Ex-UCI president Brian Cookson has suggested that cycling’s governing body should introduce a new rule banning professional teams from featuring nation states in their names, in an attempt to quell the anti-Israel protests which marred this month’s Vuelta a España.
According to Cookson, a former president of British Cycling who served as UCI head between 2013 and 2017, a ban on nations serving as de-facto title sponsors would act as a “quick, partial, and undoubtedly imperfect” way of tackling the “existential threat” of protests at races.
The suggested rule change, if implemented, would affect WorldTour squads UAE Team Emirates and Bahrain-Victorious, as well as Israel-Premier Tech, the target of the pro-Palestine demonstrations at the Vuelta which saw activists run onto the road, roads blocked, clashes between police and protesters, and stages finishes abruptly cancelled, including on the final day in Madrid, where several mass protests spilled over into street violence.
While anti-Israel protests have also taken place at this year’s Tour de France and Giro d’Italia, the scale, frequency, and chaos of the demonstrations at the Vuelta have raised doubts about Barcelona’s ability to host the Grand Départ of the 2026 Tour de France, especially if Israel-Premier Tech are present.
On Tuesday, AS reported that Barcelona City Council has confirmed that it has no plans to cancel next year’s Tour start, though the local authority has made it clear that the Catalan city aims to host the race without a team bearing Israel’s name or flag.
“We want the teams competing under the Israeli flag, in the same way as has happened with Russia, to stop competing under this flag,” sports councillor David Escudé said today.
This suggestion has been echoed by former UCI president Cookson, who told road.cc this week that a new rule concerning the relationship between nations states and cycling teams – as well as increased security at races – would be instrumental in preventing further protests in the short term.
“This specific situation regarding Israel and Palestine is obviously a huge geopolitical issue, with roots that go back many, many years, that can ultimately only be resolved at the governmental level,” Cookson, who preceded current UCI president David Lappartient, tells road.cc, reflecting on the protests at the Vuelta.
“Clearly public feeling around the world is very strong and its growth has outpaced the speed at which the governments of the most influential nations have seen fit to act.
“Leaving aside the specifics of the conflict, for right or wrong, when this happens, people understandably seek to express their dissatisfaction and disgust in whatever ways they can.
“And sporting events, especially bike races on public roads in largely open environments, are one of the easiest targets. As many have pointed out, this is not a new phenomenon as such. In fact, demonstrations and disruptions have often targeted bike races over the years.
“The difference here is perhaps mainly the scale of the disruptions. That and the strength of feeling, the moral outrage of the protesters, and the focus on one particular team’s sponsor, which thereby links inextricably to the whole event and all the other participants.
“To repeat, this cannot be resolved until the geopolitical situation is itself resolved. And that cannot happen until the world’s most influential governments use their power and influence to get it resolved.”
According to Cookson, while they may have no say when it comes to Israel’s actions in Gaza, cycling’s stakeholders can act to ensure protests do not disrupt races or, as seen on a number of occasions at this year’s Vuelta, potentially put the peloton in danger.
“What can the world of cycling do to stop, or at least reduce, what could easily become an existential threat to our sport?” Cookson asks. “More barriers, more security, better crowd control – all these things can be addressed and improved, at a cost.
“As an aside, I’ve long felt that the behaviour of ‘fans’ has got out of hand in some parts of some races in recent years, irrespective of any political demonstrations or other deliberate disruptions. So let’s all take a look in the mirror and have a serious think about what is appropriate behaviour when exercising the privilege of appreciating our sport live at the roadside.
“The broader problem is that today there are lots of other reasons why people may wish to disrupt a bike race to make their point.
“For example, we already saw this at the World Championships in Scotland, when Just Stop Oil demonstrators glued themselves to the road in a protest against the prevalence of oil-related sponsors in the sport. So far, those kind of demonstrations have been relatively limited.”
