The rapid ascent of cycling esports as a viable new vertical for the cycling industry has compelled the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) to navigate new commercial terrains, notably its relationships with gaming platforms MyWhoosh and Zwift. It isn’t the way the UCI typically approaches partnerships.

Traditionally, the UCI’s alliances have not ventured into such territories; these partnerships more closely resembled what a theoretical collaboration with a bicycle manufacturer might look like for the UCI rather than its typical position anchored by agnostic governance. 

The shift also raises pivotal questions about the game makers’ identities and aspirations—are they inadvertently positioning themselves as event producers rather than merely platform providers?

In the conventional outdoor sports event landscape, companies like ASO and RCS Sport are examples of clearly defined event organizers, working under the aegis of regulatory bodies like the UCI, providing overarching governance that shapes global competitive sports standards. The setup ensures a symbiotic relationship where the regulatory body influences everything from event organization to equipment innovation—much like the UCI’s influence over bicycle specifications, which, despite some debate, arguably benefits the industry by fostering a balanced competitive environment.

Further, traditional gaming esports has established an important precedent, having evolved around specialized media-driven event production companies that operate independently but in close concert with game developers, who license their game’s production rights and benefit from media exposure. This model promotes a specialized, direct connection to end-users for the commercial market and a dynamic promotional ecosystem, benefiting both game makers and event organizers.

For cycling esports, adopting a similar structure—with independent event producers rather than direct partnerships with game platforms—could be more congruent with the UCI’s historical strategy. Such an approach would address the current limitations that stifle growth within the esports domain, where game makers heavily influence the sport through proprietary technology and rulesets. 

Ideally, game technology developers should consider a universally accepted set of criteria, much like bicycle manufacturers adhere to standards set by the UCI. It would position the UCI as a central governance entity that could steer the sport effectively amidst rapid technological advances.

The question isn’t whether the UCI is needed—it undoubtedly is. 

The real challenge is how the UCI should strategically position itself within the esports landscape. By aligning directly with game makers, as it currently does, the UCI risks being seen as a commercially driven entity, potentially sidelined by the swift technological evolution of the sport. 

If platforms like Zwift or emerging developers like indieVelo seize the opportunity to innovate freely in the next few years, the UCI might find itself reacting rather than leading.

Additionally, the emergence of a specialist, media-driven event production company akin to the UFC in the MMA ecosystem could redefine the identity and governance for cycling esports altogether, and it would be essential for the UCI to anticipate and lead that shift. 

After all, commercial media platforms that create marque competitive experiences, such as ASO’s Tour de France and UFC’s contests, are the entities that anchor professional competition and drive the narrative that defines a sport. 

by Holden Comeau