Promotion and Relegation in Men’s World Tour Cycling: A Strategic Rebalance for 2020s

In almost every team sport outside North America, promotions and relegations spark anticipation each season. Fans of football, basketball, handball and similar disciplines follow these shifts closely. In cycling, however, such movements between divisions have been rare for years, largely due to ongoing regulatory changes around the sport’s structure. Since the latest reshuffle of licensing in the top tier, the World Tour, there has not been a regular relegation system in place for the men’s teams. This status quo began to shift again in 2022, signaling a renewed era of promotion and relegation tied to licensing for the top level.

That year marked the return of a three-year cycle designed for teams competing at the pinnacle of men’s professional cycling. Licenses granted in 2019 to World Tour squads were set to run through a three-year window. Most teams completed their obligations and were ready to continue, yet some faced strategic pressure to reimagine how they accumulated points to secure a future in the premier division.

To understand the present, it helps to recall how the sport evolved. At the start of this century, there was no formal, universally recognized ladder that dictated which teams could ride in the most prestigious races. Invitations to the Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a España were determined by the organizers, basing decisions on a mix of criteria and leaving the commercial fate of teams in the hands of event planners. That system concentrated decision-making power in the hands of those three grand tours and their stakeholders.

Consequently, it happened that some strong teams, including Movistar in its earlier iterations, did not participate in certain races for extended periods. International Cycling Union (UCI) expanded the sport’s footprint into markets like Australia, China, and the Persian Gulf—yet the invitation system remained uneven. The result was a mismatch between global ambitions and the practical mechanics of team participation, as some regions found it difficult to justify cross-continental travel for events framed as prestige exhibitions.

change in 2005

Looking back to 2005, the landscape changed with the creation of what was then called the UCI ProTour, a top-level division comprising roughly 18 to 20 teams guaranteed a place in the best events on the world calendar and in one-day races. In exchange, these squads pledged to compete at the highest level, even if some did not have a direct sporting or financial stake in certain races.

Issuing licenses was tied to a mix of economic and competitive criteria, and initial terms extended for four years. The early lineup featured teams such as Balearic Islands (now Movistar), Euskaltel-Euskadi, Freedom Insurance (formerly Eleven), and Saunier-Duval, representing Spain in that inaugural year of the system.

The framework soon faced friction from the organizers of the sport’s three biggest events—the Tour, the Giro, and the Vuelta—who sought more flexibility to invite riders and teams from their own regions. In 2008, major races tested the ProTour format with a broader set of events, signaling strains within the system that had endured for several years.

The reshaping intensified in 2011 when the UCI and the leading organizers reached an agreement to redefine the top tier. The new approach kept a philosophy of mandatory participation from a core group of teams, but allowed licensing decisions to reflect sporting results and commercial realities, rather than a fixed roster.

feedback issue

The challenge was evaluating sporting performances amid an economic downturn that forced some teams into precarious sponsor arrangements. There was a persistent risk that teams with strong seasonal results could still disappear if sponsorship vanished, and there were concerns about rewarding teams that did not maintain top-level competition.

A practical solution emerged: points earned by riders were attributed to the team that owned their contracts during the season in which results occurred. If a rider switched teams, points accrued by that rider did not disappear; they moved with the rider to the new squad. The logic aimed to balance the influence of individual athletes against the ongoing investment in a team’s roster.

Yet the system faced criticism. Cycling is ultimately a team sport, and the simplified approach sometimes produced outcomes that felt unfair—akin to a second-division squad moving into the first division simply because it signed a star rider. Critics argued that teams could recruit riders who were cost-effective in terms of points, rather than those who offered long-term sporting value.

top five

Over time, the design was refined. In the later iterations, top riders were identified within each team and used to determine whether a team’s points total should reflect the previous year or the payroll for the upcoming season. The enduring tension remained: teams desired both stability for sponsorships and the competitive pressure needed to ascend to the top tier.

In 2019, a more stable framework took hold. Licenses were awarded to 18 to 19 teams for a three-year term, contingent on meeting certain economic criteria. This structure left room to address gaps if teams withdrew, ensuring sponsors had a predictable horizon.

The system began implementing the new cycle through 2020, with an eye toward aligning points earned by a team’s top 10 riders for the year, regardless of whether those riders remained with the staff, and including potential future signings. Some teams faced more work than others, and public data on year-to-year evolution remained limited. Specialist outlets, however, maintained close tracking of the classification that would determine the 18 World Tour teams for the 2023–25 triennium.

Update notes from the period highlighted Movistar’s growing pressure and the formidable challenges facing teams at the cusp of relegation. Analysts observed that Millennial-era teams could find themselves at risk as thresholds fluctuated. Observers noted that the points gap against the danger line hovered around the low thousands, with daily rankings keeping teams aware of their standing.

As illustrated by the data, some teams sitting at the edge of the World Tour improved their position, while others in the second tier secured provisional places for the next three-year cycle. Movistar remained under close scrutiny as the calendar rolled on, with teams in the middle of the pack weighing options to protect sponsorship and maintain a viable budget for recruitment and development.

However, not every decision had been finalized. The season remained halfway through, with the Vuelta and the Tour still to run, and questions lingered about the scoring approach. Critics argued that mid-level one-day races in the 1.1 category could disproportionately boost a team’s points, sometimes more than a Grand Tour stage victory. In contrast, some level-4 events (1.2) offered unexpected benefits, challenging teams to rethink where to allocate their best riders.

alternative strategies

The result is a tension-filled reality: teams in the hot zone push to optimize results across a spread of events rather than chasing a single pinnacle on the calendar. For example, sprinter Caleb Evan from Lotto often balances participation in the Giro and the Tour with a slate of smaller races that fit the team’s overall plan. A similar approach is seen with BikeExchange sprinter Dylan Groenewegen, who juggles major goals with a broader race program.

Other riders, such as Michael Woods and Jakob Fuglsang, have navigated shifts that reflect this strategy, as have strong riders from Israel who sometimes undertake less conventional schedules. The question remains whether it is better to chase the marquee events or to build a consistent pipeline of results across a wider set of races. The debate centers on how to maximize the points that matter for the World Tour license while preserving sponsorship and talent.

The practical question persists: why participate in the World Tour at all? Access to the calendar’s biggest events is essential for visibility and sponsorship, yet the path to that access is not guaranteed for every team in every year. Wild cards and regional affiliations can help, but invitations to flagship events do not automatically follow. Without the Tour, the Giro and Vuelta risk losing prominence, sponsors pull back, budgets shrink, and talent departs. In short, the three-year horizon demands strategic patience and disciplined execution to sustain a team at cycling’s summit.