But, with Israel-Premier Tech’s role in the sport acting as the catalyst for the protests at the Vuelta, Cookson believes the role of nation states in the sport – such as four-time Tour de France winner Tadej Pogačar’s UAE Team Emirates squad – should be re-examined.
Despite what its name and branding might suggest – especially in a sport where Bahrain and the UAE also serve as title sponsors – Israel-Premier Tech is not officially state-owned. Instead, it was founded by Canadian-Israeli billionaire Sylvan Adams, one of Canada’s biggest real estate investors, who emigrated to Israel in 2015.
Nevertheless, the squad has received some funding from Israel’s ministry for tourism and Adams – who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration, encouraged US attacks on Iran in June, and called on Israel to “finish the job” in Gaza – has described the team as “ambassadors” for Israel and a means of promoting a “more realistic vision” of modern Israel.
“To resolve this current issue, assuming the particular team sponsor concerned does not decide to withdraw, which seems unlikely, my only thought is that perhaps the UCI should consider a new rule,” Cookson tells road.cc.
“A rule that no professional team (outside of world championships or other representative events) may bear the name of a nation state as its principal title. This certainly doesn’t seem to happen in other pro sports, outside of World Cups, etc, when all the teams are national teams.
“For instance, in football the English Premier League certainly has teams that are owned by nation states or their sovereign wealth funds or similar, but they don’t have that nation’s name as their principal name in competition.
“There are only two other teams that currently do that [UAE Team Emirates and Bahrain-Victorious], so far as I can see, and clearly they would need to be persuaded that it was in the best interest of the sport for them to adopt a different approach.
“I have no idea whether they would or would not agree to that. That’s currently the only suggestion I would have for a relatively quick, partial, and undoubtedly imperfect, way of moving things forward.”
Cookson’s comments come after the UCI issued a statement criticising the Spanish government for “exploiting sport for political purposes” by backing the demonstrators’ protests against Israel-Premier Tech’s participation at the Vuelta.
Describing the protesters’ actions as “militant”, the governing body’s statement condemned the “unacceptable and counterproductive” stance taken by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who this week called for Israel to be banned from all sports events following Sunday’s cancelled Madrid stage, arguing that the nation should not be permitted to “whitewash” its “barbarism” in Gaza.
“We regret the fact that the Spanish Prime Minister and his government have supported actions that could hinder the smooth running of a sporting competition and, in some cases, expressed their admiration for the demonstrators,” the UCI said.
“This position is contradictory to the Olympic values of unity, mutual respect, and peace. It also calls into question Spain’s ability to host major international sporting events, ensuring that they take place in safe conditions and in accordance with the principles of the Olympic Charter.
“The UCI strongly condemns the exploitation of sport for political purposes in general, and especially coming from a government.”
The UCI’s position was today defended by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who claimed that Israel’s participation in sporting events “complies” with the Olympic Charter.
However, the Spanish government has hit back at the UCI, arguing that using sport to “whitewash” Israel’s actions in Gaza is a political position contravening both the Olympic Charter and “the most basic values of sport”.
“With the deepest admiration and respect for our athletes and, as we have always done, expressing our rejection of any type of violent behaviour, we believe that sport cannot remain indifferent to what is happening in the world, much less remain oblivious to serious human rights violations,” the Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD), the governing body for sport in Spain, said in a letter to UCI president David Lappartient.
“There is no peace without justice, and using sport to ‘whitewash’ a genocide like the one being committed in Gaza, with thousands of deaths, innocent children, and a famine already declared by the United Nations, is a political position that contravenes the Olympic Charter and the most basic values of sport.”
On Tuesday morning, the United Nations’ commission of inquiry confirmed that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Reports have also emerged this week that some WorldTour teams may refuse to race alongside Israel-Premier Tech and boycott events following the tumultuous scenes at the Vuelta, the Guardian reporting that several squads were dismayed by IPT’s refusal to quit the Spanish grand tour.
