Womens CycloX - the case for equality

[mattc]

www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/helen-wyman/helen-wyman-pressing-the-equality-button

The parking thing is so absurd you have to laugh!

[Chris S]

Yes, I was appalled to be honest. I pretty much knew that elite cycling was a fairly sexist place (podium ceremonies - enough said!), but I was stunned by her post.

So, she basically says - we want to do exactly what the guys do, and be paid exactly what the guys are paid. Seems fair to me  .

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I agree with her beef. I'm not nearly so convinced by calls for equal pay for less work/ competition (e.g. Tennis).

[Blade]

Perhaps, in this age of equality, ladies only races should be scrapped and they should be given a chance to compete with the men for the big prize money. 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

In the example given, the women may have made more money if they were in the men's race. The unmentioned factor is that courses generally deteriorate and get slower with use and the women race before the men, so their race times may not be directly comparable.

[mattc]

I agree with her beef. I'm not nearly so convinced by calls for equal pay for less work/ competition (e.g. Tennis).

That's broadly what I was thinking.

in many mainstream sports the women are either "doing less",  or the fields lack strength in depth. Road cycling certainly suffers from the latter. Wyman's post shows that those excuses don't apply in 'cross. 

[arabella]

I agree with her beef. I'm not nearly so convinced by calls for equal pay for less work/ competition (e.g. Tennis).

OK, I'll bite:  define 'work'.  (I assume that you pace yoursef differently depending on whether you are expection 3 sets of tennis or 5, same as you would for 600km or 1000km audax)

[jane]

Yes.  And the work of a professional sportsperson involves much more than the final competition.  I am pretty certain the amount of hard work, commitment, and dedication that professional women put in is no less than the men, overall. Some sports may well place some restrictions in final competitions, but that's not always wanted by the women themselves anyway and, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily detract from the entertainment for the fans or much affect the total workload and demands of professional sport, overall.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Short reply now, longer later. I don't pace myself differently for a 600 or a 1000.

A men's 3 set match is a walkover and saves energy for tomorrow's match. A women's 3 set match is a long, hard day in the office.

[mattc]

Yes.  And the work of a professional sportsperson involves much more than the final competition.  I am pretty certain the amount of hard work, commitment, and dedication that professional women put in is no less than the men, overall. Some sports may well place some restrictions in final competitions, but that's not always wanted by the women themselves anyway and, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily detract from the entertainment for the fans or much affect the total workload and demands of professional sport, overall.

The point here is that tennis is one sport where the women _are_ happy to play less.

Whereas in CycloX they are asking for equality of work,  and the stats support that their races would still have competition in depth.

re: your 1st point. I would disagree - I think longer duration sports are harder full stop. However, the issue with tennis is the impression the fans get. We don't see the training on TV - most just watch those 5-6 matches at Wimblydon. The difference is made worse by the very short matches (in time) you often see in the Womens game - even their 3-setters are quicker than the mens.
CycloX wouldn't share this issue.

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

Read the article.  Was totally apalled.  Not sure what action I can take as don't tend to watch CycloX.  Would be interesting to see if satellite broadcasters could apply pressure - we won't cover your sport until you stop discriminating against certain classes of athletes.

[bobb]

Would be interesting to see if satellite broadcasters could apply pressure - we won't cover your sport until you stop discriminating against certain classes of athletes.

What, because satellite broadcasters are interested in paying the same amount in TV rights for womens sport as they are for mens?! I don't think so!

[rafletcher]

If the mens and womens races were held separately though, I suspect the spectator turnout for the races - and therefore sponsor exposure - would be markedly in favour of the mens circuit.  Prize money is paid on a commercial basis, not on what "right". The mens races make more commercial sense, and so attract more money. Whether that should be extended to the also-rans 4 laps down is another discussion.

