'This began as a dispute about our 10-tooth cog, this ruling is much bigger than that' – SRAM responds to UCI's gear restriction appeal being rejected

SRAM has welcomed a significant legal victory following the rejection of the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI) appeal against a Belgian Competition Authority ruling that halted the introduction of gear restrictions in professional cycling. The dispute centred on the UCI’s attempt to impose a maximum gear ratio, which would have effectively banned SRAM’s 10-tooth sprocket system used in its latest groupsets. The Belgian court upheld the authority’s decision, agreeing with SRAM that the proposed rule would stifle innovation and create an uneven playing field for teams sponsored by the American component manufacturer. The case has broader implications beyond the initial technical disagreement. The Brussels Court of Appeal’s ruling emphasised the need for sports federations to adopt open, transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory governance when creating regulations. This decision not only rebukes the UCI’s approach but also sets a precedent for how regulatory powers should be exercised across European sports organisations. SRAM’s CEO, Ken Lousberg, highlighted that while the conflict began over a specific gear cog, the ruling represents a much larger victory for fair and collaborative rule-making in cycling. Lousberg criticised the UCI’s justification of the gear restrictions on safety grounds, stating that the scientific evidence did not support the claim and that the rule-making process was flawed. He called for the UCI to engage more closely with the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI), advocating for a more inclusive and cooperative approach to developing regulations. According to Lousberg, involving all stakeholders—including teams, athletes, race organisers, and industry representatives—is essential to advancing the sport in a transparent and equitable manner. Experts have also questioned the effectiveness of the proposed gear restrictions, suggesting they would not enhance safety as intended. Cycling performance consultant Dr Xavier Disley argued that limiting gear ratios would not reduce speeds on descents, where riders often coast, and could even increase risks during sprints by forcing riders to pedal at unnaturally high cadences. He also noted the practical difficulties in enforcing such a rule, casting doubt on its overall benefit to rider safety. With the UCI’s appeal dismissed, the focus now shifts to how the governing body will respond and whether it will embrace a more collaborative regulatory process. SRAM’s call for reform signals a potential shift in how cycling’s rules are developed, aiming for greater transparency and inclusion of industry voices. The outcome could influence not only gear regulations but also broader governance practices within the sport.