Womens Cycling

SquagglesSquaggles Posts: 875
edited August 2014 in Pro race
Any idea why teams like Sky don't have a womens team ? It seems like it would be a very small extra outlay on top of the cost of the mens team
The UCI are Clowns and Fools
«13456716

Posts

  • LeicesterLadLeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(
  • inkyfingersinkyfingers Posts: 4,397
    Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(

    Exactly.

    Women's cycling is caught in a vicious circle....

    Hardly anybody watches it because it's not financially viable to promote it well enough. It's not financially viable to promote it so therefore hardly anybody watches it.

    The only way it will change is if the UCI force mens teams to invest in women's teams (which I don't like the idea of) or the UCI has to risk some of it's cash and do a better job of promoting the women's sport itself, in the hope that in the long term it will gain from any success.

    I see Lizzie A has been banging on about this, she's becoming a feisty little one, maybe aiming to fill Nicole Cooke's old role in that respect.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • eheh Posts: 4,854
    Armitstead says to run a top-flight women's team would cost around 450, 000 euros a year - an amount she describes as "nothing".

    Funny idea of what nothing means. So for a 3 year team you are looking at the best part of 1.4million Euros, to pay someone to cycle for a living. The thing that women need to do is persuade companies what do they get for paying out all that cash?
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,591
    In an indirect way the DTPC Honda Team this year is kind of Sky linked- ish... as in lots of the young BC/Sky backed stars of the Olympic Team GB, backing from the Wiggo Foundation, etc.

    I think Sky have got one more year of excuses and looking the other way in terms of not properly backing a women's team. But they may have missed a trick this year - the problem they might have next year is that many of the best GB riders might be tied up in 2 year+ contracts, so they might not even be able to get a team off the ground until end of 2014 (assuming they'd want to make the most of the Olympic stars and double junior World Champ Lucy Garner, etc).
    Co-sponsoring could happen; but then maybe that doesn't fit with the Sky style?
  • Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(

    Exactly.

    Women's cycling is caught in a vicious circle....

    Hardly anybody watches it because it's not financially viable to promote it well enough. It's not financially viable to promote it so therefore hardly anybody watches it.

    The only way it will change is if the UCI force mens teams to invest in women's teams (which I don't like the idea of) or the UCI has to risk some of it's cash and do a better job of promoting the women's sport itself, in the hope that in the long term it will gain from any success.

    I see Lizzie A has been banging on about this, she's becoming a feisty little one, maybe aiming to fill Nicole Cooke's old role in that respect.


    La Lizzie has - she's just gone off again in another interview with the Beeb - but her problem is that unlike Emma Pooley for example, she doesnt come across well. In almost every interview she comes across as moany and negative, rather than constructive. In her latest intervew she has a pop at the new Wiggle Honda team ahead of its official launch tomorrow, and says that even if Sky set up a womens team, she wouldnt go there anyway ('na na, na na na').

    Final straw is her bemoaning that she'll have to race against Vos all of her career, and 'it's horrible.'

    There's a difference between straight talking and moaning.
  • LeicesterLadLeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(

    Exactly.

    Women's cycling is caught in a vicious circle....

    Hardly anybody watches it because it's not financially viable to promote it well enough. It's not financially viable to promote it so therefore hardly anybody watches it.

    The only way it will change is if the UCI force mens teams to invest in women's teams (which I don't like the idea of) or the UCI has to risk some of it's cash and do a better job of promoting the women's sport itself, in the hope that in the long term it will gain from any success.

    I see Lizzie A has been banging on about this, she's becoming a feisty little one, maybe aiming to fill Nicole Cooke's old role in that respect.


    La Lizzie has - she's just gone off again in another interview with the Beeb - but her problem is that unlike Emma Pooley for example, she doesnt come across well. In almost every interview she comes across as moany and negative, rather than constructive. In her latest intervew she has a pop at the new Wiggle Honda team ahead of its official launch tomorrow, and says that even if Sky set up a womens team, she wouldnt go there anyway ('na na, na na na').

