At first glance it seems like a paradox: a sports federation introduces a rule to increase the safety of athletes, but a competition authority blows its whistle back. Yet this is exactly what happened in a case between bicycle parts manufacturer SRAM and the International Cycling Union (UCI). The Belgian Competition Authority (BMA) has thus sent a strong signal: yes, a safety rule can be suspended if there are serious indications that it, under the guise of safety, restricts competition in an unfair and disproportionate manner.
The legal context: a controversial acceleration protocol
The case revolves around the “Maximum Gearing Test Protocol”, a new UCI technical standard that limits the maximum permitted acceleration in professional road races. This rule, which came into effect on August 1, 2025 and would be applied for the first time in the Tour of Guangxi from October 14, 2025, sets the limit at a gear ratio equivalent to 54×11 (a gear with 54 teeth at the front and a smallest pinion of 11 teeth at the rear).
The UCI placed this measure within the “SafeR” initiative, a body set up to improve safety in cycling. This body consists of representatives of the UCI, professional teams, race organizers and riders’ unions. A notable absence from this consultation body: the manufacturers of bicycle equipment.
The American manufacturer SRAM, one of the two market leaders besides Shimano, immediately felt disadvantaged. Their innovative “RED AXS” transmission system, used by many top teams, is distinguished by a 12-speed cassette and a smallest pinion of 10 teeth. The new UCI standard would ban their most efficient gear combination (e.g. 54×10). Teams using SRAM faced a “Cornelian choice”:
- Mechanically adjusting or “blocking” their systems to conform, resulting in a competitive disadvantage (only 11 usable gears) and – as argued by SRAM and taken into account by the Competition College – the risk of using untested, potentially unsafe material.
- Switching to a competitor whose material (such as that of market leader and UCI sponsor Shimano) is standard compliant.
Faced with this threat, SRAM filed a complaint with the BMA asking for the immediate suspension of the rule through interim measures.
The decision: BMA suspends the technical standard
In its decision of October 9, 2025, the Competition College of the BMA imposed the requested interim measures. The BMA recommends the UCI to:
- Suspend the implementation of the standard immediately, and no later than October 13, 2025.
- To refrain from imposing similar restrictions on gear ratios until a new safety measure is adopted through a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory procedure.
- Publish a press release making it clear that the standard does not apply and referring to the BMA’s decision.
The BMA ruled that there are sufficient indications that the UCI’s decision constitutes an infringement of both Belgian competition rules (Book IV of the CEL) and European competition rules (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU).
Legal analysis and interpretation
This decision is a textbook example of the tension between the autonomy of sports federations and the mandatory rules of competition law. The BMA does not dispute that safety is a legitimate goal, but states that the path to achieving it should not unnecessarily harm competition.
The core of the BMA’s reasoning is that the procedure and content of the standard have serious flaws. The BMA particularly criticizes a lack of transparency, objectivity and non-discrimination.
- Lack of objectivity and transparency: The UCI’s decision is largely based on a survey among riders, the methodological robustness and representativeness of which the BMA questions. Crucially, sports equipment manufacturers were systematically excluded from the decision-making process within SafeR, despite their technical expertise.
- Discrimination: The standard is de facto discriminatory. Although formulated as a neutral technical limit, in practice the measure almost exclusively affects SRAM. The systems of the dominant market leader, Shimano, remain unaffected.
From a legal perspective, the BMA bases its judgment on two pillars of competition law:
- Article 101 TFEU: The Protocol is seen as a “decision of an association of undertakings” (the UCI and its members) which has the aim or effect of restricting competition by standardizing technology in a way that excludes one player.
- Article 102 TFEU: The UCI has a monopoly on the regulation of international cycling and therefore a dominant position. It abuses this position by imposing rules, without objective justification, that distort competition on a related market (bicycle parts) to the detriment of an innovative challenger.
What this means in concrete terms
- For sports federations: The message is clear. Regulatory autonomy is not a free pass for arbitrary decisions with a major economic impact. Technical standards should be based on solid, objective data and developed through a transparent process in which all relevant stakeholders, including industry, are heard.
- For sports equipment manufacturers: It shows that competition law is a powerful tool to take action against rules that penalize innovation and protect established market positions under the guise of safety.
Conclusion
The BMA’s decision is a clear demarcation of the power of international sports federations. Although their role as regulator is essential, they must exercise it with respect for the fundamental principles of competition law. Technical regulation should not be a disguised form of protectionism that slows down innovation and distorts competition. The message is clear: the rules of the game must be fair, not only for the athletes on the field, but also for the companies that supply them with equipment.
Are you dealing with a complex case at the intersection of sports law and competition law? Our lawyers, specialized in European and Belgian competition law, are ready to analyze your file. Please contact us for initial advice without obligation.