Is road cycling threatened by a cross-team team order?

The planned entry of Red Bull GmbH as majority owner of the road cycling team Bora-hansgrohe through the acquisition of 51% of the shares in RD pro cycling GmbH & Co. KG and RD Beteiligungs GmbH has made headlines in recent weeks. For road cycling, which has been booming in recent years as seldom before with even Netflix documentaries, the entry of Red Bull with its own team is certainly a great gain. If you look at Red Bull’s sporting projects, such as numerous individual athletes, F 1, football, ice hockey one thing is clear: the involvement of the famous drinks manufacturer brings success. These successes are based not the least on Red Bull’s almost unlimited financial resources. As is the case everywhere where large sums of money are invested, the resulting financial reigns are undoubtedly accompanied by a direct or also indirect influence of the sponsor through dependencies.

Where dependencies are created or direct influence acquired, it is recommended to look at the planned takeover from different angles. One angle is the riders already sponsored by Red Bull and the conflicting interests with the planned Red Bull team. Are the stars Wout van Aert and Thomas Pidcock at risk of losing financial support as a result of Red Bull’s entry into road cycling?

Red Bull is already a sponsor of top road cycling stars before the planned entry with its own racing team. Red Bull sponsors Wout van Aert from Team Visma-Lease a Bike and Thomas Pidcock from Team Ineos Grenadiers as “individual athletes”.

If Red Bull now enters road cycling as planned with its own team and also sponsors individual athletes from other teams such as van Aert and Pidcock, this could possibly lead to conflicts of interest. These conflicts of interest could possibly lead to an unwanted cross-team team order. Due to the publicity value, it is obvious that Red Bull’s main interest will be in the success of its own team and the riders of its own team. If the success of one’s own team or a sponsored rider of another team is at stake at the crucial moment of the race, there is a potential conflict of interest for the team owner and sponsor of other athletes competing against their own team.

It should be stressed that, as an individual athlete, Red Bull is basically “only” financially supporting Pidcock in mountain bike cross country and cyclocross. Nevertheless, Pidcock is on Red Bull’s payroll and will be competing in road races as a rival to the new Red Bull racing team, so there is a potential conflict of interest. According to rumors, van Aert is about to switch to the new Red Bull racing team anyway, but this can only happen in August of this year. Until August and the possible transfer of van Aert to the new Red Bull racing team, a potential conflict of interest of the sponsor remains.

The planned entry of Red Bull as a racing team and the sponsorship agreements with individual athletes competing in the same league are to be seen as problematic, in particular due to Art. 7.4. and 8.1. of the UCI Code of Ethics and the resulting potential conflicts of interest.

Art. 7.4.

Persons bound by the Code shall avoid any situation that could lead to a conflict of interest by taking appropriate measures such as abstaining from taking part, directly or indirectly, in a decision or an agreement and/or disclosing potential interests that are susceptible of influencing the decision-making of the person concerned. A conflict of interest shall arise when the objectivity of a person bound by the Code, in expressing an opinion, undertaking any action or taking part in a decision, may be influenced or be perceived as being influenced due to private or personal interests. Private or personal interests include gaining any possible advantage for the persons bound by the Code, their family, relatives, friends and acquaintances. Specific provisions for the members of the Management Committee are contained in article 55 par. 3 and 4 of the UCI Constitution.

Art 8.1.

Any undertakings that are aimed at or may potentially modify or influence the course or result of a competition, or any part thereof, in any manner contrary to sporting ethics, such as manipulation or corruption, is forbidden. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Code and its Appendix 2 shall be subsidiary to article 1.1.088 of the UCI Regulations with respect to matters governed by said provision. The above shall be considered as the general rule and is supplemented by Appendix 2.

If this potential conflict of interest constitutes a breach of the Code of Ethics, teams and athletes could face serious consequences ranging from fines to bans.

As mentioned, a double involvement of Red Bull would at worst lead to further-reaching consequences and the sponsored individual athletes are therefore likely to lose their personal sponsorship contracts as a result of the Red Bull racing team’s involvement. Should Red Bull run its own team in the new season as well as sponsor individual athletes, this could become a case for the UCI Ethics Commission and these contracts and behaviors would have to be carefully monitored.