    Final straw is her bemoaning that she'll have to race against Vos all of her career, and 'it's horrible.'
    There's a difference between straight talking and moaning.

    What an unbelievable thing to say!? She doesn't want to compete against the best in the sport?
  • bdu98252bdu98252 Posts: 171
    Probably the same reason that the premier league don't have a womens league the day after or at the end of every mens match. If every major tour had a womans event the day before the mens then they would get some profile however it would mean additional road closures and logistical hassle.

    Women in general are not viewers of sport. Men are and it could be argued that they are already fairly well catered for. If women wish to start getting sky sports packages and demanding more womens events for their pleasure then they would get what they wanted with female slanted ads during the breaks if they went out on mass.
  • 'swat she said

    '"It (the Tour of Flanders) is the only World Cup that Marianne has never won, so if I could get there before her that would be pretty sweet - but it's going to be tough.

    "I expect Marianne to be the person to beat for the rest of my career.

    "She's just a phenomenal rider. It's horrible."
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,591
    Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(

    Exactly.

    Women's cycling is caught in a vicious circle....

    Hardly anybody watches it because it's not financially viable to promote it well enough. It's not financially viable to promote it so therefore hardly anybody watches it.

    The only way it will change is if the UCI force mens teams to invest in women's teams (which I don't like the idea of) or the UCI has to risk some of it's cash and do a better job of promoting the women's sport itself, in the hope that in the long term it will gain from any success.

    I see Lizzie A has been banging on about this, she's becoming a feisty little one, maybe aiming to fill Nicole Cooke's old role in that respect.


    La Lizzie has - she's just gone off again in another interview with the Beeb - but her problem is that unlike Emma Pooley for example, she doesnt come across well. In almost every interview she comes across as moany and negative, rather than constructive. In her latest intervew she has a pop at the new Wiggle Honda team ahead of its official launch tomorrow, and says that even if Sky set up a womens team, she wouldnt go there anyway ('na na, na na na').

    Final straw is her bemoaning that she'll have to race against Vos all of her career, and 'it's horrible.'

    There's a difference between straight talking and moaning.



    Totally disagree.

    Perhaps in print interviews that might come across (naughty journos stirring it up a bit? Shurely not...), but on't telly I've only thought what a top lady she is (the opposite of what you say): positive and constructive. On top of that, she's been bright and funny.

    In that BBC interview I assume you're referring to she says she's trying to be honest but positive.

    Her comment about Vos came across as nothing but respectful, to me. What would you expect her to say - she's up against the Merckx of women's cycling?
  • well, guess its what each of us takes out of an interview. She keeps on banging on that she wants to be positive but...its quite a stack of interviews piling up now that arent presenting her in totally the best way. Maybe all of the journos involved are mispresenting her, or sub-editors are doing it for them.
  • JonGingeJonGinge Posts: 5,958
    ocdupalais wrote:
    Because unfortunately, in general, it simply doesn't pay to sponsor a womens team. :(

    Exactly.

    Women's cycling is caught in a vicious circle....

    Hardly anybody watches it because it's not financially viable to promote it well enough. It's not financially viable to promote it so therefore hardly anybody watches it.

    The only way it will change is if the UCI force mens teams to invest in women's teams (which I don't like the idea of) or the UCI has to risk some of it's cash and do a better job of promoting the women's sport itself, in the hope that in the long term it will gain from any success.

    I see Lizzie A has been banging on about this, she's becoming a feisty little one, maybe aiming to fill Nicole Cooke's old role in that respect.


    La Lizzie has - she's just gone off again in another interview with the Beeb - but her problem is that unlike Emma Pooley for example, she doesnt come across well. In almost every interview she comes across as moany and negative, rather than constructive. In her latest intervew she has a pop at the new Wiggle Honda team ahead of its official launch tomorrow, and says that even if Sky set up a womens team, she wouldnt go there anyway ('na na, na na na').

