Quantcast

Equal prize money for men and women

aenema

almost 100% positive
Sep 5, 2008
305
111
Geeze, they can already cook and clean and make babies. Is all this push for equal pay really necessary?
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
Yeah, bad call.
God forbid we attempt to make the sport more appealing to 51% of the worlds population.
That sounds all fine and dandy. Except that there is still only 1 woman for every 100 men or so that would have any interest in DH regardless.

It's a terrible call. The sport is already short on funding and still in developmental stages. By and far the majority of people who will ever be interested in the sport will be men. That's not just taking away from Johnny to please Joey, it's taking away from Johnny, Joey, John, Jon, Jeff, Jeffrey, Jason, Jayson, Jay, Juan, Jose, Jordan, Jake, Jupiter, Jiggy Jiggy, and J-bop to please Jenny. Sometimes. When she feels like showing up.

I'm all for women in DH and there being appropriate prize money, but given the depth of the field and the constituents of the sport, that's a gross mis-allocation of funds.
 

jnooth

Monkey
Sep 19, 2008
384
1
Vermont Country
I think this is great and hopefully it pushes more women to race, but it is really frustrating at local and regional level races when for the pro men who train hard and fight week in and week out to get on the podium and the ladies class attracts 3 girls and everybody who enters gets to share the purse. If for some act of god I were ever at a race that had a larger Women's Pro class I would not even raise an eyebrow if their purse was bigger than the men.

I know this is different at the world cup stage. I am not saying at all that its easy for the ladies at a world cup level to get onto the podium and at that level they deserve every bit as much as the men
 

Huck Banzai

Turbo Monkey
May 8, 2005
2,523
23
Transitory
All other considerations aside -- 97 Men show up and entry fees support the prize/purse, and moreso - the races themselves; 3 women show up, they are NOT due 50% of the prize resources when they're 3% of the funding.

Would men be willing to concede more to attract more women? That could be a good question; no one should be answering from a position of leadership.




A
 

wood booger

Monkey
Jul 16, 2008
668
72
the land of cheap beer
The equal payout is not for every race, just for World Champs. Just one race a year ummkayyy! :thumb:

And it applies to all UCI races, not just mtb DH. A step in the right direction I would think. Now they just have to fire the entire UCI governing body to get rid of the corrupt moron influence.
 
Last edited:

Tomasis

Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
681
0
Scotland
All other considerations aside -- 97 Men show up and entry fees support the prize/purse, and moreso - the races themselves; 3 women show up, they are NOT due 50% of the prize resources when they're 3% of the funding.

Would men be willing to concede more to attract more women? That could be a good question; no one should be answering from a position of leadership.




A
you know, we already give a lot money to women. it doesnt change a thing at all in equation.
 

Serial Midget

Al Bundy
Jun 25, 2002
13,053
1,896
Fort of Rio Grande
Is the debate about the sport or the money? If the idea is to keep it a men's sport and sometimes let women play then keep things the way they are. If the idea is to strengthen the sport through inclusion then the status quo will have to change. Men are usually the status quo and are less likely to give up something they feel entitled to.


All other considerations aside -- 97 Men show up and entry fees support the prize/purse, and moreso - the races themselves; 3 women show up, they are NOT due 50% of the prize resources when they're 3% of the funding.

Would men be willing to concede more to attract more women? That could be a good question; no one should be answering from a position of leadership.




A
 

William42

fork ways
Jul 31, 2007
3,908
634
Geeze, they can already cook and clean and make babies. Is all this push for equal pay really necessary?
I disagree with that argument as I don't feel it applies here for a variety of reasons. Being a proponent of equal pay for equal work is admirable and worthwhile. This is NOT equal work on a number of levels. The level of athletic competition - winning in a field of 180 pro riders vs winning a field of 30 women willing to ride, and 5-10 pro level women. However, thats not what gets to me. Rachel Atherton works her ass off, and I don't want to take anything away from her by suggesting she doesn't have to work as hard as Gee does. I'm pretty willing to bet she is driven as fyck and works hard as hell for her results despite a lower level of competition.