As for tennis, it's only at the grand slams where men "work harder". The rest of the season they all play 3 set matches these days. And in mixed doubles it 2 plus a "champions" tie-break.  I have no idea if the prize money is equal outside of the slams. At least for the slams the commercial aspect is moot - all courts are fully paid for all the time, never mind the quality of the tennis, so sponsors don't really see a difference between the mens and womens matches (except at the French where it's cheap enough for the crowd to bugger off if they don't like what they're seeing).  If the courts were paid for on the basis of who was playing, on a match by match basis, then I suspect we'd see the same lack of attendance at the womens matches compared to mens as I've postulated above.

[Karla]

On the last point: really?  Tennis is one of the sports where the women's game always seems to be just as well-known as the men's game, on TV as well as at the court. 

[insert inappropriate comment about the skirts here]

[mattc]

n.b I DID NOT start this thread to talk about tennis!!!

Anyhoo:

  If the courts were paid for on the basis of who was playing, on a match by match basis, then I suspect we'd see the same lack of attendance at the womens matches compared to mens as I've postulated above.

In the later stages the tickets are pretty much "single sex" e.g. there are no mens singles on the Saturday, so spectators know they are paying to see the women. (and so on).
So you could do this analysys if you want.

(Tennis is unusual in many ways: the women have been earning a lot more than the men from non-tennis activities for years now, and in Billie-Jean they had perhaps THE most succesful publicist for womens sport.)

And yes: it is just the Slams that feature 5-setters. But they're the pinnacle -  and they get most of the TV time.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

So if the men only do 5 set matches at Slams, why don't the women do exactly the same?

[arabella]

Short reply now, longer later. I don't pace myself differently for a 600 or a 1000.

nor do I.  Probably a bad example as everybody wins in audax.  Howabout:
400m run record is around 47 secs, mile approx 3 mins 45 secs - so the 'mile' folks arent 'working' as hard: if they were the record would be nearly down to 3 mins. tut tut tut.
That's just the men.  Women 400m is 47sec, mile is 4 mins 12 secs.  No doubt you have a handy calculator to address whether men, at 25% more muscle mass (40% to women's 30%) 'work' less hard or harder than women (oughtn't they be 25% faster, which they aren't, oh dear).
Or is it about entertainment: Didn't the FA ban women's football as it was getting too popular.  Wonder what impact that had on women's sport in general. etc.

A men's 3 set match is a walkover and saves energy for tomorrow's match. A women's 3 set match is a long, hard day in the office.

Can't comment as never played a men's 3 set match.  Any more than you've ever played a women's 3 set match 

So if the men only do 5 set matches at Slams, why don't the women do exactly the same?

I think this was raised with the relevant authorities, but can't find any info.

Back on topic. Yes they do have a point.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

A walkover in a best of 3 sets match is just 2 sets.

There are quite a few best of 5 sets where the winner came back from 2 sets down. Those 2 set women had gone home long before. Much better value for money to watch 3-5 sets compared to 2-3 sets.

[David Martin]

The last club TT I organised I stated that if there were at least 4 ladies entered then there woudl be equal prize money for ladies and men.

There were and there was. Bit unfair on the men though with a much lower chance of winning anything, but that is just the nature of the competition.

[cygnet]

Grapic for the 2013-14 season shows the disparity:
cyclephotos.co.uk/2014/03/16/top-10-cx-women-earners/

(equivalent for the men is on a link from that site)

[The Seldom Killer]

If the mens and womens races were held separately though, I suspect the spectator turnout for the races - and therefore sponsor exposure - would be markedly in favour of the mens circuit.

Your suspicions are wrong as far as cyclocross are concerned. Women race seperately at the National Championships and World Cup and there is no noticable decline in spectator numbers for their races. If anything by the time the Elite Men are racing the numbers will have waned as those who have come just for the Women's races will have started leaving.

Edited to add that for a National Trophy cyclocross race, The first elite man will win £330, enough for the entry fee, cost of travelling, a budget overnight hotel, a new set of tyres and still some pocket money. The first elite woman will win £60, almost barely enough for entry fee and travel for all but the closest of competitors.