There is a long history of protests during bike races, and they have even created some of the sport’s most memorable moments. Think about the famous image of Bernard Hinault punching a shipyard worker in La Ciotat during Paris–Nice in 1984 – it’s iconic not just because it further cemented Hinault’s reputation as the peloton’s foremost hardman, but because it made clear the impact that protests could have on the sport of cycling. 

Over the years, there have been many protests over many things, but few of them have actually been about the races themselves. Whether that’s French farmers stopping the Tour de France to protest about agricultural policy (only for the police to then accidentally pepper spray the peloton), or environmental activists glueing themselves to the road during the 2023 World Championships, road cycling provides a very accessible stage to get the point across, with near-guaranteed press coverage due to the continuously rolling cameras. 

Most protests have used bike racing as the stage upon which they can draw attention to a cause that has little to do with the sport itself, but what we’ve seen at all three of cycling’s Grand Tours this year has been markedly different. Actively protesting against a team in the race itself may not be new, but I don’t think we’ve seen anything reach this level before. Standing in the road to block the race is one thing; jumping out on the race and causing crashes is entirely different. 

I think what we’ve seen at the Vuelta so far has set a new precedent for protest, but it was always going to happen. We have a problem with sportswashing in cycling, like most sports, and what we’re seeing is that when the amount of dirt being created is too great, the sport ceases to do any of the ‘washing’ that the brand/corporation/”self-appointed Ambassador-at-Large” for a sovereign state desired in the first place. In the case of Israel-Premier Tech, I’d argue that the team’s association with the state of Israel is currently soiling the entire sport. 

Israel-Premier Tech’s Marco Frigo rides past spectator with Palestine flag, stage 7, 2025 Vuelta
Israel-Premier Tech’s Marco Frigo rides past spectator with Palestine flag, stage 7, 2025 Vuelta (Image Credit: Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

Israel-Premier Tech’s riders, of course, are not personally responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. They haven’t been found to have committed genocide against Palestinians by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, they haven’t been accused of using starvation as a weapon by the UN, nor have they sent an airstrike into what is known as ‘the Switzerland of the Middle East’ – however, the very existence of the team is threatened by their association. 

The team itself launched as the Israel Cycling Academy, that aimed to give young Israeli cycling talent the opportunity to compete on the biggest stages and turn pro – but in recent years that objective appears to have become weaker, with the team now only employing three Israelis in its 30-rider men’s team roster. To me, this clearly shows that the primary goal of the team in its current form is to improve the image of the state of Israel, not develop emerging Israeli cycling talent.

It’s been reported that riders – and even the race organisers – have been privately calling for Israel-Premier Tech to leave the Vuelta, and the team attempted to compromise by continuing the rest of the tour in a “monogram-branded kit”. I think IPT’s participation at cycling’s highest level is looking almost untenable right now – although as the UCI has repeatedly backed the team, there’s no way IPT can be forcibly removed from the sport’s biggest races, and as long as Sylvan Adams is the owner, the team will always be proudly associated with the state of Israel. 

With no end in sight, the question is whether the current situation that IPT and the entire sport of cycling find themselves in will have an impact on the way teams think about sponsors going forward, and vice versa. Could this be the beginning of the end when it comes to sportswashing in cycling? 

Unlike other sports that often take place in highly controlled arenas, cycling is easier to disrupt. This means sportswashing is not as easy, because any protest against it can have a direct impact on the sporting event itself. If Man United fans protest against the Glazer family in the stands, it’s rare that this will impact the team’s ability to compete in a match. If a tennis player partnered with a questionable sponsor, someone who wanted to stop a major tournament match in protest would have to get through layers of security to have any chance of doing so. It happens (see Just Stop Oil at the Crucible in 2024) but cycling is an easy target. All somebody has to do in one of cycling’s Grand Tours is take a single step into a road across a course that is thousands of kilometres long. 

This also comes at a time when sponsorship for cycling teams is harder to come by. Domination by one person – as is arguably the case in men’s road cycling right now – means sponsorship of others is less valuable. The economic climate in general also makes deals harder to come by from non-cycling companies, and the seemingly never-ending bike industry bust period that we’re in right now means deals with them aren’t going to be as lucrative as they may have been in previous years.

So, while teams like Ineos Grenadiers are greenwashing a company that is doing huge damage to our planet, UAE Emirates have the rider with the rainbow jersey, while also being backed by representatives of a country where being gay is illegal. Bahrain Victorious are sportswashing a country that has a human rights record described as ‘dismal’ by Human Rights Watch. They are all unlikely to reject this money until their backers do something so publicly awful that the existence of their teams are placed in jeopardy.