The long-term effects of British Cycling’s controversial partnership with oil giant Shell continue to be laid bare, after the governing body revealed that its membership has continued to drop by 11 per cent over the past year and a half, as cyclists blamed the “nauseating greenwashing” scandal for the organisation’s recent woes.
Earlier this month, British Cycling published its annual report and financial statements for the year ending 31 March 2024, which revealed that its membership numbers had fallen from 137,968 to 128,663 over the previous year. Since then, the governing body has confirmed that the number of members has dropped even further, to 122,982 by the end of November.
That means British Cycling’s membership has fallen by almost 11 per cent since March 2023.
This most recent drop followed an initial mass exodus which took place from the national governing body, after it announced an eight-year deal with the UK branch of multinational oil and gas company Shell in October 2022, a partnership that attracted accusations of greenwashing and led to many cyclists revoking their memberships in protest, leading to a seven per cent fall in members within five months.

That protest, which has also taken place in the form of guerilla billboard and T-shirt campaigns, appears to be continuing into 2025, as cyclists responded to the news of British Cycling’s falling numbers by pointing to the Shell deal – and the oil company’s attempt to ‘greenwash’ its environmentally damaging activities by investing in an activity associated with sustainable, healthy living – as a key factor in them cancelling their membership.
“Shell. What did they expect?” asked Michael on social media.
“Ended my membership as soon as the Shell sponsorship was announced,” added Colin, while Jason said: “This is what happens when you take on Shell as a sponsor. That’s why I gave up my membership.”
“I also left the moment the Shell deal was announced,” said Dan. “I used the membership mainly for the insurance but there’s plenty of other providers out there.”
“British Cycling could be more scrupulous over who it accepts sponsorship from,” noted James, who also described the “greenwashing” aspect of the deal as “nauseating”.

> Extinction Rebellion protest British Cycling’s Shell deal at National Cycling Centre
However, others also pointed to other factors which could be linked to British Cycling’s recent shrinkage.
“I’ve lost count of the number of things that made me cancel my membership,” said Howard, while Ben noted that the “association with HSBC and Shell, focus on competitive cycling, and ignoring normal cycling meant I bailed to Cycling UK.”
Meanwhile, Peter also claimed that British Cycling’s offering was “poor value compared to Cycling UK membership, which includes insurance”.
“There is a growing gap between what British Cycling thinks its members want and what the members actually want and need,” added Keith. “I think you’ll find that if there was a viable alternative there would be an even bigger number of members leaving BC.”
Along with the backlash associated with the Shell deal, the governing body’s falling numbers also, naturally, saw its income from membership drop from £6.1 million to £5.8 million.
To halt this drop, British Cycling overhauled its annual membership offerings in the spring, scrapping the entry-level racing membership of £27 and replacing it with a baseline standard fee of £50 and an £80 premium membership, while introducing a free supporter tier, the take-up of which the body says has been “significant”.
The organisation also posted an overall pre-tax loss of £660,329 for the year ending March 2024, its third consecutive loss, though a sharp reduction on the £1.16 million loss from the previous year, when 11 of its 250-odd employees were made redundant.
However, the report nonetheless highlights the benefits of the Shell partnership, when it comes to purely financial considerations anyway, as the governing body’s commercial partnership funds increased from £1.86 million to £2.52 million, closer to the £3.19 million it received from sponsors during the HSBC days.
And it’s that focus on increasing income from commercial partners and members, instead of relying on grants, that CEO John Dutton and chair Frank Slevin highlighted in the report as necessary to “return British Cycling to a position of growth” amid a “challenging” environment.
“Upon joining British Cycling in April 2023, it was clear to me that this was an organisation with a proud history of world-leading success, an organisation with enormous future potential, but also an organisation which urgently needed to modernise,” Dutton said.

(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
“While the programme of change we have embarked upon has a long-term focus, I’m pleased that we have already been able to make tangible and impactful progress in the past year, particularly on our brand and reputation, data strategy. and membership proposition.
“For us to continue to increase our investment into the sport and enhance the support we provide for our members in the future, it’s imperative that we increase our self-generated income streams and lessen our reliance on grant income.
“Alongside our work on membership, in the past year we have placed great focus on reinvigorating our commercial proposition and increasing the number of commercial assets we can take to market.
“With the support of Lloyds Bank and the opportunities laid out in our long-term vision for major events and new social impact framework, we are now well-placed to return British Cycling to a position of growth and replenish our reserves in the years ahead.
