‘A slap in the face’: UCI rule bars British Continental teams from Tour of Britain Women

British women’s cycling teams are sounding the alarm over a looming change in UCI regulations that will effectively bar them from competing in top-tier races on home soil.

From the 2026 season, UCI Women’s Continental Teams (the third tier of the sport) will no longer be eligible for Women’s WorldTour events. In practical terms, this means all the UK’s domestic UCI teams will be shut out of Britain’s only elite women’s race – the Tour of Britain Women – in favour of the top two tiers (WorldTour squads and the new ‘ProTeams’). Team managers warn the move could have dire consequences, from lost sponsorship and funding to a weakened domestic race scene and fewer opportunities for British riders.

As Bob Lyons, manager of the Handsling Alba Development Team, put it: “All our sponsors are British, so being able to race and showcase the team on home soil is really important to us – and to our existing and future sponsors.” Now, that home showcase is under threat. In exclusive interviews, Lyons and Rick Lister – manager of the Smurfit Westrock team – share their concerns and call for solutions.

First, let’s look at what is changing.

What has changed

The UCI’s 1 July memorandum (“Rules amendments applying on 20-10-2025”) rewrites the entry table for Women-Elite races. Two red-lined strokes delete “UCI Women’s Continental Teams” from the standard start-list for 1.WWT and 2.WWT events; a footnote says Conti squads can be invited only if, 30 days before the race, fewer than 15 Women’s WorldTeams + ProTeams have accepted. 

At the same time the Professional Cycling Council has ruled that, from 2026, every Women’s WorldTeam must ride the full WorldTour calendar, with each squad allowed to skip just one event. Any vacancy must be filled by a Women’s ProTeam, not a Continental outfit. Put together, those changes ban UCI Women’s Continental Teams from all WorldTour races unless the startlist collapses below 15 squads.

Below, we explore five key themes that emerged: the financial hit to teams, frustration with cycling authorities, the impact on the wider UK scene, a roadblock for rider development, and ideas to avert the worst outcomes.

Who is affected

Britain currently has five UCI Women’s Continental Teams:

• Handsling Alba Development Team
• Smurfit Westrock Cycling Team
• DAS-Hutchinson
• CJ O’Shea Racing
• Hess Cycling Team

All five raced the 2025 and 2024 editions of four-stage Tour of Britain Women. The event is the last remaining UCI road race on home soil after the demise of the RideLondon Classique.

Why the maths don’t work

WorldTour start-lists are capped at 24 teams, although the Tour of Britain Women has never been able to accommodate close to that number. At 19 teams in 2025, the Tour of Britain Women hosted the largest field in its history.

Here is the 2026 arithmetic for the Lloyds Bank Tour of Britain Women:

Guaranteed places	Teams	Running total
Women’s WorldTeams	16 licences (max four may skip)	16
Automatic Women’s ProTeam invites	2 (top ranked 2025 ProTeams)	18
Minimum threshold for the race to go ahead	15 WT + PT (already exceeded)	–

Even if four WorldTeams use their single “skip”, those slots must be offered to ProTeams under the new rule (there are currently 7 ProTeams), not to Continental squads. With the 15-team floor easily cleared, organisers will be prohibited from inviting Alba, Smurfit Westrock or any other British Conti team. Only if total acceptances fall below 15 can the UCI authorise last-minute Conti wild cards.

Continental teams only by exception Under amended Article 2.1.005, organisers may invite UCI Continental teams only if, 30 days before the race, fewer than 15 WorldTeams + ProTeams have confirmed. Since 16 WorldTeams hold licences and at least two ProTeams receive automatic invites, that 15-team floor will never fall—so there is no regular pathway for Continental squads. Even in the extreme case where four WorldTeams and all ProTeams decline (leaving 12 confirmed), organisers may invite Continental teams only to bring the total back up to 15. In that scenario, exactly three Continental teams could be added—and no more.

The best case scenario, although very unlikely, would be if there are four WorldTeam withdrawals and every single ProTeam – even the two “automatic” invitees – turn their spots down to open up slots for Continental squads. If 30 days out just 12 WorldTeams have confirmed (16 licences – 4 skips) and all seven ProTeams also decline their invites, the field sits at 12, below the UCI’s 15-team minimum. Under the foot-note exception in Article 2.1.005, organisers may then invite up to three Continental teams to restore the roster to 15.

