In suspense: Belgian Competition Authority imposes interim measures on cycling standard

The standard at stake

On June 12, 2025, the UCI announced the adoption of a new technical standard that limited the maximum gear ratio permitted in professional road cycling events.

SRAM, a U.S.-based bicycle components manufacturer, is one of two main suppliers of transmission systems for road bikes used by professional cyclists. However, its current products did not meet the requirements of the UCI’s new standard. As a result, teams using SRAM equipment are at a disadvantage compared to teams using competing systems that conform to the required standard.

SRAM asked the BCA to suspend the UCI’s standard. It made the request shortly before a cycling competition in China.

Suspension granted

The BCA granted SRAM’s request. It ordered the UCI to comply with three measures:

• Immediate suspension of the maximum gear ratio
• Ban on imposing gear‑ratio limits at UCI‑regulated road cycling events, as well as any other measures that would directly or indirectly result in certain types of transmission systems being banned at UCI‑regulated road cycling events
• Publication (within 24 hours) of a press release noting that the standard is not applicable, referring to the BCA’s decision

The BCA ordered the prohibitions to remain in effect until UCI adopts a new safety standard through a transparent, objective, and non‑discriminatory process, or until a decision on the merits of the case is issued. UCI can be fined for any breach and the BCA’s Investigation and Prosecution Service is responsible for monitoring compliance.

The BCA's reasoning

Legal framework

The BCA can impose interim measures if, in addition to the request falling within the BCA’s competence and the admissibility requirement being met, there is a prima facie infringement of antitrust law and if there is an urgent need to avoid a situation that is likely to cause damage that is serious, immediate and difficult to repair to the undertakings whose interests are affected by such practices, or which is likely to harm the general economic interest.

Prima facie infringement

The BCA concluded that the standard was developed and implemented without proper consultation with key stakeholders like SRAM. According to the authority, it lacked transparency and appeared to discriminate against SRAM by excluding its products from the tour without sufficient justification—the safety concerns invoked by UCI were deemed insufficient and not substantiated. Less restrictive measures should have been considered to address these concerns.

The condition that there should be a prima facie antitrust infringement is, in practice, a very low threshold; in line with the BCA’s established practice, this condition is met as soon as it is not manifestly unreasonable that a measure could infringe antitrust law.

This led the BCA to conclude that the adoption and implementation of the new technical standard by UCI constituted a prima facie infringement of the Belgian and EU antitrust rules.

Urgent need to prevent harm

The BCA found that there was a clear and imminent need to avoid SRAM’s (“difficult to repair”) harm from occurring, for several reasons: the standard could inflict reputational damage, loss of orders, and require last-minute technical changes, further amplified by performance disadvantages, compliance risks and safety concerns.

All these risks would result in commercial losses that would damage SRAM’s market position in the long term, even if the standard would later be annulled by a decision on the merits.

Key takeaways

Third BCA decision in three months against a professional sports association

The BCA’s decision sends a clear message that standards by international sports federations should comply with antitrust law but also underlines the influence of private applicants in this context. It is remarkable that this decision is the third in just over three months against a professional sports association before the BCA, next to the request against the Belgian Hockey Federation (BHF) and the U23 Challenger Pro League (CPL).

There are opportunities for competitors

The decision highlights the BCA’s openness to hearing requests from private applicants, rather than relying solely on public enforcement. Teams, athletes, equipment manufacturers and other market participants can seek injunctive relief against allegedly restrictive standards imposed by associations.

The BCA’s willingness to engage with such requests can facilitate timely remedies and help prevent barriers to market access.

Interim measures are an effective enforcement tool in Belgium

Interim measures are more commonly granted in Belgian antitrust enforcement than in many other jurisdictions.

The BCA applies a relatively low burden of proof and is required to deal with interim measures requests within a very short timeframe.

By way of comparison, at EU-level, for example, the criterion of a prima facie infringement is interpreted more strictly, and proof of irreparable harm is required. In addition, interim measures are not dealt with as expeditiously as the BCA (for example, it took the European Commission (EC) one year to impose interim measures on Broadcom).

The EC has recently consulted on potential reforms to its antitrust procedures (with a new Regulation expected to be adopted in the third quarter of 2026). In its call for evidence (building on its 2024 evaluation of Regulation 1/2003), the EC considered the different views on changes to the legal test and procedural requirements for interim measures to enable them to be more effectively used, as interim measure requests are currently seen as procedurally intensive.

The current position may give rise to a degree of forum shopping for interim measures. The BCA took a broad interpretation of jurisdiction. In this case, it did not matter that the foreign seat of the parties was outside Belgium, or the test race was held in China, as long as Belgian teams, riders, distributors, or consumers could be affected.

Professional associations beware

Associations should exercise care when designing enforceable standards and guidelines. They should ensure that any standard is established through a process that is transparent, objective and non-discriminatory.