“There is no overnight fix and the environment in which we operate is incredibly challenging, but we are on a journey of continual improvement with a high amount of determination.”
British Cycling chairperson Slevin added: “While we continue to face severe macro-economic headwinds, I’m proud of the work our organisation has done in the past year to lay the foundations for future growth, and enable us to fulfil our purpose of bringing the joy of cycling to everyone.
“I’m also pleased to see that so much of the hard work undertaken by the team in the 2023/24 period has already born fruit, with the announcement of Lloyds Bank as our new Lead Partner in May 2024, and the modernisation of our membership proposition, which has resulted in a return to growth in membership income in both Q4 of 23/24 and Q1 of 24/25.
“As ever, we are enormously thankful to our major funding partners, Sport England and UK Sport, and our family of commercial partners. The 2023/24 financial year saw British riders competing across the world in their final preparations for the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.
“The Games provide us with an unrivalled opportunity to reach new audiences and inspire the nation, and we are hugely thankful for their ongoing support.”






















35 thoughts on ““What happens when you take on Shell as a sponsor”: Cyclists blame “nauseating greenwashing” deal as British Cycling membership drops by 15,000 in under two years”
Strong racing performances in
Strong racing performances in an Olympic year should result in a marked increase in membership.
The fact that numbers are still going down shows just how stupid of an arrangement this is for British Cycling.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
That doesn’t normally happen.
2012 was truly exceptional – Wiggins won the Tour then Olympics were in London a week or so after. Many clubs saw a huge surge in membership and there were so many more people getting on bikes but numbers have been falling ever since.
12 years later BC road racing seems to be virtually dead (I don’t know how TLI or BMCR are holding up) and MTB isn’t doing well. One exception is cyclo-cross, the ‘unglamorous’ discipline BC have continued to ignore despite its popularity and obvious appeal across all age groups. Budget cuts have meant regional staff numbers have plummeted, meaning clubs have virtually no support for grassroots projects while volunteers are harder and harder to find.
Skim-reading this, it seems to pick out a number of the issues.
https://rijden.uk/blog/is-british-cycle-sport-dying/
Glad to see so many with
Glad to see so many with similar values to my own. BC completely misreading and continuing to ignore members.
Frankly, British Cycling and
Frankly, British Cycling and its forebears have always been a poor organisation from the perspective of everyday cyclists, even amateur racing cyclists. They’ve always concentrated on servicing their own bureaucracy and the elite racing “1%” at the expense of ordinary members.
Their compulsory “help” in the organisation and conducting of local amateur races, even 30 years ago, was more a hinderance than a help, with little or no useful aid (especially financial aid) coming back to members, who often felt milked of their membership fees for no significant return.
They’ve got worse over recent times, with their Shell sponsorship something of a nadir. It seems likely that they’ll slide further down yet, since amateur racing in Blighty is dying away and BC seems to be nothing much more than the playground of various cycling greasy pole climbers.
‘always concentrated on
‘always concentrated on servicing their own bureaucracy’, so damn true. BC do nothing useful for clubs, just a bland, occasional email. They are clueless about what makes cycling exciting for YOUNG people, it’s all aimed at 30/40/50+ males with more money than sense to waste on ‘stuff’. The cycling industry steers BC to market expensive gear to an ever decreasing pool of black-clad coffee stop riders who are terrified of actual racing or time trialling.
I joined BC years back to get
I joined BC years back to get the insurance, and because at the time they had the like of Chris Boardman strongly advocating for road safety and active travel. CTC by comparison seemed pretty ineffective.
Over the years BC lost their lobbying voice, and Cycling UK became more vocal, so I switched.
I was both a BC and CUK
I was both a BC and CUK member for years, wanting to support UK cycling as much as possible. I was an amateur racer too but even back at the beginning, when CUK was CTC, BC only provided me with a racing licence. I didn’t experience any other benefit. I suppose they were desperate for sponsorship but they have made so many bad decisions without considering the membership. I baulked at continuing handing money to them, and quite frankly CUK were doing good work in comparison.
BC isn’t being run/managed by anyone who understands the breadth of cycling and probably has too close a relationship with the government to make a decent impact that is needed. Really a sorry state tbh.
I doubt I will ever rejoin tbh.