Meanwhile, Soudal Quick-Step rider Louis Vervaeke told Sporza today that some members of Israel-Premier Tech’s Vuelta squad were looking to go home, and even asked other riders if there were any spots on their teams for the 2026 season.
38 thoughts on “Former UCI president Brian Cookson calls for ban on nation states in cycling team names – as Tour de France Barcelona start in doubt over Israel-Premier Tech protests”
Spain should be punished
Spain should be punished because the Prime Minister encouraged and allowed the protesters to destroy the Tour of Spain as a political stunt.
Don’t agree
Don’t agree
Shame on a PM who allows
Shame on a PM who allows people to protest, right? We should all end up like China or Russia, right?
Thinking about priorities overall… Spain’s looking pretty good in all this imho.
Protesting genocide is bad
Protesting genocide is bad when it comes to cycling, at least that seems to be the take from a lot of fans during the vuelta. It’s only sport, maybe look at the bigger picture
kingleo wrote:
I think questions need to be asked, but not about Spain or the PM. The issue is that race security wasn’t up to the task of protecting the riders or the event from significant disruption.
We should never punish governments for promoting or encouraging legitimate protest, but we should expect that steps are taken to ensure the disruption created is minimised as far as possible.
That makes sense indeed.
That makes sense indeed. Hence the question – why did organisers and / or the UCI not cancel this year’s Vuelta in the name of riders’ safety, a topic that reportedly sits at the top of their agenda?
Fair point.
Fair point.
Brian Cookson wrote:
Er, what about the likes of the Great Britain team that takes part in UK events, Team Australia in events down under, Euskadi, (historically) Team Colombia… ?
mdavidford wrote:
Er, what about the likes of the Great Britain team that takes part in UK events, Team Australia in events down under, Euskadi, (historically) Team Colombia… ?— Brian Cookson
Jayco Alula
Not a nation, so wouldn’t be
Neither of those is a nation, so wouldn’t be affected.
I don’t think Euskadi is a
I don’t think Euskadi is a Nation State, is it? For all it’s autonomy, it’s still part of Spain.
As for the others, my understanding is that they are “national teams” as opposed to “professional teams”. I.e. the Great Britain team is the same entity whether it’s competing in the Olympics or the Tour of Britain. As such, I presume the same exemption mentioned in the article for national teams would apply. (I don’t know the ins and outs of when national teams are allowed to compete alongside professional teams.)
OnYerBike wrote:
Depends on your perspective and definition of ‘nation state’. Arguably Great Britain isn’t a nation state either (it’s a land mass, and even if you take it as a synonym for United Kingdom, many would argue that’s four (or even five) nations). Australia probably counts as a nation, but is technically a federation of states. And is UAE a nation state? It’s a federation of seven emirates. Just all goes to show how unworkable the proposal is.
[Note also that I missed out an obvious one – up until last season, his suggestion would have done for the World Tour Astana Qasaqstan team – though some might not have been too sad to see them go.]
And ‘national’ isn’t opposed to ‘professional’ – those riders are still getting paid, right? The Colombia team was even in the Pro Conti ranks (though granted that’s historical).
Meanwhile, he compares it to the Russian teams being banned, but there was no ‘Team Russia’ that would have been affected.
I agree “Great Britain” isn’t
I agree “Great Britain” isn’t a nation state, but (AIUI) that is simply the name chosen by the team that represents the United Kingdom (which is a nation state). Why they chose to use “Great Britain” as their name is beyond me…
I also agree it can be complicated. The UN list is probably as good a place to start as any – the UK, Australia, and UAE are all considered individual nation states (regardless of their internal federal structures).
I don’t know the ins and outs of national vs professional teams (or if that is the correct terminology) but I understand they are considered somewhat distinct. Many riders will represent both a “professional” and a “national” team (e.g. Tom Pidock rides for Great Britain and Q36.5 Pro Cycling Team; MVDP rides for Alpecin–Deceuninck and the Netherlands). I assume they do get paid when representing the national team nowadays (once upon a time, the Olympics were for “amateurs” and competitors couldn’t be professionals in the sport). Although I imagine for “stars” like Pidcock and MVDP, the amount they get paid by representing the national team is probably pretty trivial compared to their professional and sponsorship income.
