This study examines how sport governing bodies engage with the development of virtual cycling as a new sporting discipline. Drawing on theories of innovation diffusion, disruptive innovation theory and institutional theory, we examine how governing bodies in cycling and triathlon legitimise and delegitimise virtual cycling, as well as the different mechanisms they employ in their process. Data were collected through 16 semi-structured interviews with representatives from international and national federations, the International Olympic Committee, athletes, and platform developers. Findings reveal two legitimisation strategies: (1) constructing new evaluation criteria (i.e., attributing normative value to new features like safety, inclusivity, ecological value, or revenue models) and (2) developing new markets by attracting youth, women, and para-athletes. Alongside two legitimisation strategies, we also identified one delegitimisation strategy covering externalised and passive governance of virtual cycling. Interviewees framed virtual cycling as lacking credibility due to its dependence on commercial digital platforms and persistent technical underdevelopment. Platform fragmentation, the absence of independent verification systems, and limited interoperability (e.g., cross-platform rankings) illustrate how a technical strategy has been passively neglected relative to the employed institutional strategy actively shaping the new norms of cycling through virtual cycling's unique features. Combined, the imbalance between legitimising and delegitimising mechanisms highlights a case of “decoupling” where sport governing bodies’ public endorsement of virtual cycling conflicts with the practical challenges of developing the technical infrastructure, particularly where it intersects with others’ intellectual property.
Fouquaert et al. (Sun,) studied this question.