interesting discussion on MTBR.com

S

Shar0se

Guest
Thanks for posting that! For those of you who may not have read it- it is a discussion on whether or not females should have as high a payout at males at races. Personally, I can not believe that in 2008 in America at a time when a female is in contention for the white house this is even a topic of discussion!
 

Norm

Mayor McCheese
Team MTBNJ Halter's
Sharose,

If it's a sponsor-based purse then I agree. But if it's a participant-based then how is that justified? As an extreme example if 500 men register for a race and 2 women register, you believe the 2 women should get the money that 249 men put into the event with their registration fees?
 

Fogerson

Former Resident Nerd
Sharose,

If it's a sponsor-based purse then I agree. But if it's a participant-based then how is that justified? As an extreme example if 500 men register for a race and 2 women register, you believe the 2 women should get the money that 249 men put into the event with their registration fees?

Disclaimer: To lazy to read the MTBR thread right now...

I certainly agree with Norm's position when the purse is participant-based...not so sure about when it is sponsor-based.

If the men's race is what generally draws the crowd/press, what is wrong with the sponsors throwing their $$$ at that to get the largest and highest performing male riders to participate in the event? For the sponsors, it is about brand exposure and if the women's race draws less interest, why should they make the purse the same?

In other sports the tables are turned. Take figure skating or gymnastics; do you think that corporations throw as much money behind the men in these sports as they do the women? Of course not...

What about NASCAR? On a given race weekend, the BUSCH series purses are smaller than Nextel Cup series purses. Why? The primary draw for the show are the Nextel Cup cars--so that is where the purse money goes. I'm sure the BUSCH guys would love to get the same purses as the cup guys, but that simply makes no sense...

I see the inequality in purses as the result of simple business economics; bang for their corporate buck....certainly not a gender bias by the corporations. If the major draw for a race became the female race, I'm certain you'd see the tables turn in a hurry on the purse sizes...
 

clarkenstein

JORBA Money Launderer
JORBA.ORG
Sharose,

If it's a sponsor-based purse then I agree. But if it's a participant-based then how is that justified? As an extreme example if 500 men register for a race and 2 women register, you believe the 2 women should get the money that 249 men put into the event with their registration fees?

if this were the case, then think of this scenario...

you have 10 expert-class racers register, and 100 beginner-class racers register. the winning experts purse should be one tenth the size of the winning beginners purse.

i personally wouldn't agree with that. i think the experts should get the bigger purse for racing themselves at a higher and more competitive standard.
 

Fogerson

Former Resident Nerd
if this were the case, then think of this scenario...

you have 10 expert-class racers register, and 100 beginner-class racers register. the winning experts purse should be one tenth the size of the winning beginners purse.

i personally wouldn't agree with that. i think the experts should get the bigger purse for racing themselves at a higher and more competitive standard.

Hmm...didn't think my view down to the class level. Though, in a way, my argument about sponsor-based may apply here.

What is the draw? If it is to see those 10 experts race, then yeah, I think it is justified that the purse for the experts be proportionally larger than the beginners. However, if it ain't, then the experts should get 1/10th the purse.

BTW, I *do* think that the higher classes are the primary draw for press/crowds...
 

Norm

Mayor McCheese
Team MTBNJ Halter's
clarkenstein,

Only expert-level and above get cash purses in H2H, I believe. And I've also been told that at some events, the expert purse is greater than the higher classes so take that for what it's worth.

Your counter-example does make sense. But then, the experts might never have moved up in the first place if that were the case.

The promotors are trying to make money. At the same time you (maybe) want to balance that with trying to make people more competetive. In the Ringwood race there were 50 expert men and 8 expert women. Since the women have 2 classes that means 75% are in the money by just showing up. I think there are 5 men's classes so you have a 30% cash-rate there. But don't you think that 75% is a bit high? And given that, doesn't it seem that the purse would be unfair if the purse were actually split 50-50?

I don't think there is a "right" answer, as such. But I think the line that it should be equal no matter what is falling into the slippery slope of entitlement, which isn't a good thing, IMO.
 

Fogerson

Former Resident Nerd
you feel this way even if it is a participant-based purse?

Generally yes...proportional would likely mean no/less experts/higher level participation. No higher level, less interest from the populous. Less interest from the populace puts the event in jeopardy. Not to mention incentive to get faster and go up classes. If I can take home $100 as a beginner and only $10 as an expert, some motivation evaporates, yes?

Of course, my answer could be different based on demographics and type of a particular event.

My answer could be different after my next cup of coffee too....
 
Last edited:

clarkenstein

JORBA Money Launderer
JORBA.ORG
But I think the line that it should be equal no matter what is falling into the slippery slope of entitlement, which isn't a good thing, IMO.

i can agree with that. especially with the 'no matter what'.

combining two of the poll choices on the original mtbr thread makes the most sense to me (at this moment). let the promoters decide how they want to split the scratch, and if racers agree with the method, they'll sign up. if they dont agree, and they dont show, then the promoters will probably try a new method to attract more racers.

on a more serious note, my method for splitting winnings if i were to run a race?

cheese. start with a huge block of cheese. you win - you get a knife, and the better you place wins you a larger time limit on how much cheese you can carve out of the block. if you can cut it and carry it - its all yours.

experts - 30 seconds of cheese cutting fun.
sport - 20 seconds of cheese.
beginners - 15 seconds of cheese cuts.

