Teams : The Growing Gap in Pro Cycling

Budgets, data and talent are concentrating at the top, allowing a small group of teams to dominate the sport’s biggest races.

The illusion of an open sport

Professional cycling appears to be one of the most open sports.

The calendar is dense, the peloton is large, and new winners emerge almost every week. On the surface, it looks like a highly competitive ecosystem.

Yet this apparent diversity masks a deeper structural shift. The sport has not necessarily become less competitive overall — but it has become far more selective in where competition truly matters.

A quiet revolution

Two decades ago, the balance of power within the peloton was more evenly distributed. Teams such as T-Mobile Team, Team CSC or Rabobank operated in an environment where financial differences existed but rarely dictated outcomes on their own.

The turning point came in the early 2010s with the rise of Team Sky. Their approach — structured, data-driven and centred around marginal gains — did not simply improve performance. It reshaped the underlying logic of winning in professional cycling.

The budget gap

Today, the gap between teams is no longer marginal — it is structural.

Leading organisations such as UAE Team Emirates, INEOS Grenadiers and Visma–Lease a Bike operate with budgets estimated between €45 million and €60 million. In contrast, many WorldTour teams still function within a €15 million to €25 million range.

This difference translates directly into performance: deeper rosters, more specialised staff, better infrastructure and a greater ability to perform consistently across the season. What was once a competitive field has progressively evolved into a capital-intensive performance system.

A two-speed peloton

This financial divergence has created a clear separation within the peloton.

At the top, a small group of highly structured teams combine data, technology and depth to maximise performance. Below them, more traditional teams operate with fewer resources and a reduced capacity to compete for the biggest races.

This gap is no longer only visible in results. It is increasingly reflected in the sustainability of teams themselves. Mergers, sponsor instability and disappearances have become more frequent, suggesting that remaining competitive is now almost as challenging as winning.

Mapping the peloton: a structured hierarchy

The current landscape can be understood through a five-tier structure that reflects both financial and sporting realities.

At the top, a group of “super teams” — including UAE Team Emirates, INEOS Grenadiers and Visma–Lease a Bike — dominates the most prestigious races with budgets exceeding €45 million.

Below them, a second tier of strong contenders such as Lidl–Trek, Soudal Quick-Step and Bora–Hansgrohe remains competitive, but with less consistency at the very top level.

The middle of the peloton is composed of solid but increasingly constrained teams, while the lower tiers are characterised by limited budgets and growing survival challenges.

This hierarchy is no longer informal — it is increasingly rigid.

A growing concentration of wins

Data from ProCyclingStats clearly illustrates how performance has evolved over time.

In 2006, the top five teams accounted for around 40% of all wins. By 2025, that figure had risen to nearly 60%. A similar pattern can be observed for the top three teams, whose share increased from 28% to 43% over the same period. Even the leading team alone now captures more than one fifth of all victories, roughly double its share two decades ago.

The most striking aspect of this evolution is not its magnitude, but its timing. For nearly a decade, from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s, the distribution of wins remained relatively stable. The acceleration occurred later, coinciding with the rise of data-driven performance models, increasing financial disparities and the consolidation of top teams.

Points tell a different story

While victories have become more concentrated, the distribution of UCI points presents a more nuanced picture.

Over the past decades, the share of points accumulated by the top teams has remained relatively stable, fluctuating around 25% to 30% for the top five teams. Even the leading team’s share has only increased moderately.

This contrast highlights an important distinction. The peloton remains competitive in terms of overall activity and points accumulation, but the most prestigious victories are increasingly captured by a limited number of teams.

In other words, competition has not disappeared — it has become more selective.

The rise of dominant riders

This concentration is reinforced by the emergence of a small group of exceptional riders who dominate the biggest races.

Names such as Tadej Pogačar, Jonas Vingegaard, Mathieu van der Poel and Remco Evenepoel consistently win Grand Tours, Monuments and major one-day races.

Their dominance is not isolated. It is closely tied to the teams they represent, further concentrating success within a small number of organisations.

The role of institutional capital

Another factor accelerating this evolution is the nature of team funding.

Teams such as UAE Team Emirates, Bahrain Victorious and Astana Qazaqstan Team benefit from backing that is not always driven by short-term commercial return.

This type of investment, often linked to broader strategic or national objectives, allows for higher and more stable budgets. In turn, it raises the ceiling of what top teams can achieve and further widens the gap with the rest of the peloton.

2026: early signs of change

While the overall structure remains stable, early signals suggest that the composition of the top tier may evolve.

The strengthening of Bora–Hansgrohe, supported by Red Bull and reinforced by the arrival of Remco Evenepoel, points towards the emergence of a fourth super team.

At the same time, Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale appears to be moving upwards, supported by increased investment and the emergence of young talents such as Paul Seixas.

These developments suggest that while the hierarchy itself remains intact, the identities of the dominant teams may continue to shift.

Conclusion: a more selective sport

Professional cycling has not lost its depth. The peloton remains active, diverse and competitive across a wide range of races.

However, the distribution of success has changed.

Victories — particularly the most prestigious ones — are increasingly concentrated among a small number of teams. Financial resources, talent and performance systems are aligning in a way that reinforces this concentration.

The result is a sport that remains open in appearance, but increasingly selective in practice. The peloton is still large, but the group of teams consistently competing for the biggest wins is getting smaller.