Andrewbanshee wrote:
Therein lies a huge problem for many cyclists, they don’t want to be a BC member but have to, to be able to race. Especailly track racing, I can’t enter since I stop my BC membership.
This is the main reason I
This is the main reason I binned them off. I was with them for the best part of 10 years as a ride leader, but I just couldn’t justify staying around after this.
Sounds like the perfect deal
Sounds like the perfect deal for senior management: lots of corporate cash flowing in, fewer pesky members to deal with. Win-win. Until Shell’s marketing department decides they’ve got all the greenwashing benefit they’re going to get, and pull out. But such short-termism is the norm these days. And having sold their soul to the petrochemical industry once, there’ll probably be a Middle-East-owned multinational they can go begging to next. The DP World P&O Ferries Tour of Britain anyone? The Track World Championships held at the Aramco Velodrome?
UAE Tour of Britain maybe?
UAE Tour of Britain maybe?
I did my first BC intro to
I did my first BC intro to coaching course last year and really enjoyed it. But I am not a member of a cycling club and ride with groups of like minded people who don’t want to race so don’t see any benefit in being a member of BC.
Not even th eaccess to the
Not even th eaccess to the coaching course?
My bad, I meant they don’t
My bad, I meant they don’t see the benefits of BC membership. My membership meant I could join the course which I thought was priced fairly and had a really good mix of people on it.
it feels a conveniant donkey
it feels a conveniant donkey to put the tail on imo, and Im not saying some members didnt quit BC because of the Shell thing, but Im not entirely sure HSBC are known as an ethical bank and no one claimed BC membership numbers dropping in their era were because of their sponsorship.
so the question is exactly how many are caused by Shell ?
because its the wider context, go back to 2012, or 2008, how many members did BC have back then before the “golden era of cycling” boom, are we not just in the bust phase now as most of cycling in the UK has been reported to be in recently ? and we are just returning to the base level weve always been at.
and dont overlook, Im fairly sure BC membership costs have almost doubled in the past 10 years, race licenses are eye wateringly expensive even though UK races are getting rarer, and the membership benefits have shrunk almost as much as the text on the membership cards.
if I dont renew my subs next year, it wont be because of the Shell sponsorship
stonojnr wrote:
I’m sure the 2 are related. Fewer races means fewer levies coming in, so funds have to be found elsewhere. Levies and licences go up to compensate, easing more races and racers out, and the death spiral begins.
Having been a BCF member back
Having been a BCF member back in the day, even though I stopped competing in 1974, I continued my membership all through the bad days in the early 90’s up to and including the advent of Sky sponsorship. While I was no supporter of the Murdoch empire, I bit my tongue and kept the membership going. Right up until the tie in with HSBC, which I did see as blatant sportwashing; I mean, British sporting governance body getting into bed with a Chinese bank? So I jumped ship to Cycling UK which offered the same sort of insurance coverage (my main reason for staying) plus they seemed more diversified across the cycling spectrum and not so monofocussed on racing to the exclusion of all else.
The tie-in with Shell just made me laugh, and promise myself to have nothing to do with BC ever again. I mean, Shell – cycling! What on Earth were they thinking, or were they even thinking beyond how much they could individually trouser with that sort of cash sloshing around.
In summary: poor show BC, could’ve (should’ve) done better. No wonder you are still heamorrhaging members like a shot stag in the heather.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Can it haemorrhage them? Surely it only has one to lose in the first place? Besides, seems like an odd thing to be a side effect of being shot.
Perhaps some species are like
Perhaps some species are like lizards and drop their members while they make their escape? Maybe they could hunker down behind a tussock, take their antlers off and leave them propped up as a decoy?
chrisonabike wrote:
I’m not sure I’d want to drop my member, regardless of whether or not I was being hunted… 😉
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Although HSBC does a lot of business in China and originally set up its first branch in Hong Kong when it was a territory of the British empire, it isn’t and has never been a Chinese bank, it’s headquartered in London and 56% owned by instuitutional shareholders, none of whom are Chinese, with the other 44% owned by the (mainly British) public.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Spot on
It emphasises that British
It emphasises that British Cycling concentrates on pure sport cycling, not leisure cycling.
Those who seek leisure in decent environment simply need to give their support elsewhere.
No grassroots, no future.
No grassroots, no future.
I’m one who let my membership
I’m one who let my membership of BC lapse late last year and it was nowt to do with Shell.
