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

I have always said the same, look at Wimbledon for example. The men and women get the same prize money. I have no issue with that at all, but the women should play for the best of five sets, just like the men. If we have to have parity, it must be across the board, the same with the Tour and the Womens Tour. Pay them the same, but the women must race for three weeks.

Nonsense. Womens racing can actually be far more entertaining, CX racing... men tend to just xxxx off into the distance, womens racing tends to be closer.

Even if womens racing cannot attrct the same prize money, to give just a 1/16th is an insult, women train just as hard as the men and take the same risks.

Having watched my daughter receive £2 from the organiser of a BC youth series, after he forgot any sort of prize or trophy, whilst the male winner got a big piece of silverware, i have a different POV.

Cycling, like most sport is run by men and they want to keep it that way.

you i'm afraid are part of the problem

Was your daughter the first girl accross the line of a mixed event, or the winner of a distinct category? I find it hard to beleive that BC intentionally didn't have a trophy.

Ladies racing is far more entertaining you say? I'm afraid that the masses don't agree with you. Oh, I forgot, we're all the problem. Its always someone else's fault isn't it.

I dont find that hard to believe at all,not in CX especially, even national trophy level, though they usually blame the individual race organisers for mucking it up, but Ive certainly been at BC sanctioned events where the mens categories got trophies for winning, and the womens races didnt get a single one.

I thought one of the junior categories one season, for the girl riders they didnt even award a jersey for winning or leading the standings, they expected them to turn up every race, pay race fees,race their hearts out, and just had to stand on a stage looking embarrased for being there, and then they wonder why theres this big drop off in participation as those girls grow up.

Awavey wrote:

Ive certainly been at BC sanctioned events where the mens categories got trophies for winning, and the womens races didnt get a single one

During a recent committee discussion on equal prize money (it's been brewing in the TT community of late) one member mentioned how his daughter said that she has zero chance of winning any of the club trophies. It certainly gave her the impression that the things of value within the club are only available to men.

alexuk wrote:

Was your daughter the first girl accross the line of a mixed event, or the winner of a distinct category? I find it hard to beleive that BC intentionally didn't have a trophy.

Ladies racing is far more entertaining you say? I'm afraid that the masses don't agree with you. Oh, I forgot, we're all the problem. Its always someone else's fault isn't it.

Jasjas said the organiser forgot, even though the category was there. Having participated in amateur sports events on a national level I can assure you this is hardly beyond teh realm of credibility. Also I can certainly see how that would be seen as insulting, no matter the lack of intention.

Neither did Jasjas say that we're all the problem, rather that you were part of the problem. In context, the meaning I took was that your way of thinking is the problem, especially when repeated in the minds of decision-makers. I would concur with this conclusion.

Lastly your closing sentence seemed to imply that you believed that Jasjas or their daughter as at fault, and not the organiser. A very strange conclusion to draw.

It's fine. I spoke to all the men in the world, we apologise for everything, it's all our fault, we're all to blame.

This message was brought to you by the sweeping generalisation committee and the letters F and U.

Blackiegray wrote:

It's fine. I spoke to all the men in the world, we apologise for everything, it's all our fault, we're all to blame. This message was brought to you by the sweeping generalisation committee and the letters F and U.

Not sure what Jasjas said to elicit such a response....

jasjas wrote:

Having watched my daughter receive £2 from the organiser of a BC youth series, after he forgot any sort of prize or trophy, whilst the male winner got a big piece of silverware, i have a different POV.

Inexcusable, I don't think anyone is paying large sums to watch the kids race or to televise the event.

the womens England cricket team scored more runs and lost only 3 wickets in 37.4 overs, than the mens cricket team did in 2 whole innings In fact Tammy Beaumont scored more runs in one game than the whole England mens team put together in their second innings for the 3rd test against India, which shows just how rubbish those kinds of comparisons can be made to look if you pick the right data.

its a total distraction to say that the women should only be paid the same as the men if they have some physical parity, they are still pro athletes, still train the same, still dedicate their lives the same.  You cannot justify paying the winner of the womens pro race a mere 5.5% of the prize fund.

Lets say you pay the womens winner 10000 Euros instead, its a bit over half the mens prize still, but maintains the physically different aspect of the races if you insist on it, but it would still be nearly 1000% better than what they get now.

You can justify it as the prize fund is not related to training or dedication or physicality.

It's related to profit.

When women's sport is as profitable as men's sport the prize funds will be equal.

Rich_cb wrote:

You can justify it as the prize fund is not related to training or dedication or physicality. It's related to profit. When women's sport is as profitable as men's sport the prize funds will be equal.

That would suggest that it isn't profitable due to some intrinsic quality of the women's sport. 

It's more to do with how the events are publicised and marketed. This is down to the organisers. Forcing equal pay would force the organisers to spend as much effort in marketing the women's sport as the men's. It would also make it more realistic for female athletes to concentrate on their sport which in turn will serve to develop the women's professional field. 

The difference in pay is, whichever way you cut it, sex-biased, and therefore clearly not an acceptable principle. Crying "but profit" as soon as inequality is challenged is lazy, and further enables sexism and misogyny. 

Rich_cb wrote:

When women's sport is as profitable as men's sport the prize funds will be equal.

I don't see that as any kind of solution. I suggest that you're looking at it the wrong way round.

You fix the prize fund (or at the very least reduce the glaring gap) and attend to the other issues when possible. The discrepancy shouldn't rely on profit margin any more than all the other costs of the event. It's a signal that the organisers value the women's race, even if others do not. Lead by example, use a 'build it and they will come' type principle.

