Equal prize money row after Anna van der Breggen gets €930 for winning Omloop Het Nieuwsblad... while men's winner bags €16,000

Rapha Nadal wrote:

If male winners such as Bettiol feel so strongly about it then is there anything stopping them from giving half of their prize money to the women's winner?  Any contractual obligations not to or similar?

I don't think the women need charity. What they need is recognition

Captain Badger wrote:

I don't think the women need charity. What they need is recognition

Many of them are unpaid and only get expenses or on a token salary so I'm sure they'd be glad of some money! bob Varney of Drops has always been clear that he has been pushing and pushing to secure enough backing to pay riders but still haven't got to that point yet.

Doesn't prize money usually go to the team and divided up? And even if Bettiol subbed a female rider's salary that doesn't address the problems with funding the women's sport.

Rich_cb wrote:

I imagine that if OHN was forced to have an equally sized prize pot for the Women's race as for the Men's then there would be no further women's editions of the race. Not sure how that would help grow Women's cycling.

Have you not noticed that an increasing number of events are doing exactly that?

You don't grow Women's cycling by offering kiddy prizes and a pat on the head alongside a men's event offering 17 times the amount. Do you actually want to fix the problem or just keep things as they are?

Women should be paid the same as men, whether they are doctors, plumbers, athletes or BBC News presenters.

I want to solve the problem, you don't solve the problem by bankrupting all the Women's races.

If Women's races are struggling now, with unequal prize money (indicating quite clearly that there is not a surplus of money in these races) how do you think they'll fare with equal prize money?

Many more will be completely unviable.

That would be a disaster for Women's cycling.

Rich_cb wrote:

I want to solve the problem, you don't solve the problem by bankrupting all the Women's races. If Women's races are struggling now, with unequal prize money (indicating quite clearly that there is not a surplus of money in these races) how do you think they'll fare with equal prize money? Many more will be completely unviable. That would be a disaster for Women's cycling.

And there is the problem. The women's race is not a separate sideshow to the men's. It is one event with 2 sections. When equal investment and attention is applied to both we can argue there is parity, but for that the organisers have to organise it as such. 

Organisers have had over a century and a half to sort their acts out. They are still dragging their feet.

Captain Badger wrote:

When equal investment and attention is applied to both we can argue there is parity, but for that the organisers have to organise it as such.

I don't know much about cycling as a competitive sport, but I guess it is a commercial enterprise undertaken by private companies? So they invest money in the hope of making a viable return on investment, taking into account all the revenues and costs. Or they go bust.

And I suppose that the investment in a women's event does not produce as much return as the same investment in a men's event. I'm not sure what the solution is? I think we are a long way yet from women's sport generating as much money as men's sport, and that has consequences for the economics of the game.

Sriracha wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

When equal investment and attention is applied to both we can argue there is parity, but for that the organisers have to organise it as such.

I don't know much about cycling as a competitive sport, but I guess it is a commercial enterprise undertaken by private companies? So they invest money in the hope of making a viable return on investment, taking into account all the revenues and costs. Or they go bust. And I suppose that the investment in a women's event does not produce as much return as the same investment in a men's event. I'm not sure what the solution is? I think we are a long way yet from women's sport generating as much money as men's sport, and that has consequences for the economics of the game.

The idea that paying women equally will result in the removal of the women's game is nonsense.

A private company should not be running an event that explicitly excludes women. Therefore the event has a men's and a women's category. Equal prize pots to be allocated to each, and equal timings and access to the media.

All events are subject to the same rules, so this is not an issue for competition. In fact, those companies that properly promote the women's section will have a competitive edge over those that don't, as their event will be more interesting, and accessible to a wider audience.

But this requires a forceful change in policy. As long as "the market" is seen as the driver, we will never reach parity - the money will go where it is seen to be safe, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Rich_cb wrote:

I want to solve the problem, you don't solve the problem by bankrupting all the Women's races.

The spectre of bankrupting all women's races is quite a leap from improving a drastic imbalance in one race.

Both races are run by the same profitable organisation so your argument is not relevant. As I said, I'm sure that all the workers and contractors on the event will be paid so why not include the participants?

Prize money is far from being the solution but that doesn't mean the glaring disparity shouldn't be addressed (except for those that think a men's race is 17 times better than the women's version).