What bothers me is that the primary thing pouring money into the sport (fans, riders, etc) are doing so because of the men. Lets not beat around the bush here: If you removed the mens field from the WC competition, how many people would show up to watch/spend money? Anybody? Friends and family? If you removed the womens, do you think anybody would not attend because of it? The mens field is what drives advertising dollars, its what drives fans to show up, and its what drives riders to buy bikes.

Before you get up in arms, I'm not suggesting thats the optimal or best setup, but it is what it is. Rachel Atherton is not selling the latest GT fury. Gee and Marc Beaumont are. Likewise, people are not showing up to watch Rachel race, they're showing up to watch Gee and Beaumont race, and its icing on the cake that they get to watch Rachel killing it too.

If there were 20k in prize winnings being distributed to the mens field and 5 to the womens, making a total of 25k total before, the implementation of this rule isn't going to see an additional 15k poured into prize purses to make things equal, its going to see the mens field making 12.5k instead of 20, and the womens making 12.5 too. People show up to watch Aaron Gwin race, and win. He should be rewarded more for that.

Getting more women involved in the sport isn't a bad thing. But the UCI making the call that women should make as much as men isn't going to get more imo - the thing that drives women to ride isn't the UCI forcing race venues to offer up bigger womens prize purses. Its companies selling their bikes correctly and getting women involved in the sport, which frankly, most companies don't really do. Half-hearted sponsorship of a womens DH racer doesn't grow the sport, and its bike companies that need to get involved in the missing demographic, not the UCI. The UCI should just reflect the demographics that exist.
 

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
Let's call equal payout what it is, a joke. To equate Greg Minnar's achievement this past year to Morganne Chare's is insulting to Minnar and the rest of the men's field.
 
Last edited:

wood booger

Monkey
Jul 16, 2008
668
72
the land of cheap beer
Let's call equal payout what it is, a joke. To equate Greg Minnar's achievement this past year to Morganne Chare's is insulting to Minnar and the rest of the men's field.
And I am sure Greg's salary vs Morganne's salary reflects this quite well. This is not eqaul pay, it is equal payout for one race!

This will only bring more women into the sport, this is not bad. Is it still 1950 down there in SoCal?
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
And I am sure Greg's salary vs Morganne's salary reflects this quite well. This is not eqaul pay, it is equal payout for one race!

This will only bring more women into the sport, this is not bad. Is it still 1950 down there in SoCal?
It might bring a few more women into the sport. At the expense of steering a bunch of the mens field away from the sport.

The best way to bring more women into the sport is to develop the sport as a whole, not to take away incentive from the vast majority, who are the driving force behind it, just to subsidize a few simply for a "diversity requirement".


If the UCI TRULY wanted to see more women in the sport, they would realize that it only takes 2 factors: cost, and ease of access. More lifts/more land for shuttling or riding in general, and cheaper bikes. Not much the UCI can do about the cheaper bikes, as that's market driven, but as a premier organization in the biking community, it would be prudent for them to either help preserve our existing access or help develop new access. Strategic moves like that are the ones that will help generate more income within the sport and attract new riders.
 

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
If the UCI TRULY wanted to see more women in the sport, they would realize that it only takes 2 factors: cost, and ease of access. More lifts/more land for shuttling or riding in general, and cheaper bikes. Not much the UCI can do about the cheaper bikes, as that's market driven, but as a premier organization in the biking community, it would be prudent for them to either help preserve our existing access or help develop new access. Strategic moves like that are the ones that will help generate more income within the sport and attract new riders.
I'm always surprised that we don't see large industry players investing more in land access and bike parks and such. You'd think if they could get some sort of industry consortium together to collectively invest in improving access for bikes it would have a much better return on investment than some of their other activities. I could be way off though.
 

thom9719

Turbo Monkey
Jul 25, 2005
1,104
0
In the Northwest.
I'm always surprised that we don't see large industry players investing more in land access and bike parks and such. You'd think if they could get some sort of industry consortium together to collectively invest in improving access for bikes it would have a much better return on investment than some of their other activities. I could be way off though.
You'd be surprised. In the Seattle area I know diamondback allocates a large chunk of money and energy towards trail building and the local advocacy groups. Transition and kona do a ton up here too. I'd be willing to bet that most of the companies have a very vested interest in trail maintenance and access. I've found it strange that they don't Market their support more.

