Rwanda came alive this weekend as Kigali hosted the grand finale of the cycling championships. Almost a million of passionate spectators lined the city streets to cheer on the riders, turning the event into a true national celebration.
The race, marked by exceptional performances and a demanding course, captivated both fans, technical teams and visitors from around the world. The seamless organization, modern infrastructure, and the warm hospitality of the Rwandan people were widely praised, reaffirming the country’s ability to host world-class sporting events.
Beyond the competition, this finale symbolized the energy, unity, and ambition of a nation increasingly establishing itself as a key destination for global sports.
What did the international press talk about?
Pragmatic, sporting-first:
It was about cycling merit, global expansion of the UCI beyond its eurocentric roots, and less skepticism about whether African nations can sustain world-class events.
Africa’s first world championship, Outlets like VeloNews and ESPN framed it as a historic first for Africa, a breakthrough moment in cycling history. The focus was on diversity, inclusion, and how the sport can grow in new regions.
In the New York Times, a bit of soft political notes like some nods to Rwanda’s human rights record, but generally in passing.
In general, the coverage avoided deep colonial debates (unlike Belgium) and leaned toward seeing Rwanda as an emerging sports tourism hub.
In a nutshell, the press in the following countries was balanced, diplomatic, and focused on African cycling milestones (France), sporting-first, pragmatic, with logistical skepticism (UK), optimistic, symbolic, focused on inclusion & market expansion (USA).
The exception was Belgium: moralistic, highly critical, colonial undertones. Belgium shouted the loudest, turning the event into a moral-political trial.
Bitter Belgian politicians and journalists have shamelessly spread lies about the spontaneity of the Rwandan crowds along the route, about alleged human rights violations, and about the lack of development outside Kigali, all without providing any concrete evidence.
What motivates these people?
Probably they are nostalgic for a colonial past and jealous of the progress Rwanda has made without their help.
In any case, the Rwandan people should disregard their claims, and the World should open its eyes to the anti-Rwanda rhetoric propagated by a Belgian political class and a biased press whose sole purpose has always been to mislead their European counterparts. Some former Belgian ambassadors to Rwanda and Belgian journalists are not the experts they claim to be; rather, their analyses are tainted by bias and ulterior motives.
RADIOTV10