I’d been a member of the CTC since the early 90s but when they did their rebrand a few years ago and forgot what the T bit of CTC was I left them and joined BC (primarily so I still had insurance), but as a leisure not a racing cyclist I never felt like I got anything back. I swallowed my pride and went back to CUK as at least they have a local group that I can go out on rides with and an magazine, (albeit, a not very good one).
Same here
Same here
Capt Sisko wrote:
— Capt SiskoI like the magazine.
eburtthebike wrote:
— eburtthebikeI do too. It’s a ‘real world’ read fill of people doing real world riding instead of a glossy lightweight brochure for spenders and dreamers.
And I like the rebranded, re-energised version of CTC/CUK, I think it is doing a good job of broadening its appeal. The missing T means nothing, touring is still a big part of its identity and they have embraced gravel/mixed surface riding and bikepacking (another name for touring, if we’re honest).
Compared to CUK, BC has nothing to offer the non-competitive cyclist and is jot serving the racing community well either. ?
Quote:
https://thebritishcontinental.co.uk/2024/12/14/cold-dark-north-refocuses-for-2025-capernwray-takes-centre-stage/
BC not even bothering to support regional racing, no wonder the racing scene in the UK is in dire straits when the so-called national body doesn’t give a damm.
British Cycling is run by
British Cycling is run by non-cyclists who move from one role to another and have no genuine interest in competitive cycling – other of course than the track team winning medals to secure further funding and a measure of kudos for BC. Thankfully the high performance teams have little to with the BC Executive.
They should have left Cycling UK to focus on utility cycling and focussed BC on competition aspects especially on the grassroots. The domestic racing scene has collapsed under their watch. Are they bothered? Nope. Do you see them at races? Nope. Ask race organisers what support they get. Nowt.
What hs happened with the implementation of their much publicised strategic review – nothing. In a year or so the latest Chairman and CEO will move on, patting themselves on the back and leaving devastation in their wake. Who will fund the large financial shortfall of the 2024 Tours of Britain? The Tour of Britain Men was reduced to just six days (“to bring equality”) after they effectively broke SweetSpot financially with the annual £400,000 race licence fee and for 2025 The Tour of Britain Women is listed at four days on the UCI calendar -presumably the Tour of Britain Men will then be reduced to four days to achieve “equality”? While Rome burns they are the only NGB to start organising their own events – a disastrous policy from the past Brilliant
What are they doing to rejuvenate the pool of domestic race organisers? I mean doing – not hypothesising? Nothing
Hang your heads in shame BC executives (or perhaps nominate each other for MBEs for services to the sport)
All sports have the same
All sports have the same issue; the funding is given to support elite activities and get success at international level (the Olympics). British Cycling have very little of their own money to put in to grass roots, so they are dependant on clubs and organisers to identify other soures of funds to invest in these areas. Hence you will see on occasions BC pointing to “grant availability” from organisations unrelated to themsleves.
I am sure there will be
I am sure there will be people who cancelled their membership purely because of the Shell sponsorship. There will be many others that saw the Shell deal as the final straw that pushed them over the edge; that made them question the return they were getting and realised membership wasn’t presenting a great deal for them.
The vast majority of leaving members however, will simply be leaving because they are no longer competing. BC has always been the body for comeptitive cyclists, and so it remains.
As competitor numbers collapse, so will membership levels. Personally speaking I think BC have performed ridiculously well (membership wise), when factoring in the size of competitor drop-off.
I predict much larger membership drops in the next couple of years unless there is a major turnaround in the fortunes of domestic competition. As a bit of a spoiler, there won’t be one.
Grass roots sport is dead. Not just in cycling, but many other sports too… there is too much money to be made making people stay home and watch content on a screen to allow people to play sport. How can any paltry natioanl sporting body compete with the marketing clout of Google, Meta, Netflix etc?
You make some very good
You make some very good points. Before lottery money and the success that enabled I believe the membership was around 27-30,000, I could be wrong.
The biggest concern is the collaps in sport participation , it is across the board and it needs a concerted effort by all to redress this.
Certainly membership trippled
Certainly membership trippled in numbers between 2012 to 2019.i think it’s been in decline since so theydon’t tend to shout about the numbers anymore.
But I’d agree I think it was still well below 50k even in the mid noughties, it was 2008,2011, 2012 where it ramped up.
I was on the edge of
I was on the edge of switching to Cycling UK. Shell deal made it a very easy choice.