UCI again in the highest group of ASOIF's international sports governance review
Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the world governing body for cycling headquartered in Aigle, Switzerland, has again been placed in group A1, the highest tier in the sixth review of international federation governance conducted by the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF). According to UCI's announcement of 12 June 2026, this is the assessment for the 2025-2026 period, in which the cycling federation achieved 225 out of a possible 240 points. It thereby improved its result from the previous cycle, when it had 218 points, and remained for the third consecutive time among the three highest-rated international federations covered by ASOIF's review.
ASOIF published the results of the sixth review on 10 June 2026, stating that the report shows continued progress by Summer Olympic International Federations in areas such as gender equality, safeguarding of participants, election campaign rules, whistleblowing procedures and open procurement. The review is important because it does not deal with sporting results, the number of competitions or the commercial strength of an individual federation, but with the way in which organizations are structured, how transparent they are and how resilient they are to the risks that accompany global sport. UCI's result therefore has broader significance than an internal administrative assessment: it confirms cycling's position among the best-ranked sporting systems according to institutional governance criteria.
What group A1 means
Group A1 in ASOIF's review represents the highest level of governance assessment. According to UCI, entry into that tier in the sixth review required at least 210 points out of a possible 240. ASOIF's 2025-2026 review covered 36 international federations, and 14 of them entered group A1. In that tier, alongside cycling, are the international federations for athletics, aquatics, rowing, badminton, baseball and softball, basketball, equestrian sport, football, rugby, tennis, table tennis, triathlon and volleyball.
ASOIF's report shows that all federations that were in group A1 in the previous cycle retained that status, while seven additional federations joined them. This points to the spread of the highest governance standards among Summer Olympic sports, but also to increasing competition among organizations that want to prove they have clear rules of decision-making, oversight and accountability. According to its own announcement, UCI not only remained in the highest tier but also increased its total number of points, keeping it at the very top of the ranking. According to World Athletics' announcement, the highest publicly highlighted result in the sixth review was 228 out of 240 points, so UCI's 225 points show how small the gap is between the leading federations in the highest tier.
For readers outside sports administrations, such a classification may seem technical, but its effect is practical. International federations govern competition rules, calendars, ethical standards, development systems, the anti-doping environment, relations with national federations and a large part of the institutional life of an individual sport. When such organizations have strong governance mechanisms, there is less room for non-transparent decisions, conflicts of interest and inconsistent application of rules. That is why ASOIF's review is used in the Olympic movement as one of the relevant tools for comparison and for encouraging reforms.
Assessment through 60 indicators
The sixth governance review was conducted by ASOIF's Governance Task Force and, according to available announcements and the expert commentary by I Trust Sport, the process included independent support and moderation of responses. The system is based on a self-assessment questionnaire, but the answers do not remain only at the level of federations' claims: they are analyzed and independently checked in order to reach the final assessment. In the sixth cycle, 60 indicators were used, and the areas of assessment were transparency, integrity, democracy, development and sustainability, and control mechanisms.
Such a framework covers a broad range of issues. In practice, it assesses whether federations publish key documents, how they regulate election rules, whether they have clear policies for ethics reports, how they prevent conflicts of interest, how accessible financial and strategic information is, and whether effective oversight mechanisms exist. The inclusion of development and sustainability is particularly important for sports that operate on all continents because governance is not limited to the federation's central office, but extends to relations with national and continental members, athletes, organizers and the communities in which competitions are held.
In its latest announcement, UCI stated that the review particularly highlighted the federation's progress in several key areas. According to UCI, the federation achieved the maximum score in transparency, while progress was also recorded in integrity, democracy, development and sustainability, and control mechanisms. These are precisely the areas in which global sports organizations are expected to show the greatest resilience, especially at a time when international sport faces pressures concerning financing, competition calendars, athlete safety, event sustainability and the protection of the independence of sporting decisions.
UCI's steady growth through six reviews
UCI's result in the sixth review is part of a longer trend of improvement. According to data published by UCI, the federation had 126 points in 2017 in a system with 50 indicators, 152 points in 2018, 170 points in 2020 and 185 points in 2022. After the system was expanded to 60 indicators, UCI achieved 218 points in 2024 and 225 points in 2026. Such a sequence shows that this is not a one-off jump, but a gradual strengthening of institutional standards through several cycles.
The growth is also important because the review criteria have developed over time. ASOIF's Governance Task Force stated in the latest report that, after increasing the number of scored indicators from 50 to 60 in the fifth review, it decided to retain 60 indicators for the 2025-2026 cycle, with minor changes. This means that comparison between cycles is not merely a mechanical tracking of the same test, but reflects federations' adaptation to an increasingly demanding framework. UCI's progress within such a system therefore shows the ability to adapt, not only to preserve a previously acquired position.
In cycling, this dimension is particularly important because UCI governs a large and branched sporting system. Under its umbrella are disciplines with different competition models, from road cycling and track cycling to mountain biking, BMX, cyclo-cross, para-cycling and indoor disciplines. Such diversity increases the complexity of governance: rules must be harmonized, yet sufficiently adaptable to cover professional series, Olympic disciplines, development programmes, recreational initiatives and different levels of national systems. A high governance score indicates that UCI, according to ASOIF's criteria, is able to maintain such a structure with relatively strong institutional oversight.
