When good intentions are not enough: The UCI Gear-Ratio Brussels judgment and the process of rule-making in sport

On^[1] 20 May 2026, the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed the UCI’s appeal against the interim measures decision^[2] adopted by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) in October 2025.^[3]  The Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the BCA’s finding that the UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol (the “Protocol”) constituted a prima facie [on its face] restriction of competition, and confirmed that its suspension must remain in force to prevent serious, imminent, and difficult-to-remedy harm to SRAM and the professional cycling teams using its equipment, and to the general economic interest.

What began as a technical dispute over a rear sprocket has produced a ruling with potential implications for broader sports governance.

This article discusses the Brussels Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding the suspension of the UCI’s maximum gear-ratio Protocol, and what it means for how sports governing bodies make their rules under EU competition law.

It looks at:

• Background
• The Belgian Competition Authority’s interim decision suspensing the Protocol
• The Brussels Court of Appeal’s Judgment (20 May 2026)
  • Extending The Superleague Framework Beyond Dual-Role Cases?
  • Consistency with the CJEU’s later case law
  • A binding norm requires procedural safeguards at adoption
  • Safety does not excuse a flawed process
• Next steps for this case
• Key takeaways