Sponsors and finances under threat

For Britain’s Continental-level teams, racing in a WorldTour event like the Tour of Britain Women isn’t just about sporting glory – it’s a lifeline for funding. These teams rely on visibility in marquee races to attract and retain sponsors. Lister points out that the domestic calendar has already shrunk, with no RideLondon and the televised Tour Series criterium league now defunct. The Tour of Britain was “really the next thing” offering live TV exposure, he says – and without it, “we won’t get any TV coverage for our sponsors next year in the UK”. The Tour Series had been “massive for us; we sold a lot of our sponsorship on the fact we’d be getting TV coverage there,” Lister explains, and the Tour of Britain has been the last remaining stage race to showcase team backers on television.

I can’t put in the sponsorship proposal that there’s going to be TV coverage at the Tour of Britain – that wouldn’t be truthful to the sponsors

Losing that platform could destabilise teams’ finances. “I can’t put in the sponsorship proposal that there’s going to be TV coverage at the Tour of Britain – that wouldn’t be truthful to the sponsors,” Lister says, noting that it leaves “a big hole” in his pitch to new partners. “It cuts our revenue stream… quite a bit,” he adds bluntly. Lyons voices a similar concern: many companies see far more value in a British WorldTour event than in smaller races. “British sponsors will relate to things that are happening in Britain… they don’t see the benefit from British domestic racing because there’s not the same TV coverage, media pull or crowds,” he says. “A British WorldTour race ticks that box for them.” In short, being barred from the Tour of Britain means UK teams lose a prime “shop window” for sponsors – and with it, crucial leverage to secure funding for their programs.

Fewer pathways for rider progression

Perhaps the most worrying consequence, both managers agree, is the hit to rider development and progression. UK Continental teams serve as a springboard for promising riders – a way to hone their craft in international competition and catch the eye of top-tier scouts. Taking away their chance to start WorldTour races could significantly narrow the road to the sport’s highest level. “It comes back to what we’re all about – developing bike riders. We need to be, and want to be, in those [WorldTour] races for that development,” Lyons emphasises. Exposure to the quality and intensity of a WorldTour field is invaluable for young riders aiming to grow. Lyons’ team, for example, carefully builds a balanced calendar mixing domestic events with overseas UCI races. A home WorldTour stage race was a key piece of that puzzle – a rare opportunity for his developing riders to test themselves against the world’s best without leaving British roads. Lauren Dickson’s strong performances at this year’s race helped to raise her profile with WorldTour squads, for example.

It comes back to what we’re all about – developing bike riders. We need to be, and want to be, in those [WorldTour] races for that development

Now that opportunity is vanishing. From 2026, British Conti teams won’t be lining up at the Tour of Britain or any other WorldTour race. “Whether it be Flanders or Tour de Suisse or whatever – where we’ve had opportunities this year – they won’t exist anymore,” Lyons notes. “We cannot race [those events]… so it’s generally not a good thing”. The frustration is palpable: just as the women’s sport is growing, a key pathway for British talent is being blocked. Lister adds that while British Cycling might field a national Team GB squad  in the Tour of Britain next year – still permitted under the new regulations – that’s no substitute for a trade team’s participation. At best, it might allow one or two riders from domestic teams a guest spot in the race, but it does nothing for the team itself. A guest ride “wouldn’t help us in terms of our sponsors or overall recognition,” he points out – nor does it replicate the week-in, week-out support structure riders have with their trade team. In effect, talented British riders on domestic squads could find it harder to showcase themselves to WorldTour scouts, since they’ll be locked out of the very events that draw the most attention. The likely outcome, Lyons warns, is a generation of riders with fewer opportunities to bridge the gap to the top level, unless they move abroad or join foreign teams early in their careers.

Lyons says the squeeze is already visible on the continental calendar. “We’ve lost 11 women’s UCI road events this season—Dutch races dropped for a NATO summit, others for budgets,” he notes. “The pie is getting smaller just as we’re being pushed off the top slice.” With fewer 1.1 and 1.2 opportunities abroad, teams face an ever narrower path to the WorldTour.

