Cycling’s complex relationship with nation states and the controversial practice of sportswashing has never been more apparent than this autumn. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the sport celebrates its stars, it often turns a blind eye to the geopolitical tensions and human rights issues tied to its sponsors. Take, for instance, the unveiling of a life-sized gold statue of Tadej Pogacar in Abu Dhabi on November 1, 2023. The statue, a tribute to his triumphant season—including a Tour de France win and multiple World Championship titles—showcased the UAE Team Emirates rider in his iconic celebratory bow. Yet, just six days earlier, the Sudanese city of El-Fasher fell to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo Musa (Hemedti), accused by the United Nations of war crimes and potential genocide. And this is the part most people miss: the UAE, despite denials, has been linked by the international community to funding the RSF, driven by strategic interests in Sudan’s Red Sea access, agricultural potential, and gold reserves. Chatham House academics Ahmed Soliman and Dr. Suliman Baldo highlighted how the UAE benefits from Sudan’s ‘conflict gold,’ a stark contrast to Pogacar’s gleaming statue. When questioned about the UAE’s human rights record, Pogacar focused on cycling’s growth in the region, a response that underscores the sport’s uneasy alliance with nations accused of ethical violations. This tension was further amplified when Pogacar’s teammates chanted ‘U-A-E!’ after his fourth Tour de France victory, a scene that felt more like a political statement than a sporting celebration. But here’s the real question: Is cycling inadvertently becoming a tool for nations to polish their images while ignoring deeper issues? The Israel-Premier Tech (IPT) team faced similar scrutiny during the 2025 Vuelta a Espana, where their presence sparked mass pro-Palestinian protests across Spain, disrupting the race. Co-owner Sylvan Adams, a self-proclaimed ‘ambassador-at-large for Israel,’ has ties to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, further complicating the team’s image. Riders like Derek Gee, IPT’s star climber, have taken a stand, terminating contracts due to ethical concerns and safety fears, only to face multimillion-dollar damages claims. Gee’s case raises a critical question: Can cyclists ethically separate themselves from their teams’ sponsors? Cycling’s financial model, heavily reliant on sponsorship, leaves teams vulnerable to bankruptcy without deep-pocketed backers. Teams like Arkea-B&B Hotels have folded, while others, such as Lotto and Intermarche-Wanty, have merged under financial strain. Even nation-backed teams like Jayco-AlUla and XDS-Astana face uncertainty, highlighting the sport’s precarious financial foundation. But here’s where it gets even more complicated: Proposed solutions, like the One Cycling model backed by Saudi Arabian funds, risk perpetuating the very issues they aim to solve. The UCI, cycling’s governing body, shows little interest in regulating investment, leaving teams to navigate ethical and financial minefields alone. As the 2026 season approaches, the question remains: Can cycling reconcile its need for funding with its responsibility to address the ethical implications of its partnerships? What do you think? Is it possible for the sport to grow without becoming entangled in geopolitical controversies? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that cycling desperately needs.
