Finally, after a month of complaints, cancelled subscriptions, and social media debates, the day is almost upon us.
On Friday – the day before Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, the start of the ‘real’ cycling season for many fans – cycling coverage in the UK will move to TNT Sports, as Eurosport shuts its doors after three decades of broadcasting in Britain and Ireland.
And on Tuesday afternoon, TNT’s owners Warners Bros. Discovery unveiled its cycling calendar for the remainder of 2025, which will feature over 1,000 live cycling events and 2,500 hours of racing, including every men’s and women’s WorldTour race for the first time ever.
> How to watch cycling for less now it's moving to £30.99-a-month TNT Sports
This “unprecedented” coverage will, of course, now cost you £30.99 a month (though you can get cheaper deals if you know where to look), a price hike of 343 per cent compared to the old Eurosport sub.
And with ITV set to broadcast its final Tour de France this summer (for the foreseeable future anyway) after losing the rights to the sport’s biggest race, TNT’s impending status as, in Discovery’s words, the “new ultimate home of cycling for fans in the UK and Ireland” has led these very fans to mourn the demise of free-to-air cycling coverage, and with it the accessibility of the sport to new viewers.
However, as we reported back in January when the news first broke of cycling’s move to TNT Sports, Discovery have attempted to assuage some of these fears by sticking daily free-to-air highlights packages of the men’s Giro d’Italia and the Vuelta a España, as well as the men’s Paris-Roubaix, on Quest.
A new weekly magazine programme, ‘The Ultimate Cycling Show’, fronted by Orla Chennaoui and Adam Blythe, will also air on Quest, starting tomorrow night at 10pm, with 15 episodes to follow throughout the season (so not that weekly then).
(ASO/Billy Ceusters)
In a statement published yesterday, Scott Young, Warner Bros. Discovery’s senior vice-president of content, production and business operations said: “Our commitment to cycling has no boundaries, and we will continue to deliver further investment to elevate the fan experience across linear, streaming and digital.
“Our approach to the 2025 season continues our mission to shine a light on every aspect of this epic sport – from the world’s greatest male and female riders to the stories from the passionate people at grassroots level keeping this industry spinning.
“Our live race coverage is unprecedented, broadcasting 100 per cent of the men’s and women’s UCI World Tours for the first time ever. The Ultimate Cycling Show will serve as the perfect story-telling platform across the season with engaging analysis, discussion and content formats. Its free-to-air access will ensure a broader audience reach, whilst satisfying the seasoned viewer and attracting new fans. We will have an enriched digital operation with upscaled presence at key races, providing added depth and insight to the experience."
> Warner Bros. Discovery tries to tempt disgruntled cycling fans back with half price for seven months offer sent to viewers who cancelled subscriptions
Meanwhile, in another bid to calm everybody down (good luck with that), Discovery also expanded on TNT Sports’ new “grassroots cycling initiative”, Just Ride, which it says aims to “inspire the next generation of riders” and encourage families and communities to “embrace cycling by getting out on their bikes”.
The initiative will offer kits and cash prizes up to £10,000 for “cycling tribes who can demonstrate their passion for the sport” by submitting videos as part of a nationwide competition, with the winner set to be announced during the worlds in September.
And with the price hike debated to death over the last four weeks, it’s this grassroots scheme – largely ignored when it was first announced last month – that has attracted the attention of fans online, who noted a certain irony in the notion of a broadcaster aiming to promote a sport while increasing the cost of watching it by 343 per cent.
(ASO/Charly Lopez)
“I don’t know. Perhaps the way to support grassroots is to put more cycling (such as the Tour) on free-to-air, rather than a big paywall?” asked Scott Bryan, the TV critic behind those brilliant end-of-year news blooper compilations (if you haven’t seen them, go check them out).
“Free to air television has a huge impact in getting viewers behind a whole range of sport. TNT are doing a free weekly cycling show on Quest, but the best way is to just to show viewers more races.”
“The grassroots must have a lot of roots to pay the sub,” agreed Ultratorque on Threads.
David, meanwhile, described the Just Ride initiative as “a meaningless fig leaf that doesn’t obscure the fact they’ve decimated access to the sport for most viewers. Terrible news for cycling and its fans in the UK.”
“Is this sportswashing? Looks up definition…” added Joel.
> “Sad we can’t afford to watch you anymore”: Tom Pidcock unveils classics schedule... prompting fan complaints about TNT’s cycling price hike
Meanwhile, others also weren’t convinced that shoving a few highlights and panel shows on Quest is the answer to the big ITV-shaped hole facing the sport in 2026.
“Quest. I mean, come on,” wrote Gareth. “They’d get more viewers just by sticking it on YouTube. Quest, my arse.”