Even when the races go ahead, lower tiers are no sure bet. Both managers recount recent lower-level UCI road races where local club squads were preferred to fully licensed Continental teams. Lyons says he was turned away from two spring classics that admitted four amateur outfits: “We pay a £6,500 UCI licence and £3k insurance, yet organisers chose clubs who don’t carry those costs.” Lister has had the same experience in Belgium, calling it “a pay-to-play loophole that shuts the door on teams who are supposed to be the sport’s professional bridge.”

It’s getting harder to build a balanced calendar full stop. The pathway is narrowing from both directions

The result is a pincer effect: barred from WorldTour starts at one end, muscled aside by home clubs at the other. “It’s getting harder to build a balanced calendar full stop,” Lyons says. “The pathway is narrowing from both directions.”

Domestic scene implications

Beyond individual teams, the exclusion of UK Continental squads from the Tour of Britain could have ramifications for the wider domestic racing scene. The Tour of Britain Women has been a tentpole event elevating the profile of women’s racing in the UK; without home teams in the race, there’s a risk of disengaging local fans and sponsors, and of teams reorienting away from the UK calendar. Lyons notes that his outfit has always made a point to support the National Road Series and other British events. “We will support British elite racing – this year we’re on every National Series race… and that goes for 2026,” he promises. However, if WorldTour opportunities vanish, he may be forced to rethink the balance: “With a caveat that we need to look at the UCI calendar, and if we have to compromise [domestic plans] because we’ve got to take an opportunity in Europe… then that’s what has to happen”. In other words, even a team deeply committed to the UK scene might have to skip British races when the choice is between a lower-profile home event and a higher-level race abroad that replaces what was lost.

Each race costs us around £400 in entry fees, and there’s five UK UCI teams. If they all had the same stance as us [and race abroad instead], the race organisers will be £1,500–2,000 down every race

Lister similarly warns that teams will increasingly prioritise racing overseas – and that could leave British races struggling. He explains that entering a UCI race in Belgium can cost his team about the same as contesting a National Series race in England, once travel assistance and the lack of entry fees are factored in. If the Tour of Britain ban forces his squad to “flip” its focus – fitting UK races around a Europe-heavy calendar, rather than vice versa – the knock-on effect could be fewer top teams at domestic events. “Each race costs us around £400 in entry fees, and there’s five UK UCI teams,” Lister says. “If they all had the same stance as us [and race abroad instead], the race organisers will be £1,500–2,000 down every race.” Those lost entry fees (which fund the grassroots of the sport) and smaller start lists would hurt local organisers – “and it’s not their fault… they’re the ones who are going to lose out”, he notes. Fewer elite teams on the domestic circuit could also mean less spectacle for spectators and less media interest – a vicious cycle of decline. In short, what’s bad for the top-end teams may prove just as bad for the national racing ecosystem that nurtures future talent.

Lack of support and consultation from authorities

Team managers are also frustrated at what they see as little consultation or support from the sport’s authorities in the UK. The new UCI rule may have been telegraphed in advance, but Lyons and Lister both feel blindsided by its implications have been handled. Lyons is blunt about what he sees as an advocacy vacuum. “British Cycling, as our governing body, are pretty weak when it comes to fighting our corner with the UCI – they just act as administrators,” he says, stressing that he regards lobbying for Continental teams as “part of their job”. “The top of the sport is in rude health, but the foundations – the Conti level – need some support and TLC.” He has already taken his concerns to both British Cycling and the UCI, “but nothing has moved.”

One sore point is the decision to keep the Tour of Britain at WorldTour status despite the exclusion of home teams. Lister says he directly questioned British Cycling about the possibility of dropping the race down to ProSeries level– a lower status that would allow Continental teams to compete. The answer he got, he says, was no. “I asked… ‘so you’re not looking at dropping it down to Pro [series]?’ The answer was no,” he says. And the rationale for staying WorldTour left him stunned. “I said, well, [if it’s WorldTour] the British Continental teams can’t race it… The answer I got was, ‘well, plenty of British riders [are] in the WorldTour now. We’ll still have British riders in the race.’” For Lister, that response was “a bit of a slap in the face”. Such logic, he says, underscores how little domestic teams’ contributions are valued. “They’re not even trying to keep us in our home race,” Lister says – a decision he finds both baffling and disheartening.

