Pro cyclists have urged the organisers of the Tour Down Under to end its long-running sponsorship deal with oil and gas producer Santos.
Santos, which is one of Australia’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, has been the naming rights sponsor since 2010. In January last year, it renewed its partnership, extending the deal until 2028.
Australian Olympic cyclist Maeve Plouffe did not directly criticise Santos or the organisers but said that the event would be better served by a different sponsor.
“I think it will just resonate better for a lot of people involved if there was an option to have a different sponsor of the event,” she told The Guardian.
The former national road champion, Brodie Chapman, agrees, “It’s certainly time that the Tour Down Under looks for a new sponsor to more align with the values of the modern world, the Australian people, the natural world and athletes.”
The criticism of Santos has been growing, particularly after Australia’s devastating 2019–20 bushfires and Santos’ continued investment in new oil and gas developments.
Earlier this year, the company received approval for its Barossa gas project, widely regarded as one of the most emissions-intensive gas developments in the country.
The former national champion, Cyrus Monk, described it as “embarrassing” that Santos continues to sponsor the country’s biggest bike race.
“I’d love to see another sponsor to be able to step in,” he says.
“Obviously, the dream would be similar to the [Belgian] Renewi Tour, where the sponsor is a renewable energy company that is doing something better for the environment,” Monk says.
He added the assumption that replacing the company would be difficult, but it isn’t clear how much Santos pays for naming rights, or how much funding is provided by the South Australian government.
The race has previously been targeted by climate protests. In 2023, three partly naked women in their 60s and 70s were arrested at the opening stage of the women’s Tour in Adelaide, as part of Extinction Rebellion.
Video broadcast by 9 News showed the group holding signs saying ‘we tried polite’ and wearing white clothes, commenting on energy giant Santos’ involvement with the race, with holes cut out exposing certain areas.
“We are baring our ageing breasts and our wobbly bums in the hope of shocking,” one protester said. “Polite pleas and submissions have not been enough.”
When announcing their protest, Extinction Rebellion tweeted: “One of the world’s worst carbon polluters, Santos continues to pursue massive oil and gas expansion in Australia and around the globe. Their actions will drive global emissions to tipping points from which there is no return. They must be stopped.”
Santos did not respond to questions, but a spokesperson for the Tour Down Under told The Guardian that “without their support, we would not be able to deliver a world-class international bike race.
“Their support has enabled our event to grow, which has seen the introduction of a women’s WorldTour race with equal prize money to the men, and the TDU being recognised as Australia’s best sporting event in 2024.”
The spokesperson, echoing the South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, added that “natural gas produced by Santos plays an important part in South Australia’s world-leading investment in renewable energy, and its carbon capture and storage project at Moomba decarbonising the equivalent of 700,000 cars off our roads each year”
However, analysis suggests that the Moomba project has so far captured just 4.6% of Santos’ total corporate emissions.
Matt Rendell, a former Tour de France commentator now working with Badvertising campaign, said cycling’s economic and environmental image makes it an attractive target for fossil fuel companies seeking reputational benefits.
He said that the Tour Down Under is an obvious flashpoint, given it is held in a place “where cycling comes into contact with extreme weather”.
“Cycling works on the imagery of the man against mountain. It’s a David and Goliath scenario, but that’s also the struggle against the continued poisoning of the atmosphere,” he says.
The assumption that no other sponsor could be found is “a failure to imagine things otherwise”, he says.
“In the simplest terms possible: whether it’s Santos or someone else, as long as you are locked into a sponsor, you’re not out looking for other sponsors. As soon as there’s doubt, that changes.”
16 thoughts on “Pro cyclists urge Tour Down Under to drop “embarrassing” oil and gas sponsor”
But happy for UAE and Bahrain
But happy for UAE and Bahrain to keep sponsoring teams…
Just wondering why the fuss
Just wondering why the fuss in all reality. Cycle racing isn’t green by a long way. Maybe if we went back to the days when all pro racing was European based it would be better but sadly some do gooder would object to the lack of inclusivity. Maybe the sport could be dialled back to a couple of riders and a small car? But then like so many sports with limits you are creating an artificial ceiling which doesn’t reflect the ultimate. Look at the Dakar Rally. 450’s for goodness sake. Why should cycling be seen as “green”? Agreed some people, a few, will cycle not drive to work buut they are out numbered I bet by those who drive to cycle. That you? Hang you head in shame maybe. Cycling is really disposable. Tyres don’t last, cassettes don’t last, brake pads don’t last. Since when has the sport intended to be green. Finally the companies with the money are those who make so called harmful things. Funnily enough that is because so many people want those nasty things. Love the sentiment but it ignore reality.