-KT
 

aenema

almost 100% positive
Sep 5, 2008
305
111
So all kidding aside, the prize money accounts for how much of the salary of the riders who are actually fast enough to collect a portion of it. The guys getting a cut are pro's and have income far exceeding the prize money they get from the individual race. Would the top 10 guys who collect from endorsements, sponsorships, team salaries, etc care if they got 5 or 10 k less in a year from prize money? It would help to know what they bring in to answer for sure but I would guess that it is a drop in the bucket difference we are talking about here. Now the girls on the other hand aren't getting that extra income at the rate the guys are so the prize money difference might actually mean something. I am thinking this is maybe not as bad as those who think it is are making it out to be.

I am speculating, sure, but I think I am not far off at most.
 
Last edited:

FarkinRyan

Monkey
Dec 15, 2003
611
192
Pemberton, BC
Would you care if you got paid $5-10K less a year and that money went to subsidise the salaries of other employees who contributed less to the financial success of the business than you did?
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
I'm curious about the disparity and how much of a difference we're really talking about here. Who's got the numbers from last year for the different cycling disciplines, for men and women? And did they announce the new, equal prizes yet? Are the men's prizes going down from last year?
 

aenema

almost 100% positive
Sep 5, 2008
305
111
Would you care if you got paid $5-10K less a year and that money went to subsidise the salaries of other employees who contributed less to the financial success of the business than you did?
We have to know actual numbers to be able to ask this question but say I made 500,000k a year, the answer would be 'No', I wouldn't care. If I made 100k a year and the difference is 5k or 10k, I wouldn't care then either, especially if it was growing the sport. We are, of course, talking about the top riders who this actually applies to who are getting prize money from the races. People making 50k a year or less, these numbers would make a bigger difference being that they are a higher percentage of their annual income.
 
Last edited:

ianjenn

Turbo Monkey
Sep 12, 2006
2,998
702
SLO
I would venture that there are just a small handful of male riders making over 150k a year from one sponsor. Female riders will be a fair bit under them. The prize purse amounts are stupid low either way.
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
As my girlfriend has so eloquently put it before, "You know where I don't get fall down on rocks and get hurt? In the kitchen!".
 

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
Any woman racing and using the prize money as inspiration shouldn't be racing anyways. Shes clearly delusional, and misguided.

The mens and womens prize money should NOT be even, for one simple reason. Please read the whole thing before raging against me too. :D

Its the men that bring the crowds and sponsorship, so its the men that make more of the money.

Seriously, name 5 of the womens riders that are actually FUN to watch, compared to the men. I bet you can't. I can get to about 3 or 4, then I just don't care anymore. I am not discounting the amount of effort that a womans puts out on the course, not at all. They race their hearts out, with full throttle and conviction. They are role models. They are to be admired. They're also nowhere near as fun to watch as the guys.

Guys are stronger, faster, and have better control. Even a midpack local will race with style and balls, whipping jumps, going big, blasting sections nearly out of control, and are fun to watch. The ladies on the other hand, well I've rarely seen a girl attack a track and make it look fun. It looks like work. Rachael and AC are phenomenal riders, out of this world, and they are the only ones I can think of that I'd choose to watch. The rest...meh. Look at Sabrina. Shes INSANELY talented, an amazing rider. She could easily destroy most of the people on this board (and any other) and at any time show up to a bike park and own everybody on the hill. She hugely skilled, talented and could crush me like a bug, but not fun to watch. Its the same with most womens sports it seems. While the conviction, skill, ability and determination can match and occasionally outshine the men, the excitement, power, speed and style seem to lack. The steak is there, the sizzle is not.

I can honestly believe 100% in my heart that no single guy on the planet ever picked up a bike after watching AC or Rachael shred a course. I am willing to bet more than just a few picked up the sport after watching Minnaar whip a jump in the middle of a race.

So no, I don't believe the prize money should be the same. The men bring more to this particular side of the sport than the ladies do, and thats an inarguable fact. XC, now thats a whole different arguement. But for DH, sorry ladies, I just don't think equal prize money is deserved. :/


Flame on. :D
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,850
9,556
AK
Make the prizes diamonds, little miniature cupcakes, a spa coupon, $300 jeans, or flight to Hawaii.
 