Agenda 2030 as a framework for change
UCI linked the latest result with its own Agenda 2030, a strategic framework that the federation describes as a plan for the development of global cycling. According to UCI's announcement, Agenda 2030 is based on the priorities of integrity, sustainability, solidarity, innovation and development. The federation states that progress in ASOIF's review confirms the effect of that long-term plan, especially in the parts related to strengthening governance standards and institutional accountability.
Such a strategic framework is important because it connects administrative reforms with the concrete challenges of sport. Sustainability in international sport is no longer viewed only as an environmental issue, but also as a matter of the way events and travel are organized, relations with hosts and the long-term effects of competitions. Integrity does not refer only to the fight against doping, but also to the ethical conduct of officials, the protection of whistleblowers, the prevention of competition manipulation and transparent decision-making. Solidarity and development, meanwhile, relate to expanding opportunities for athletes and federations from different parts of the world, which is especially important in a global sport with large differences in resources.
UCI Director General Amina Lanaya stated in the federation's announcement that the sixth edition of ASOIF's review again confirms UCI's position among the leading sports organizations in the field of governance. According to her statement, the improvement of the result while retaining a place among the highest-ranked federations shows the relevance of the work carried out within the framework of Agenda 2030. Such a message is at the same time an institutional confirmation and an obligation, because a high score does not close the reform process but increases expectations for the next cycles.
The broader context for the Olympic movement
ASOIF is the umbrella organization of Summer Olympic International Federations within the Olympic system. According to the profile of the International Olympic Committee, ASOIF was founded in 1983 to coordinate and defend the common interests of its members and to ensure cooperation with other parts of the Olympic movement, while preserving the authority, independence and autonomy of international federations. This explains why the issue of good governance in the report is not viewed only as an internal procedure, but as a foundation of trust in the way sport independently regulates its own rules.
ASOIF President Ingmar De Vos emphasized in UCI's announcement that high governance standards of international federations are an important element of ASOIF's strategy for the 2026-2032 period and essential for defending the autonomy of federations. This message comes at a time when international sport increasingly has to balance commercial interests, public expectations, athletes' demands, political pressures and the need to maintain the credibility of its decisions. In such an environment, organizations that can demonstrate clear procedures, accountability and transparency have a stronger basis for independent decision-making.
In publishing the results, ASOIF stated that all 31 federations that participated in the previous cycle again exceeded the target of 150 points out of a possible 240. Among the five new associate members that participated for the first time, four exceeded the target of 135 points. These data show that progress does not relate only to a few of the largest or financially strongest federations, but that a culture of governance is gradually spreading through a larger part of the Summer Olympic sports system. At the same time, the differences between groups A1, A2 and B show that room for improvement still exists.
Why the assessment matters for cycling
For cycling, UCI's remaining in group A1 has a reputational and operational effect. Reputationally, the federation positions itself among the organizations that ASOIF considers most successful in governance, which is important in relations with national federations, organizers, sponsors, athletes and Olympic institutions. Operationally, a high score confirms that systems exist which should enable more predictable decisions, clearer procedures and better oversight of rule implementation. This is particularly important in a sport that has a dense international calendar, different disciplines and a large number of stakeholders.
International cycling in recent years has increasingly depended on the ability to harmonize sporting, commercial and social interests. Major road races, Olympic disciplines, the development of women's cycling, para-cycling competitions, safety issues, technological innovations and event sustainability require stable institutions. A high score in ASOIF's review does not mean that every issue has been resolved, but it shows that UCI, according to external criteria, has one of the stronger governance frameworks among Summer Olympic federations.
It is also important that ASOIF's review does not reward only the formal existence of rules, but increasingly observes how standards have been translated into practice. If a federation publishes documents, has clear oversight mechanisms, developed ethics policies and transparent decision-making processes, then it is easier to monitor its accountability towards athletes and members. In that sense, UCI's result of 225 points is not just an administrative figure, but an indicator of the level of institutional maturity that the federation has managed to demonstrate in international comparison.
Continued pressure for reforms
Despite its high ranking, ASOIF's review does not represent a final confirmation that governance challenges have been solved. The organization itself emphasizes in the report that such reviews are a means of continuous improvement, not a one-off ranking list. UCI, like other federations in the highest tier, will have to maintain high standards in the next cycles and prove that the system can adapt to new requirements. This may include additional transparency, strengthening of safeguarding mechanisms, more precise election and campaign rules, as well as further linking the development of sport with sustainability.
For global sport, this process is increasingly important. Public trust in international sports organizations is built not only through major competitions, but also through how decisions are made, how money is spent, how participants are protected and how reports of irregularities are resolved. ASOIF's sixth review shows that among Summer Olympic federations the number of organizations meeting the highest standards is increasing, and UCI is among those that retained that status while additionally improving their result. In the next period, it will be crucial for cycling to turn this institutional assessment into continued trust by athletes, members and the public in the way the sport is governed globally.
Sources:
- Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) - announcement on UCI's result in the sixth ASOIF governance review (link)
- Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) - announcement of the results of the sixth review of international federation governance (link)
- ASOIF Governance Task Force - Sixth Review of International Federation Governance, 2025-2026 report (link)
- International Olympic Committee (IOC) - ASOIF profile and description of its role in the Olympic movement (link)
- I Trust Sport - expert post on independent support for the sixth ASOIF governance review (link)
- World Athletics - announcement on the highest score in the sixth ASOIF review (link)