mattsccm wrote:
Roughly 30% of UK cycling trips are for commuting, 40% for sporting/leisure and 30% other purposes (shopping etc). For your bet to pay out, over 75% of UK sporting/leisure cyclists would have to drive to cycle, which seems unlikely. I’d say of the fairly large number of sport/leisure riders I know 20% tops drive to cycle (mainly the keen MTBers) and even them not often. The vast majority do door to door rides, or ride out/train home.
Fair points. But it is also
Fair points. But it is also ‘ignoring reality’ to carry on with this business as usual model.
Climate change is a reality which cannot be ignored. So the question then is (something like) how to achieve the changes needed to avert or at least offset the worst impacts of climate collapse? Arguments for boycotting fossil-fuel sponsors begin with that premise. It could possibly be the wrong conclusion – but it is v far from ignoring reality. +1.4C already is not an illusion.
Friendly reminder, chaps…
Friendly reminder, chaps…
…or the fire.
…or the fire.
lesterama wrote:
Brodie chapman rides for UAE!
Brodie chapman rides for UAE!! funded by oil, promoting war crimes. Brodie needs to shushhh.
If the pros are that bothered
If the pros are that bothered about the involvement of oil and gas sponsors maybe they could start sailing between countries instead of flying everywhere by plane.
The carbon footprint of a top tier intl racing cyclist will be an order of magnitude higher than that of the average person.
True. But a with so many
True. But a with so many things it’s probably the thousands / millions of much smaller contributions from the rest of us which really tip the balance? (Sorry, can’t show my working here…)
I don’t know in this case. “Show, don’t tell” normally wins, and many times “do as I say not as I do” is entirely counterproductive. But also perhaps people with a platform / “idols” saying something may transmit that idea?
Even if we have to discount the fact that in eg. pro cycling to get there they can’t be living up on a moor, growing their own carbon fibre and lycra.
Isn’t this another parody
Isn’t this another parody account designed to illustrate how stupid climate change deniers are? Even most of the ‘usual suspects’ can’t actually believe what they’re writing – I assume they’re inexplicable malevolent tossers, like nearly all conspiracy theory purveyors. I admit that some of them really are as stupid as they appear.
Where’s your evidence that
Where’s your evidence that humans created all those comments? There is nothing to prove that humans produce comments, and they’re not just naturally occurring.
Seems it’s just a Trump bot.
Seems it’s just a Trump bot. Although the proof will be if it contradicts itself in a few hours…
Anyways, as had been noted, less attention, quicker boredom takes them.
Seems it’s just a Trump bot
Seems it’s just a Trump bot
They’re not even as funny as the ‘Evolution by Natural Selection’ deniers, although it’s all the same thing, really.
This thread makes me recall
This thread makes me recall the utter moron who repeatedly told me the earth is flat but was quite happy to use GPS to navigate around Wales.
As ever, CT nutters will embrace science to demonstrate something from several millennium ago but reject current science.
Funnily enough, all the CT nutters I met were also long term drug users. Of course, correlation is not causation.
Where do I start? Virtue
Where do I start? Virtue signaling at its finest.
Until pro teams travel to races in old timey sailing ships (bamboo now of course because those wooden “don’t align” with the modern world values), race on old second hand frames and components and eat compost I don’t want to hear this.
Pro cycling should be grateful for a sponsor… any sponsor… to support (and validate) this fringe “sport”. And having personally seen pro cycling rise and then fall again in “progressive” colorado (USA) believing that sponsorship is guaranteed is a proven fallacy.
Let’s all do a quick Google or AI search for where oil is used in bicycle manufacturing. Then travel. Let’s start there.
Currently all pro cycling does is drive bike industry consumption through the emphasis on marginal gains and maybe tourism… which requires oil.
Do you really think an oil sponsor is the biggest problem you face?
Jeez people.