“Good idea Scott,” added Paul. “Maybe they could set up a free to air channel showing lots of different sports from all round Europe. They could call it something like SportsEuro...”
“Imagine sport broadcasting to increase participation and not for shareholders, a novel idea,” another BlueSky user said.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
However, not everyone agreed with the concept that free equals good.
“I really do think people should stop moaning about this. Discovery/Max spend huge amounts of money covering cycling across the world,” argued Pepepig on Threads.
“It’s a quality product and many races are now covered from start to finish without adverts. The commentators are pretty good, with the odd exception.
“Why do British people think that a European broadcaster should have any sense of responsibility for encouraging cycling in the UK? Surely that’s the job of British Cycling.”
And Lorien wrote: “They said the same about BSkyB and the Premier League breakaway. OK, it’s a bit different as football was the nation’s darling, but Sky made football in the UK and the Premier League the biggest and best league in the world by viewers and commercials.
“Not everything that sounds good as a common-sense argument is actually correct. Mountain bike was free for decades, and the UCI Downhill World Cup was on Freecaster then Red Bull, but downhill bikes sales slowed to enduro bikes.
“Enduro was free for nearly a decade and yet enduro bikes sales slowed to e-bikes. The growth of enduro, participation, and viewing figures stagnated. And yet it was all free.”
> “Can you imagine any retailer of any other product getting away with that?” Ex-UCI president Brian Cookson uses baked beans analogy to hit out at “outrageous and incompetent” Warner Bros. Discovery for “trying to kill cycling for British customers”
Meanwhile, Leo noted that encouraging people to get on their bikes in the UK boils down to more than just showing them Tadej Pogačar sprinting against Jonas Vingegaard on a Pyrenean climb.
“I would argue that while taking content such as the TdF away from free-to-air is a problem, there’s also a far wider hostility towards cycling in the UK that needs to be addressed,” he said.
“But couldn’t agree more about the paywalling. The loss of the ITV coverage is such a shame, the entire production there has been top class.”
And finally, Mike said: “Only way they’ll get me back on my bike is if they somehow lobby the government to abolish cars.”
Now that’s something I imagine quite a few of our readers would happily pay £30.99 a month for…
Add new comment
40 comments
RE: Cambridge Continuous Footway (apparently AKA "Copehagen Crossings"):
I don't think getting party political helps (active travel is still a political football) ... but I did feel drawn to check, and indeed she just happens to be a Conservative councillor (fancy that, Flinty...).
Anyway: I note that yes, "if we change things, they won't be the same". (As her fellow councillors pointed out). It is true - there will be some "learning by trial and error". That's not an excuse though - proper versions of these new designs are generally safer. And the idea we can somehow educate everyone in theory, then get the infra in - nope. (It would be great but just won't happen).
Fortunately, we can just point to the existing principles that drivers are supposed to be following e.g. "just don't drive into people" and "if you're unsure as to what you're doing, don't barrel on regardless".
And our current transport infra is an accident not waiting to happen at all, but doing so fairly regularly and predictably.
I do worry that they'll install failures of continous footway though. For example Edinburgh has had quite a few goes at this over the years and only just managed to (almost...) get it right with the section of CCWEL at Haymarket. Here's a checklist for them.
If that were so I think I'd have to break with the principles of the last 20 years and catch a flight to Barcelona to watch it, that would be quite something in a TTT. Sadly the stage entails an 800 metre-long climb at 7% at the finish, meaning it's only actually about a 55 metre climb.
Doesn't (cycle) traffic going straight on over a side-road already have priority? Pedestrians certainly do, so I'd presumed that the cyclists do too…
I think HC only specifically mentions pedestrians and kind of ignores the fact that other kinds of traffic may be needing to cross too
Only pedestrians here:
...and here.
This one's confusing - you should give way to them if they're waiting to cross / they have priority if they've already started to cross.
I think Rule H3 covers the cyclist version (cyclists wouldn't be allowed on a pavement): "You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them."
Cyclists wouldn't be allowed on a 'pavement' unless it's a shared use space, which I think is what we're talking about here, and seems to be overlooked by the current rules.
Even if you consider that it constitutes a 'cycle track', in most current cases, that stops when it reaches the side road and only starts again the other side, so people turning in wouldn't be 'cutting across it'.
(Plus there are other modes which could be using footways and shared use spaces which don't get a mention at all - presumably there's just an assumption they can be lumped in with 'pedestrians'.)
The more you follow this argument (priority for various users) the worse it seems to get. What with interpretation, education and rights; or lack of
.
I was wondering the other day about what is supposed to happen at a signal controlled junction (no pedestrian lights/crossing). Can I as a pedestrian claim priority, as a vunerable user, and cross the minor road; irrespective of the lights, as they do not apply to me. Ballsy, but stupid, I know.
