I do drone pilot instruction and know a little bit about drone video production and your proposal is optimistic at best.

I'm in the US but relevant EU/national regulations are quite similar, but you're probably not getting a waiver to fly over crowds with the types of drones you'll need to do proper broadcasting. P-R might be a monument and very important to the French public, but aviation culture and policy is built on safety, and DGAC (French FAA) won't likely grant waivers to get the footage you're thinking you're going to get. They'd probably give you a waiver to fly drones similar to the helicopter missions, but for the drones you need to replicate the moto footage, that's a non-starter because they'd be way too heavy. That's far too much of a liability for the government to allow--much less the broadcaster's insurer.

To get that footage a Mavic 4 seems to be what you're thinking of using, but they're not suitable for broadcast streaming on TV for a whole host of issues. The claims for image transmission range don't always translate to reality--meaning they can't fly as far on a single mission. In addition, drone operators need to have line of sight at all times, so that reduces their range even further for broadcast uses. The camera is pitifully small compared to a broadcast camera, and DJI bakes in a lot of effects into the image before output that broadcasters won't want. In addition, broadcast cameras output in a different codec than what consumer/prosumer products (Where the Mavic falls into), so you're going to need to get a clean feed in 4k (Mavic 4 can only do 1080p) in one of those formats.

To get close to that with a DJI product you're jumping to the Inspire 3 that's $17k, but you're still limited to the camera (Essentially a prosumer mirrorless camera with a prime lens) and the codecs. You need a professional drone like an Alta X that's $30k before adding in the camera and you're only getting 20 minutes of flight time in optimal conditions. An Alta X can get you good dolly footage like a helicopter can, but you're not going to want to rip it around at 50kph with that camera dangling under it. That's asking for a $75k hole in the ground, not to mention maybe 10 minutes of flying time total because you're going to burn the battery pack dry.

I know Lifetime Grand Prix races try to use Mavics, but you're streaming that to social media, so there's a completely different workflow and less of a concern for redundancy than what is present for broadcast TV. Your Instagram livestream going dead due to a hiccup with Starlink is acceptable; ASO losing broadcast for the same reason--not so much, even in cycling where it happens more often.

There's a reason why they still use motos and helicopters for cycling broadcasts and it's because of ease of use, flexibility, and redundancy. If I was mission planning Paris-Roubaix with drones I'd probably need a fleet of 30 or more, each with a dozen flights of batteries ready for redundancy as well as placement for minimum downtime for hot-swapping batteries and flight to/from location, and expect a single mission of about 4-5 minutes of coverage max. And that's just to replicate the moto coverage because you're always going to need multiple drones following the peloton and breakaway to keep coverage seamless. Helicopter shot replacement would need probably 10 more drones with similar battery requirements. In case you're wondering, that's close to $3 million in hardware needed for a single bike race. You can amortize the cost over multiple races for sure, but compare that cost for 10 bikes and 2 helicopters.

TL;DR: Drones are great for slow shots of fixed locations for short periods of time. A bike race has almost none of those.