DFL - no cheese. :mad: just used babybel wax wrappers.
 

Shaggz

A strong 7
this is the girls forum, and i am interested to see what opinions and thoughts they have on the topic.
 
S

Shar0se

Guest
Giving a smaller purse to women is treating them like 2nd class citizens.

I already stated my opinion but I'll elaborate.... I understand Norm's point about 500 men racing verses 2 women and the points made about drawing people to the events. However, this not division I football we are talking about, nor is it sponsored race car driving or Olympic level gymnastics -- it is an outdoor sport with a serious need to increase the participation of women. Giving a smaller purse to women is treating them like 2nd class citizens. Women work just as hard as men. Why should the women who train and race be "punished" just because more women don't come out? They shouldn't. In fact, just the opposite- at this time in our history it is up to the sponsors and athletes to support the women who do come out!! Eventually, the tide will change and more women will participate, as they have in other sports. In the meantime, we need to "bite the bullet" and give men and women EQUAL opportunities.
 
i can agree with that. especially with the 'no matter what'.

combining two of the poll choices on the original mtbr thread makes the most sense to me (at this moment). let the promoters decide how they want to split the scratch, and if racers agree with the method, they'll sign up. if they dont agree, and they dont show, then the promoters will probably try a new method to attract more racers.

Agreed. We are talking about events that are more or less private and somewhat on the fringe - private in the sense that the GOTUS does not sponsor these events, private sponsors and race organizers do. They need to set the parameters that determine the payout to racers, and be able to walk away having made a good name for themselves and their sponsors.

It may be considered sad, sorry, gender-biased and generally crappy that women do not get paid equal purses for competing in the same sports, but women do not seem to attract the same attention from audiences that fit the demographics most corporate sponsors are attempting to reach.

I wonder what an analysis of the amount of money spent promoting races versus the registration by gender, corporate sponsorship target demos, and gender-based payout disparity would yield. It may be that it makes poor business sense to spend money on equal purses for racers that are not attracting customers.

Gender-based payout disparity is probably not the fault of RDs or corporate sponsors. Indeed it is no one's fault; it's a sociological phenomenon based on a preference to watch one group of people participate in a sport versus another group. If you can somehow force people to be more avid consumers of one group's performance over anothers, you can shift the paradigm.
 

pixychick

JORBA: Ringwood
JORBA.ORG
I think the original thread was based on Georgia Gould's petition for equal pay out at the National series. Just to give you some background to the best of my memory: About 8 years ago, all sponsors pulled out of the series, and there was no pro purse at all for men or women. Then a year or 2 ago, it was added back in, but within expenses of the promoters.

From a business point of view, I can see at first glance the choice to pay less for women, because of lack of participation, but certainly is not fair to those top winning women. I say, pay equal amounts for places 1-5 for men and women, but also pay out and additional 10 men for the higher number of participants.

As for local races, promoters choice, cheese or whatever. I think most local promoters are sensitive to the situation, and may sometimes pay heavy, and I think that is a good thing.

What I can't understand is why the field limit for women is less for women than men at the Olympics. It makes no sense, We should be sending 4 women.

And, I want want an 18 lb race bike to equal the bike to body weight ratio that most men get.:hmmm: Then I'm racin in the mens class.
 
Last edited:

clarkenstein

JORBA Money Launderer
JORBA.ORG
And, I want want an 18 lb race bike to equal the bike to body weight ratio that most men get.:hmmm: Then I'm racin in the mens class.

nice.

there's one sport that has taught me the importance of body weight to strength to gear-weight ratios - and that's climbing - especially mountaineer-style stuff. when friends of mine invested in all those nice lightweight toys and were charging up the mtns and cliffs, and i was close to 40 pounds heavier because of the crap-gear i bought (plus usually being a bigger dude), boy did i appreciate it then.
 

NJ Jess

Active Member
Is money the motivator again,..

Geeze, America! Must everything be motivated my money? I don't ride to win it, I ride it to play. I don't know of any mountainbiker that says,.."Gee, I want to ride this event verse that one because it has more money to win." I don't know of any "Millionaire Mountainbikers" either. This isn't road cycling. It's a party on wheels with beer pints to follow.

As for respecting women,...I think their are a lot of MALE mountainbikers that know to appreciate there Mother for giving birth to them, their girlfriend or wife for loving them, and for all of them supporting and putting up with his need to RIDE! We women often enjoy supporting our loved ones more than being in the spotlight ourselves. For those who do,....more power to them,...treat them fairly.
 

jbogner

NYCMTB: President
JORBA.ORG
I agree, Jess. At the pro level this is much more important than at the local level. At the pro level, the women are trying to make a living and support their racing just like the guys are, and pathetic prize purses from UCI races should just not be acceptable. If you want top UCI certification, the race should offer equal payout for the top pro men and women. At that level, sponsors are footing the prize bill, and making the payouts inequal is absurd.

But yeah, at the local level, I don't know a single woman who would base their race schedule on whether a particular race paid out men and woman equally. Heck, I don't know of a local race that actually announces what they're paying out to anyone- it's usually just an envelope and a handshake. You wouldn't know what anyone got unless you asked them! Still, it would be nice if promoters took care of the pro class equally. I wouldn't think of going after sponsors for a prize purse without making the top 3 payouts for each sex equal. Although I do like the idea of paying deeper than 3 when the class is larger...
 
Top Bottom