Agree the Astana Qazaqstan team would also have fallen foul of this rule (the quote from Cookson does state “currently”) – but as you say, I think banning them would have been in line with the spirit of the proposal (Qazaqstan might not be as embroiled in controversy as UAE or Bahrain, but the proposal deliberately avoids making any judgement calls as to which nation states are acceptable or not – it’s simply no nation states in the team name. The line between unethical sportswashing and legitimate promotion is pretty fuzzy).
OnYerBike wrote:
Well that’s not quite agreeing. I’m not saying it (whether ‘Great Britain’ or ‘United Kingdom’) isn’t a nation state. I’m saying it could be considered a nation state, or it could be considered not a nation state, because nation-statehood isn’t as cleanly and tidily defined as we generally like to think.
You could use the UN member states, but that just opens it up to loopholes where they simply change it to an alternative name that isn’t the recognised UN name but is just as much sportswashing for the country (Astana and Jayco-AlUla would still be able to continue, for example). (Also, would this mean that a potential Palestine team would be fine, given that they’re only an observer?)
Basically, ducking the hard decisions, which is what this amounts to, is not a solution to anything.
The question as to whether
The question as to whether any proposed ban should extend to entities that are below nation states (e.g. federal states, cities, autonomous communities etc.) is a separate discussion point.
Palestine’s status as a nation state is obviously somewhat disputed, and indeed the UN has been directly involved in meddling in the region. As I understand it, the current situation most UN members recognise the State of Palestine as such, and the UN recognising it as an “observer state” implies that is the current de facto position of the UN organisation itself.
To be clear, I do not consider UN membership to be definitive – indeed, for much of the UN’s history, there were plenty of nation states that were undisputably recognised as such, but simply had not joined as members. Nowadays of course membership is considered pretty essential for any new nation state wishing to be recognized internationally (see e.g. South Sudan).
I wouldn’t even say recognition by the UN is definitive. If you agree with the principles of Westphalian sovereignty, then it boils down to other nation states’ recognition. The UN’s official stance is often a handy shortcut for that (as the UN’s position is dictated by that of its member nation states) but not definitive.
Point still stands that there
Point still stands that there are lots of different ways of defining it, and whichever one was chosen it would still lead to lots of arguments and not actually address the issue, since it would be easily sidestepped.
Great idea! And Tour de
Great idea! And Tour de France should be called the Tour from now on, and so for the Giro and the Vuelta. No more country names. Who knows what protest will surface in the future against France, Italy and Spain. Lets protect the sport by banning country names. That really solves the problem the idiot PM of a hosting country created by supporting protesters and fueling moronic behavior…
Totally moronic to oppose
Totally moronic to oppose genocide. 100%
In your opinion!
In your opinion!
Idiot PM I thought it was
Idiot PM I thought it was only the UK that had one of them.
In the case of IPT, forcing
In the case of IPT, forcing the team to drop the country name is at the very least a sympathetic way to handle this situation. Anyone who thinks there is an argument to allow the status quo to continue, now Israel has been formally declared as committing genocide in Gaza, please make the case below. I’m genuinely interested to hear what possible argument there is for there not being a ban.
Given Russia – its federation
Given Russia – its federation, teams and riders affiliated to it included (individuals can still compete under IOC flag) – was very quickly banned for alleged war crimes of far lower magnitude (in terms of body count), there is NO EXCUSE to have allowed Israel affiliated teams to continue to compete.
IPT does not have any state
IPT does not have any state sponsorship, unlike say, gazprom did.
We heard you the first time
We heard you the first time
It’s road.cc’s shonky comment
It’s road.cc’s shonky comment system – lots of people’s comments get duplicated all over the place.