A downgrade from UCI Women’s WorldTour status is not something we are currently considering

In a statement to The British Continental, British Cycling said it shares teams’ disappointment but has no plans to drop the race’s WorldTour status.

“We are currently reviewing the latest updated UCI Women’s WorldTour regulations and information for 2026 … It is disappointing that the recent changes mean that British UCI Continental teams would not be eligible to participate in their national tour … We are also conscious of the impact these changes may have on exposure for teams and their sponsors.

“Our commitment is to continue to grow and develop the Lloyds Tour of Britain, so a downgrade from UCI Women’s WorldTour status is not something we are currently considering. However, we will continue to discuss these regulation changes and their impact with the UCI to explore how we can continue to support British riders going forwards.”

That stance leaves the onus on the UCI to create a domestic-team loophole – and offers little immediate comfort to the five British Conti squads.

Pushing for solutions

Faced with these challenges, team bosses are urging stakeholders not to simply accept the situation, but to seek creative solutions. One straightforward fix would be for the Women’s Tour of Britain to drop down to ProSeries status (one tier below WorldTour). “If the Tour of Britain was dropped down to Pro… then the British teams would be able to compete,” notes Lister. The reluctance, he and Lyons suspect, comes from a desire to preserve the prestige of a WorldTour label at all costs. “I don’t think they’ll do it – they want to keep [it at] WorldTour level because of the prestige,” Lyons says. It’s a mindset he understands on some level (“you want to put on that show,” he concedes) but one he believes is short-sighted given the likely downsides.

WorldTour teams don’t like coming to the UK because they have to put up with all the crap that we have to do every time we go to Europe after Brexit

After all, Lyons points out, a WorldTour race on paper isn’t much of a showcase if many top teams don’t bother to show up. “They’ve never had anywhere near all of the WorldTour teams [come to the women’s Tour of Britain],” he says. Logistical headaches – not least the post-Brexit customs carnets required to bring a team truck into the UK – deter many overseas squads. “WorldTour teams don’t like coming to the UK because they have to put up with all the crap that we have to do every time we go to Europe after Brexit,” Lyons observes wryly. Lister agrees: “They don’t come because of the carnet – it’s a huge rigmarole. For us it’s just normal… but for them it’s an extra hassle”. In other words, clinging to WorldTour status may actually yield a thin field – and at the same time forfeit the chance to include enthusiastic local teams who bring both competitive fire and fan engagement.

For now, Britain’s women’s Continental teams find themselves in an anxious holding pattern. Some, like Lyons, are exploring the nuclear option: moving up a level by applying for a Women’s ProTeam licence themselves, effectively joining the second tier to regain access to big races. His team has a plan on paper to do so – “a very detailed budget” of around £1.5 million annually would be needed, he says – but finding that kind of sponsorship in a matter of weeks (the application deadline for 2024 ProTeams is mid-August) is a long shot. “Never say never… ultimately we feel that’s where we need to be,” Lyons says of the ProTeam dream.

Short of such dramatic moves, team managers are appealing to British Cycling to recognise what’s at stake and reconsider their approach. They praise the efforts that saved the women’s Tour of Britain in 2024 after its previous organisers, Sweetspot, went into liquidation – it was “incredible” work to get the race back on the calendar, Lyons notes. That makes it all the more perplexing to him that, having revived the race, the powers in charge seem willing to exclude the very British teams that are helping to build its legacy.

“We’d really like to be doing the women’s Tour of Britain,” Lyons says simply. That sentiment is echoed by riders and fans across the UK scene. The new UCI regulations may be driven by a push for parity with the men’s structure, but without some flexibility, they risk undercutting the progress of women’s cycling in countries like Britain. Lyons and Lister stress that they’re not looking for special treatment – just a chance to continue competing at the highest level available to them. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: shutting out the home teams from Britain’s showcase race would leave a void that no number of imported big-name squads can fill. It would be a loss not only for the teams and their sponsors, but for the narrative of British women’s cycling.

Featured image: Olly Hassell/SWpix.com