Rule 21
If no pedestrian signals have been provided, watch carefully and do not cross until the traffic lights are red and the traffic has stopped.
But what(aboutery) turning traffic ?? I have priority, but they have a green light, there is no all red phase
.
The full rule covers it:
At traffic lights. There may be special signals for pedestrians. You should only start to cross the road when the green figure shows. If you have started to cross the road and the green figure goes out, you should still have time to reach the other side, but do not delay. If no pedestrian signals have been provided, watch carefully and do not cross until the traffic lights are red and the traffic has stopped. Keep looking and check for traffic that may be turning the corner. Remember that traffic lights may let traffic move in some lanes while traffic in other lanes has stopped.
I don't think it does.
" Keep looking and check for traffic that may be turning the corner."
I have priority, but they have a green light. Who's going to win?
I think my point is, that ever increasing regulation seems only to create additional confusion & ambiguity.
" courtesy & common sense seemed more common. Now it's all about (poorly worded) rules & rights.
"When I started driving
Ultimately I guess the hierarchy of road users applies. All users have a responsibility to look out for themselves, but "those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others". Green for the driver only means proceed if safe, so they should give you priority.
Cycle traffic on the main carriageway (whether in a lane or not) has priority over anything turning into or out of the side road. But if you're on a shared use path at "pavement level" if you will, then often those have give way lines at side roads. I have assumed those give way markings still apply and aren't overidden (no pun intended) by the new priority rules - particularly, as mdavidford says, as they're only for pedestrians.
I think that's what I was thinking of, quiff: thank you.
I have to say that everything else makes the whole thing so stupid IMO - the idea that pedestrians on the footway have priority but that cyclists using the shared facilities (ie. the very same stretch of tarmac) might (do?) not.
Unfortunately we've already had a child killed in just such circumstances and a grown man, apparently a "professional driver" - given excuses by a collision investigator and a coroner...
I know there are probably some rules in the way here * in the UK. And "that's just how people drive". But again, in principle we've got the new interpretation of guidelines:
* There always seem to be ... except when all the media is having a go, or someone's turned up with the promise of concentrating millions of pounds of cash, that is. Then it seems that somehow our politicians manage to get new laws agreed - or new interpretations of them - sharpish. Merely saving (qute a lot of) cash or saving lives doesn't do it apparently.
In this case, given the history of doping in gridiron, it's probably the fact that he managed to get away with it for so long.
Is Gridiron televised BBQ contests? I hear they're popular in Murica.
ITV didn't lose the rights to the TdF, they didn't even bother trying to renew.
Wait is someone seriously complaining the "free" highlights aren't on a popular enough channel for them ? They've got one of those old teles with only 3 buttons ?
I think the complaint is more that (1) the free highlights on Quest are likely to be poor compared to what ITV / C4 were giving for free previously; and (2) while existing fans will seek it out, you won't attract many new viewers putting it on a channel like Quest.
Lorien is deluded. Most people who do not support one of the big clubs will tell you that the Sky deal was one of the worst things to happen to, and has ruined football, for all but the big clubs
Football clubs get a slice of the money spent by the television companies to air the matches. That is not the case for cycling where none of the money will go to the teams participating in the races being shown. Therefore if you are a sponser for one of the cycling teams or one of the tours you must be wondering if it is a worthwhile investment. Cycling already relies heavily on wealthy individuals or companies that have a passion for cycling and this is no way to run a professional sport. Bicycle manufacturers must be slightly questioning the reasoning along with the various tourist office in france/spain/italy.
i know so many of my friends (incl me) have visited places just because they saw it on the tdf or the giro and thought that place looks amazing.
Likely this will push the cycling teams to develop and organise a league themselves outside of the UCI
I live near Manchester and even United and City fans don't think TV money and foreign ownership has improved their experience of the game.
Does anyone else read this corporate bullshit speak as WB looking to buy up all the free to air cycling? Are they com,ing for Red Bull Rampage?
Someone should point out that Sky lose money on their football channels, how does that fit into the bull they put out? And as for watching free to air cycling from start to finish with no adverts!
"Rush hour in Copenhagen" - seems to me that the motorists are getting the better end of this, with the cyclists queing as far as the eye can see while the occasional motorisit glides past on an empty road…
My experience of Copenhagen was that the cycle lanes are very busy, but cycle traffic does flow well (apart from when stopped at traffic lights). However, it's usually too busy to overtake, so everyone tends to move at the same speed until you leave the busiest central areas. Also, it's highly advisable to signal when you want to slow down or stop.
"We build these roads for them and they never bloody use them. Should rip them out!"
Pages