€20M: The number Picnic–Post NL lost, and the number EF want.
Picnic–Post NL are close to bankruptcy, EF search for €20m more, and there's a Rockets-sized wildcard controversy.
There has been a lot happening behind the scenes in pro cycling lately. Team DSM are facing significant financial challenges, perhaps bankruptcy. EF are reshaping their structure to support long-term ambitions. And Unibet Rose Rockets have been left off the Tour de France start list, despite their rapid rise.
These are all things that I spend hours upon hours thinking about. I don’t know what it is, but the economics and politics of cycling grab my brain in a certain way.
DSM will probably go bankrupt.
Okay, they’re called Picnic–Post NL these days but everyone still knows them as DSM.
A recent Substack article from Money in Sport reported that the team have lost 19.5 million euros in the last three years. Their personnel costs sit at 134.5 percent of revenue. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
It also explains why Oscar Onley was sold to the Ineos Grenadiers for a reported six-ish million euros. To put it bluntly, they were finished without that money.
It’s an interesting team, and not for the right reasons. The management has long been accused of being rigid, unwilling to compromise and slow to adapt. Comments from ex-riders have included reference to management as a “soviet regime”, and another saying riders are "treated like little children". There is a list of talent who have left mid-contract.
To be fair, DSM are one of the best development organisations in world cycling. Few teams produce young riders as consistently as they do. The issue comes later. There is a clear gap between them developing a future star and then managing that rider once they reach the top level.
Notably, Oscar Onley is one of the few that has left DSM on good terms.
DSM often argue that the lack of a transfer system is hurting them. There is some truth in that, but it is far from the whole story. If they want riders to stay, they need to offer long-term contracts that pay fair market value and create an environment where people feel valued.
If those things are in place and a bigger team still wants to buy a rider out of a contract, DSM would be compensated fairly. But if you underpay riders, treat them poorly or avoid committing to longer deals, you cannot be shocked when they walk.
I don’t see how they come back from this huge financial hole.
They have lost their brightest star and are struggling to attract big talent. The UCI have only granted them a one-year WorldTour licence, which tells its own story, and the current roster doesn’t contain any major names who can reliably score the UCI points needed to survive at the top level.
At some point, the management has to look internally and ask whether they are the common factor. That moment is probably right now, considering they are staring at a twenty-million-euro hole.
EF have money, but wants more.
EF has money. They just want more of it. They are not in trouble. But if they want to win big, they need a bigger budget. Simple.
Just twenty-four hours after announcing their talisman, Ben Healy’s long-term contract, EF announced a “unique and unprecedented opportunity.”
EF will continue contributing at its current financial level. The fact that they signed Ben through 2029 implies financial security in the medium term.
But, crucially, they are willing to step back from naming rights if it helps bring in a larger sponsor and expand the budget.
Context: Back in 2018, EF - an education company - joined as a long-term sponsor and simultaneously bought the management company behind the team, Slipstream Sports. In other words, EF owns EF Education–EasyPost. They are not just a sponsor.
Credit where credit is due here. EF is willing to keep funding the team even if they no longer get the same publicity as the title sponsor. They are effectively saying: we will hold the floor so someone else can raise the ceiling. That level of commitment is unusual.
Why might EF do this? Escape Collective spoke with team manager Jonathan Vaughters, and reported: “They love being the first name of the team, but they love winning more.” EF is willing to take second billing if it means more wins.
This is in reference to the billionaire Hult family, who own the team. Vaughters did say that EF Pro Cycling’s budget comes from EF’s marketing budget, but it feels amiss to mention the billionaire, cycling-mad family behind it.
Their website explains further: “It’s rare in professional sport, and nearly unheard of in cycling, for an owner and anchor partner to commit long-term at EF’s current level and still invite an additional title partner to invest purely to make the team stronger,” says team CEO Jonathan Vaughters.
The “unique and unprecedented opportunity” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in their statement, though. What EF are really saying is much simpler:
We need more money to compete with the top dogs, so we’re open to a sponsor. We will keep funding the team at the level we are now, so it is stable, but if someone out there wants to put in money, the name above the door is negotiable.
By keeping their current financial commitment while inviting a larger partner to take over the naming rights, they get the best outcome available. The team remains stable, the brand remains attached, and the competitive ceiling rises without EF having to write a bigger cheque.
It’s quite a nice strategic play, just not really unique well, or unprecedented.
Unibet Rose Rockets miss out on the Tour de France
The fact that this has dominated cycling headlines today says a lot about the Rockets.
Just four years after starting as a Continental team, there is public outrage that they have not been selected for a Tour de France wildcard. I have a bias here because I like and freelance for the Rockets.
The issue is not really that they were overlooked. But that Caja Rural got the nod instead. Yes, the Grand Depart is in Barcelona, and yes, Caja Rural finished one place higher in last year’s UCI ranking. But that alone does not explain the decision.
The Rockets have invested massively over the winter; we are probably talking an eight-figure spend once all is said and done. And while Caja Rural did beat them in the 2025 UCI Rankings, that says very little about the 2026 Tour de France.
It is unclear whether the ASO simply does not like the Rockets. There is history there, particularly around media rights from the days when the Rockets were just a YouTube channel. Or perhaps the Spanish Grand Depart created pressure, formal or informal, to include an additional Spanish team.
Either way, it seems the ASO do not really care. They own the sport’s biggest race, and that gives them the freedom to act however they want.
To me, the decision feels short-sighted. You have a French-licensed team bringing thousands of new fans into the sport, and they get snubbed because, well, I don’t know.
Christian Prudhomme, the Director of the Tour de France, gave an explanation, which didn’t really help: “We used the same principle as in previous years. We took the ranking of the second division. Unibet Rose Rockets? They don’t claim a French identity at all. They have more Dutch riders.”
The point about the 2025 UCI Rankings is fair enough on paper, but if that is the sole criterion, why call it a wildcard at all? Why not simply select based on last year’s ranking? Again, the Rockets of 2026 are not the Rockets of 2025.
And the nationality point is absurd. Caja Rural has one French rider. The Rockets have six. And they race under the French flag. If identity is the argument, it does not hold up.
Of course, the ASO can do whatever it wants. It is their race, their rules, their world. They answer to nobody.
What does this all mean?
Yet again, we are heading into another unpredictable year in pro cycling. Total Energies and Flanders-Baloise are rumoured to be folding, and DSM look to follow. Meanwhile, EF are looking to go big, and the Rockets are crashing the party whether the ASO likes it or not.
The reality seems to be simple. Have a budget that EF inspires to, some forty-odd million, or write a new playbook a la Unibet Rose Rockets that forces people to pay attention.
Thanks for reading. This article, selfishly, was my way of making sense of all this in my head.
While you’re here…
I’ve added a paid subscription and a ‘Buy Me A Coffee’ link to this post. This allows me to write articles that don’t necessarily fit in at one of the normal outlets. Thanks for your support.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/joelaverick
The following brands are racing partners of mine, which allow me to do cool stuff.
The incompetency of Picnic-PostNL management is now coming through in the figures. It's been there for years with an ageing business model exposed by poor, expensive, signings and a lack of development bringing riders through.
As for the Rockets at TdF, I think the issue is a number of things which look at ranking points, the role of a wildcard team in the breakaway and also, but not exclusively, team nationality. Likes and followers don't play into a team's selection choice in the wildcard stages, which is an angle that the Rockets were trying to hang onto.
The rockets will get there chance. Caja has been around for a long time. 30 years? Nice to see them get the nod, the points last year say they earned it. I know this opinion is totally different than the vast majority.