Do the barrier team and the motorcycle outriders only get paid if the event makes €xx profit? No.

Does the printer charge less for signage and literate for the women's race? No.

Do the medics give their time and resources free or a token fee to attend for the women's race while charging for the men? No.

Do the organising team sacrifice any pay or perks for organising and promoting the women's event because it's not as profitable. Ha ha, as if!!

If the total costs of the race exceed the money that the race generates the race will simply cease to exist.

If, as you suggest, we immediately increased all women's race prize funds to be equal to those of the the men then many races would immediately cease operating.

This would cause far more damage to women's cycling than any prize fund discrepancy.

The cyclists are in a rather unique position compared to the other employees of the race, they are not paid by the race directly but receive a prize if they do well. Most will receive no pay whatsoever directly from the race organiser. Your comparisons with race medics etc is therefore not valid.

Rich_cb wrote:

If the total costs of the race exceed the money that the race generates the race will simply cease to exist. If, as you suggest, we immediately increased all women's race prize funds to be equal to those of the the men then many races would immediately cease operating. This would cause far more damage to women's cycling than any prize fund discrepancy. The cyclists are in a rather unique position compared to the other employees of the race, they are not paid by the race directly but receive a prize if they do well. Most will receive no pay whatsoever directly from the race organiser. Your comparisons with race medics etc is therefore not valid.

Why not redistribute the pot for parity between women and men? Surely the men will understand...

Of course, with greater visibility of the women's game more revenue will be generated with the increased interest. - the running costs will be similar as there already is a women's section to the event.

Captain Badger wrote:

Why not redistribute the pot for parity between women and men? Surely the men will understand...

The whole problem there is UCI, OHN paid out the minimum amount relevant to the level of event classification as per UCI regulations. To split the pot, it could not be a world tour event and therefore lose out on sponsorship values that comes with a world tour. Thus actually having less money to cover the races.

Gkam84 wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Why not redistribute the pot for parity between women and men? Surely the men will understand...

The whole problem there is UCI, OHN paid out the minimum amount relevant to the level of event classification as per UCI regulations. To split the pot, it could not be a world tour event and therefore lose out on sponsorship values that comes with a world tour. Thus actually having less money to cover the races.

Unless the pot was increased to ensure that it met the rules

Bullshit.  Women should get the same prize money as men.  

alchemilla wrote:

The disparity in prize money is indefensible, despite the CEO saying he is "pushing for equality in cycling in the near future".

The disparity is glaring in this case. Is the men's race 17x more popular, 17x more exciting? No.

I would welcome Flanders Classics telling us about what they are doing to build the women's sport (it may well prompt other organisers to emulate them) but this massive gulf in prize money speaks louder than words like "encouraging", "developing" and "growing".

But Jose Been's point is the more important matter - growing the coverage and profile of the women's sport is more important than the prize money for one event. When more riders and teams can be paid fairly, when events can be run equitably, then we will have something approaching fairness.

In the meantime let's make a fuss about it.

alchemilla wrote:

The disparity in prize money is indefensible, despite the CEO saying he is "pushing for equality in cycling in the near future". Why not just distribute the prize money equally between the men and the women?

It is not the race that decides the minimum level of prize money. It is the UCI who set that, they paid the minimum across both races I believe. So let's not attack the race, they are trying their best in difficult times to put on a race.

Let's turn our focus on the UCI with their crappy regulations and slow movement on equality and the teams who fail to pay their riders.

the Healthy Ageing tour are literally crowdfunding 9,500 euros to sponsor live tv coverage of the womens race, theyve raised 3,210 euros so far from just 116 people.

That 3210 euros is 3 times the amount OHN gave as prize money in their womens race, and thats money people have just donated as an online whip round, you cannot tell me Flanders Classic couldnt have done more to find sponsors to pay better prize money for the womens race, especially after theyve supposed to have signed this exclusive broadcasting deal, which is why the UK rights for live coverage for OHN werent confirmed till the last minute.

waiting for the UCI to do anything we'll still be arguing about sock length & hands on bars position in a decade, race organisers can take it upon themselves to be agents of change, they dont have to wait to be told or its written in the UCI regs.

No, it certainly is defendable... as already pointed out, the organiser paid the minimum prize fund allowed by the UCI for both the men's and women's resepective events category.

Now, a question should be asked as to why the events are at different UCI levels, seeing as they are effectively the same event, which I believe the organiser has addressed perfectly adequately. 

His focus was to first bring coverage, that will enable the event to generate revenues that will allow further enhancement of the event to World Tour level, which in turn will lead to parity in prize money. 

Personally, the organiser sounds as though they have the right intentions and a plan in place... seems a shame to blindly attack one of the better guys. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

No, it certainly is defendable... as already pointed out, the organiser paid the minimum prize fund allowed by the UCI for both the men's and women's resepective events category.

Now, a question should be asked as to why the events are at different UCI levels, seeing as they are effectively the same event, which I believe the organiser has addressed perfectly adequately. 

His focus was to first bring coverage, that will enable the event to generate revenues that will allow further enhancement of the event to World Tour level, which in turn will lead to parity in prize money. 

Personally, the organiser sounds as though they have the right intentions and a plan in place... seems a shame to blindly attack one of the better guys. 

No, it's not defensible in ethical terms. 

"I have deliberately paid one group of people significantly less on the grounds of nothing more than they are female. The rules allow me to do this"

This is not a defence. It's predictable. The organiser is not the only one to blame. But it's not a defence.