Belgian Market Court upholds BCA’s interim measures against UCI gear ratio rule

On 20 May 2026, the Market Court (Brussels Court of Appeal) dismissed an appeal brought by the International Cycling Union (“UCI”) against interim measures imposed by the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) in October 2025, keeping in place the interim suspension of the UCI’s controversial “maximum gear ratio” rule. The judgment is a further reminder that sporting regulations, even those pursued in the name of the rules of the game and participant safety, are not immune from competition law scrutiny where they carry significant economic consequences.

Background

In June 2025, the UCI adopted a test protocol introducing a new technical standard limiting the maximum permitted gear ratio in professional road cycling competitions to a 54×11 transmission ratio. The measure was presented as part of a rider safety initiative.

The measure triggered controversy within the cycling industry. SRAM, one of the two leading suppliers of professional cycling transmission systems, argued that the measure would place both SRAM and teams using its equipment at a competitive disadvantage while effectively favouring Shimano, the market-leading gearing manufacturer. SRAM’s systems typically rely on a 54×10 cog ratio, which did not comply with the proposed standard.

Following a complaint lodged by SRAM, the BCA opened an investigation and, on 9 October 2025, imposed interim measuressuspending implementation of the test protocol shortly before its planned introduction at the Tour of Guangxi. The BCA found, on a prima facie basis, that the 54×11 standard generated disproportionate negative effects for SRAM.

The appeal

The UCI appealed the interim measures, arguing that the test protocol was justified by important rider safety considerations and that competition law should not apply to this type of sporting regulation. It also challenged the BCA’s jurisdiction and alleged violations of its rights of defence.

The Market Court’s Judgment

In its limited appraisal of the interim measures, the Market Court upheld the BCA’s interim measures in full. 

In particular, the Court found that:

1. the BCA had jurisdiction to intervene because the technical standard was capable of producing effects on Belgian territory; 
2. the BCA was right to conclude that there was a prima facie restriction of competition between gear producers arising from the UCI’s failure to rely on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria when developing the standard; 
3. the UCI failed to demonstrate that the maximum gear ratio rule was necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective of improving rider safety; and 
4. the BCA correctly concluded that there was a risk of serious, imminent and irreparable harm to SRAM and cycling teams using its drivetrain systems. 

As a result, the suspension of the test phase for the rule remains in place. It should, however, be noted that neither the Market Court’s judgment nor the BCA’s interim measures decision constitutes a definitive finding that the UCI’s gear ratio rule infringes competition law. Rather, the judgment merely maintains the suspension of the rule pending completion of the BCA’s investigation on the merits.

Key takeaways

The judgment is a reminder that sporting regulations adopted by sports governing bodies are not shielded from competition law scrutiny where they produce economic effects. Importantly, such scrutiny is not limited to situations involving obvious conflicts of interest, such as governing bodies seeking to exclude rival competitions or sanctioning athletes for participating in them (as in Superleague and ISU). Even where rules are claimed to pursue legitimate objectives such as rider safety, sports governing bodies do not enjoy unlimited discretion in organising competitions and must ensure that restrictions are based on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria. Failing to do so may distort competitive conditions, cause (reputational) harm and place certain market participants at a competitive disadvantage.

While it may remain relatively uncommon for an NCA to intervene successfully against a technical standard adopted by an international sports governing body, the implications of the judgment may extend well beyond cycling. Many sports, from obvious examples such as motorsports to disciplines seemingly less dependent on equipment, such as swimming, rely on technical regulations governing the use of particular technologies and equipment. Governing bodies in these sports routinely face decisions about whether to permit or prohibit certain equipment, and those decisions can effectively make or break entire supplier markets.

World Aquatics’ ban on high-tech polyurethane swimsuits, introduced after a wave of world records at the 2009 World Championships, is a well-known example: widely regarded as justified on sporting integrity grounds, yet it effectively eliminated a category of products and their suppliers overnight. The point is not that such decisions are wrong or automatically anti-competitive, as governing bodies often have compelling reasons for drawing lines on equipment, but rather that where technical rules produce asymmetric market effects, governing bodies need to ensure that they are compliant with competition law. To do so, the rules and the process by which they were made must be transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. 

Interestingly, the BCA is one of the few NCAs that is particularly active in the sports sector. In addition to the UCI case, it considered two further interim measures applications in 2025.

In the first, three clubs participating in Belgium’s second-highest professional football division, the Challenger Pro League, sought suspension of new rules adopted by the Royal Belgian Football Association introducing a quota of minimum U23 teams together with specific promotion and relegation rules applicable to those teams. Although the BCA identified a prima facierestriction of competition, it concluded on 1 August 2025 that the likelihood of serious and imminent harm was insufficient to justify interim measures, noting that any harm in the form of relegation of clubs not protected by the quota, would only materialise at the end of the season. 

However, as the season progressed, that risk materialised. Racing White Daring Molenbeek (“RWDM”) faced relegation to the amateur league despite being ranked 13th out of 17 clubs, since all but one of the lower-ranked clubs were protected U23 teams. The three original clubs, joined by RWDM, therefore renewed their request for interim measures suspending the quota. This time, the BCA granted the request, reaffirming its earlier finding that the quota was prima facie anticompetitive and concluding that urgent intervention was necessary to prevent serious and irreparable harm. The quota was therefore suspended pending the outcome of the investigation on the merits. As a result, Olympic Charleroi and Club NXT were relegated to the amateur league, while RWDM retained its place in the second division

The second interim measures application concerned sanctions imposed by the Royal Belgian Ice Hockey Federation (“RBIHF”) on players participating in alternative inline hockey competitions. The proceedings ultimately became devoid of purpose after the RBIHF ceased the relevant activities, thereby allowing players to participate freely in competing competitions and rendering the contested sanctions ineffective.

Belgium is also the forum for several private enforcement cases, including the cases that led to the Diarra and Royal Antwerppreliminary rulings. 

Belgium is not alone in this regard. Across Europe and beyond, competition authorities and courts have increasingly scrutinised sports-related matters through a competition law lens, many of which have ultimately reached the Court of Justice of the European Union. Besides the now well-known trifecta of European Super League, ISU and Royal Antwerp, the Court recently delivered its judgment in Tondela concerning COVID-era no-poach arrangements in Portuguese football (see our earlier blog post here). The Court is also expected to rule later this year in RCC Sports and ROGON, two preliminary references relating to FIFA’s Football Agent Regulations (“FFAR”). Together, these developments reflect the increasingly complex legal and regulatory environment surrounding sport and the growing intensity of competition law scrutiny faced by sports governing bodies, including in relation to the technical standards they adopt.