More – floor tile companes,
More – floor tile companes, fruit juice brands, shampoo and coffee machine makers.
Less – oppressive and/or murderous government nations, fossil fuel businesses, car companies.
To do that pro cycling needs to be less expensive – when it’s ~£30 million average for a pro tour team budget it’s no suprise that dodgy billionaires and that sort of money comes into it (I know BP were in it in the 60s, sport washing is not new). Simplify racing to reduce the need for such high team costs.
Whilst this sounds great in
Whilst this sounds great in principal, how do you police it?
The teams with the largest budgets are probably going to win, so you would need to enforce a pay cap. The trouble is that even the bike manufacturers want you to ride the latest, most-expensive kit, that’s how they stay in business. If you simplify the business model, (or tarnish the brands with protests) the sponsors walk away and there are no cycling races.
Then who determines the credentials of those sponsors, are you telling me those fruit juice brands and coffee bean companies aren’t exploiting the workers in some third-world country?
Let’s not give the UCI more
Let’s not give the UCI more excuses to fuss over what they ride .. also thankfully I don’t have the headache of a job that is managing the pro tours. I’m not sure what could reduce the cost of running a team but reducing the logistics costs might help as well as address rider fatigue and CO2 impact points. Finish towns to be start towns more often and transfers to be far shorter, no flights needed etc.
One bike design for the whole tour may not be popular with sponsor bike brands who want us to buy multiple bikes but it could give us better all-round products. A cost cap on the value of a bike? Maybe but it’s a small part of all this.
Scrap TTs on specialist bikes perhaps, I find them a distraction from road racing , the kit looks ridiculous to me and they must be a big resource drain but some will see them as an essentail (race of truth etc – maybe ride that same bike as the other stages?)
Capping rider pay? No, sports people have short careers and deserve to earn well.
Auditing sponsors point – it’s valid but there’s levels of pririty here, reduction of the issue to ideals is perfection getting in the way of better. The vast majority of business is exploitative to some extent but it’s not the same as seeing international-level oppressive politics or war crimes linked to bike teams. Would I want to see Nestle or Coca-Cola on a bike jersey? Not really. But I still buy a can of Coke here and there. Would brands like that generate protests like IPT did at the Vuelta? Highly unlikely, even if it did and they were the worst problem sponsors in cycling that would be a big step fwd from where it is now.
also more agricultural
also more agricultural produce companies. Give me Agritubel and Parmalat.
But most of all, more shower head producers. Less sportswashing, more weird-photoshoots-of-cyclists-hairwashing
Oh yes… An obscure
Oh yes… An obscure argicultural equipment manufacturer in northern France, that’s my kind of sponsor, I want that team kit. Or an actuators company from Germany with a really industrial typeface logo.
Mapei team bikes were a high point, let’s have more of that neon colours and Euro-ness sort of thing. Less of the Swiss invesment bank X Pas Normal stuff looking like it belongs on a page from a business class inflight magazine.
Like it or not, regional
Like it or not, regional companies don’t have the cash to sponsor pro pr even conti cycling squads. Due to lack of sponsors and increasing payroll and operational costs, pro teams fold or merge.
High street frozen food
High street frozen food retailer to un-re-brand to Bejam.
So this would apply to UAE,
So this would apply to UAE, Bahrain and Astana too, right ?
yes. Precisely the point. Not
yes. Precisely the point. Not so much Astana, as that isn’t a country name.
Not all countries commit
Not all countries commit genocide
Bob Sprocket wrote:
True. But all three World Tour teams with a nation in their title do.
What about Team Colombia
What about Team Colombia (continental level) or Astana, not a country, but where to draw the line?
I love cycling, that’s why o
I love cycling, that’s why o don’t want to see it being misused as a sportwashing instrument. Even if the price is to miss a few races and the inconvenience of these protests. At the end of the day those protests are about something bigger than a sports event