only equipment that didn't comply with the 54x11 limit, as both Shimano and Campagnolo offer different chainring and cog sizes. Compliance, for SRAM, would have put the teams the company sponsors at a competitive disadvantage to those on other drivetrain brands, and also stood to materially impact SRAM's business through the implication that its drivetrains were illegal.

SRAM complained to the Belgian competition regulator, which blocked the rule and the test last year. The UCI appealed. It lost.

The court found the UCI wrote the rule without properly consulting the manufacturers it affected, didn't document its reasoning, and effectively singled out one company. The gear limit rule, therefore, will remain blocked, though the UCI could go back to square one and create the same rule with a process the courts would consider fair and transparent.

The ruling is focused on how rules are made, rather than the rules themselves. A separate investigation into whether the UCI broke competition law is still ongoing.

What the court found

The court addressed six grounds of appeal, rejecting each in turn.

On jurisdiction, it found the UCI's rule produced real and immediate effects in Belgium, where SRAM brought its lawsuit: Belgian teams use SRAM equipment, and the uncertainty was already causing teams to consider switching manufacturers.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content

Subscribe now