'Likely to cause harm to SRAM that is serious and difficult to repair': UCI loses appeal over maximum gear ratios

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has suffered a setback after losing its appeal against a ruling that halted its plans to impose gear restrictions in professional cycling. The Belgian Market Court upheld the decision of the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) to suspend the UCI’s proposed maximum gear ratio standard, which aimed to limit bikes to a 54×11 top gear. This ruling follows a legal challenge from SRAM, a leading drivetrain manufacturer, which argued that the regulation would unfairly restrict innovation and harm competition. SRAM contended that the UCI’s gear limit would effectively ban its 10-tooth sprocket system used in its latest Red and Force AXS groupsets, thereby disadvantaging teams sponsored by the company. The BCA agreed, stating that the rule posed a serious and irreparable threat not only to SRAM but also to professional teams relying on its transmission systems. The court found that the UCI failed to apply transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory criteria when developing the standard, and that the proposed restriction was neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of improving rider safety. The Market Court emphasised that sports federations must ensure their regulations comply with competition law when they have economic impacts. It criticised the UCI for lacking justification for the gear ratio limit and upheld the BCA’s view that the measure could distort competition within the cycling industry. The ruling forces the UCI to reconsider its approach to gear restrictions, highlighting the challenge of balancing regulatory aims with the interests of equipment suppliers and teams. Following the decision, the UCI was ordered to cover legal costs and make contributions to Belgium’s legal aid fund. The governing body expressed surprise at the intervention of a competition authority in a matter it believed was supported by cycling stakeholders. Meanwhile, SRAM has yet to comment publicly on the outcome. The case underscores the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and competition in professional cycling equipment standards.