Whether or not the overall organisation is profitable is irrelevant. If Tesco was profitable overall it wouldn't stop it closing loss making stores. You can't expect a parent company to subsidise a loss making race indefinitely.

In order for women's racing to be viable in the long term the actual women's races need to be profitable in their own regard.

If you demand that prize money is equal with that of the men's events you will ensure that many, perhaps all, women's races are no longer profitable and therefore no longer viable in the long term.

Professional sport is essentially entertainment.

In the entertainment industry you're paid largely based on your popularity, if a lot of people listen to your songs or watch your films you'll get paid more.

In sports it's the same, if you have a lot of fans you'll be paid more, if you have fewer fans you'll be paid less.

In order for women's cycling to attract more fans you need a viable racing calendar.

Making huge swathes of the racing calendar financially unviable will not help to achieve this.

Simon E wrote:

...

Many of them are unpaid and only get expenses or on a token salary so I'm sure they'd be glad of some money! bob Varney of Drops has always been clear that he has been pushing and pushing to secure enough backing to pay riders but still haven't got to that point yet.

Doesn't prize money usually go to the team and divided up? And even if Bettiol subbed a female rider's salary that doesn't address the problems with funding the women's sport.

Sorry yes badly worded

I meant to say that recompense should not be at the generosity of their male colleagues (charity) but should be set in stone by the organisers (recognition)

I back read it, and no, it didn't come across quite as I intended

But do you not think a winner splitting his prize money might be the gesture which makes somebody sit up & realise how dumb the current situation is and then look to remedy it?

Better would be if all the teams came together before the event and agreed to split the prizes equally whoever won - that would demonstrate a unity and solidarity behind the principle of equal prizes, rather than it being an individual act of good conscience.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

But do you not think a winner splitting his prize money might be the gesture which makes somebody sit up & realise how dumb the current situation is and then look to remedy it?

It may have a political effect, like a "taking the knee" moment I guess. Be interesting to find out. Next time I win I'll try it out.

half_wheel79 wrote:

I personally don't think that the women should get the same prize money as the men in this instance, their race is shorter, they don't pull in as many viewers/fans etc etc. 

That said the disparity between the two is appalling, 930 euros ? thats a bloody joke. 

Funny that, in the Netherlands alone, Dutch TV saw approx 330k viewers for the womens race and only 170k for the mens...

Was it on terestrial tv and the mens on subscription ? Mens racing pulls in the advertising big bucks too.

I'm not saying its right, its just the current state of play. We're a long way away from getting this right.

No, it was on the same platform and I think you are wrong about mens racing pulling in the money. 

dont be ridiculous ! mens racing pulls in more viewers world wide and more advertising revenue and tv rights. Which is why they can afford to pay them more.

It doesn't make it right, but its just the way it is. If womens racing was given more exposure it should attract more sponsorship.

Women are  50% of the population therefore 50% of the potential audience. There should be positive encouragement for womens racing and making the prize money 5.5% of the male prize money is not the way to do it. The big prize is greater participation in cycling both recreationally and professionally.

If you increase the prize fund that money has to come from somewhere.

Do you think an equal prize fund is the most effective way to increase the participation rate?

I would argue that coverage is far more important and that costs money to establish, money that wouldn't be available if the prize funds were equal.

radarbug wrote:

Women are  50% of the population therefore 50% of the potential audience. There should be positive encouragement for womens racing and making the prize money 5.5% of the male prize money is not the way to do it. The big prize is greater participation in cycling both recreationally and professionally.

Is your argument that the main reason women watch sport less than men is that they are not seeing women competing?

I'm not sure that holds up.

If their tweets are to be believed you imagine wrongly.   

They claim to be investing 6 figure sums in womens cycling, if you believe that (huge pinch of salt imo) the disaparity in prize money is a drop in the ocean to rectify.

Plus do you really believe that the prize pot is one of the biggest costs of a flagship race like this - such that it would make or break it?  They are treating the women like dirt because they are full of unconscious biases.

There's a big difference between investment and profit.

A 6 figure sum is €100,000. The men's winners prize alone would be nearly a 5th of their entire investment in that case.

Once you include the other prizes (€40,000 total) you're at 40% of your six figure sum just on prizes. That's before you pay any other costs.

It's hardly 'a drop in the ocean'.

Money talks, there's a reason that the prize fund for men's cycling is fairly dismal compared to other elite sport, cycling races are very difficult to stage profitably. The frequency of races going bust is testament to this.