Last edited:

downhill mike

Turbo Monkey
Mar 23, 2005
1,286
4
Make the prizes diamonds, little miniature cupcakes, a spa coupon, $300 jeans, or flight to Hawaii.
That could be 5 new kinds of companies for possible sponsorship. Excellent point!
Actually, the prizes need to be cash but this sarcasm does make a valid point. Think about this and what Mickey (Suspect Device) said early on on this thread. Mickey pointed out that 51% of the population are female.
We paid the women = pay for our 1st four 5K DH's at Whiteface and thought others may follow, they didn't. Now that the UCI and Pro GRT are doing it, I do think others will follow this time.
Lastly, I hate doing the awards ceremony when I hand the guy that won $1,000.00 and the women that won $50.00.
My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

russselll

Chimp
Feb 11, 2012
68
0
Equal payout is the right thing to do for any sport; women pay the same entry fee, race on the same course, train for the sport and travel to the race. I have learned a few things women in sports and also have had my a$$ handed to me by a female in sport, work and life as well. The more people in a sport with diversification in gender and race, the better the sport will become.
 
Last edited:

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
Equal payout is the right thing to do for any sport; women pay the same entry fee, race on the same course, train for the sport and travel to the race.
But...don't face the same competition...

If they really want EQUAL. Truly EQUAL, then let them race with the men, and double the purse for that class.

Because what's being proposed isn't EQUAL. It's letting them compete like women, and be paid like men.

While it does suck having to give someone 1/20th of the payout, it still sucks rewarding them the same as another class who faced WAY tougher competition, and more of it.
 

russselll

Chimp
Feb 11, 2012
68
0
I am sure that some of you little boys with your sexist tempers, that are “oh, so pro”, on here with the stupid uneducated responses, also have no respect to women on the course, as you yell at them at you buzz by, more and likely don't have respect for women in general too.
Again, women and men train for the sport, travel for the sport, pay the same entry fee, and race the same course, with equal payment.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,648
3,089
Again, women and men train for the sport, travel for the sport, pay the same entry fee, and race the same course, with equal payment.
Following that logic, why not have the same payout in the lower classes too? Semi-Pro, Cat 1 guys put also a lot of work into their racing AND have a dayjob. Give them the same payment as the pros!
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
Hah, please explain how it is sexist? I may be a raging dickhead in many different ways, but that's not one of them.

I'm all for equality, as is most everyone here. You know, so long as it's actually equality, and not just opportunism cleverly disguised as equality. Very big difference.

You do the same job, and overcome the same challenges, you get paid the same.
 

the law

Monkey
Jun 25, 2002
267
0
where its at
Equal payout is the right thing to do for any sport; women pay the same entry fee, race on the same course, train for the sport and travel to the race. I have learned a few things women in sports and also have had my a$$ handed to me by a female in sport, work and life as well. The more people in a sport with diversification in gender and race, the better the sport will become.
Not quite. If women actually contributed as much to the sport as men (in terms of entry fees, participants, sales, etc), then that would be valid. But, they do not.
 

the law

Monkey
Jun 25, 2002
267
0
where its at
Equal payout is the right thing to do for any sport; women pay the same entry fee, race on the same course, train for the sport and travel to the race. I have learned a few things women in sports and also have had my a$$ handed to me by a female in sport, work and life as well. The more people in a sport with diversification in gender and race, the better the sport will become.
We have all had our asses handed to us by a woman at one point or another. That is not the issue though. The issue is that the funds for mountain biking is limited and that, at least currently, woman do not contribute as much to the sport as men. Thus, it would be unfair to the men to have equal prize money.

You keep mentioning that the entry fee for women is the same as for men, but there are less women than men participating. That means the level of competition is usually lower for women and it is easier (comapratively speaking), to podium as a woman.

Having said that, I would have no problem awarding women prizes that are the same percentage of revenue from race entries as that awarded men. My guess it that would actually decrease the purse for womens -- and indirectly proves that women's purses are already subsidized.