    Final straw is her bemoaning that she'll have to race against Vos all of her career, and 'it's horrible.'

    There's a difference between straight talking and moaning.



    Totally disagree.

    Perhaps in print interviews that might come across (naughty journos stirring it up a bit? Shurely not...), but on't telly I've only thought what a top lady she is (the opposite of what you say): positive and constructive. On top of that, she's been bright and funny.

    In that BBC interview I assume you're referring to she says she's trying to be honest but positive.

    Her comment about Vos came across as nothing but respectful, to me. What would you expect her to say - she's up against the Merckx of women's cycling?
    ^This.
    If we could see a video of the interview I'm pretty sure she would have been smiling/laughing when making the "it's horrible" remark.
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • JonGingeJonGinge Posts: 5,958
    The problem with interviewers is they print what you say rather than how you say it. The bastards ;)
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • Anyway Lucy Garner's going to take over as the most prominent and successul Brit woman roadie within the next 3 years. I think it'll be her really taking it to Vos, and Barker..well, be interesting to see how she develops.

    EDIT:

    In interest of keeping it affable, I'll withdraw before I get branded as perpetrating a Lizzie witch-hunt

    I'm sure she's a lovely, happy-go-lucky all-round great girl

    (just her print interviews suck a little)
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,520
    The thing is, by and large, the only time we see the Women racing is at the Worlds and the British team have 'Sky' printed all over their kit. Job done as far as Sky are concerned.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    ocdupalais wrote:
    In an indirect way the DTPC Honda Team this year is kind of Sky linked- ish... as in lots of the young BC/Sky backed stars of the Olympic Team GB, backing from the Wiggo Foundation, etc.

    I think Sky have got one more year of excuses and looking the other way in terms of not properly backing a women's team. But they may have missed a trick this year - the problem they might have next year is that many of the best GB riders might be tied up in 2 year+ contracts, so they might not even be able to get a team off the ground until end of 2014 (assuming they'd want to make the most of the Olympic stars and double junior World Champ Lucy Garner, etc).
    Co-sponsoring could happen; but then maybe that doesn't fit with the Sky style?

    Not sure, what happens after a year if sky don't start sponsoring a team? I also wouldn't particularly describe what they're doing as making excuses. There just isn't a business case that I can see for sponsoring a team, it might cost x times less, but it gets 0 times as much coverage.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,591
    Maybe someone on the hunt for sponsorship for a women's team should have a word with Richard Branston and get his lot in there before Sky.
    Can't imagine there'd be any female cyclist who wouldn't want 'Virgin' on her chest...
  • LutherBLutherB Posts: 544
    As opposed to being sponsored by the drink '20p for the swearbox'
  • ocdupalais wrote:
    Maybe someone on the hunt for sponsorship for a women's team should have a word with Richard Branston and get his lot in there before Sky.
    Can't imagine there'd be any female cyclist who wouldn't want 'Virgin' on her chest...


    I'm back already!

    The new team's jersey with 'Wiggle' across the chest is...erm...
  • davidofdavidof Posts: 2,002
    bdu98252 wrote:
    Women in general are not viewers of sport. Men are and it could be argued that they are already fairly well catered for.

    English men like watching other men - something about the quality of the game. In France the main viewer demographic of the TdF is housewives, in Italy it is men that watch the Giro Donne, I guess they are less interested in the level of sportmanship.
  • squiredsquired Posts: 1,216
    I could be wrong, but I seem to recall an interview with Dave B in September/October about female cycling and the possibility of forming a female team. In the interview I think he said that he hoped to be able to say something on the subject in 6-8 weeks time. Obviously that never happened. I'll see if I can find the article later, but if I am remembering correctly it suggests that they were giving it serious consideration and then presumably nixed the idea for some reason.
  • It seems to have emerged as some level of support and involvement with the new Wiggle Honda team (with BC name involved rather than Sky)

    I think they're also getting the Girls GB Academy thing going again but in a different format - but I'm sure someone else will put me right on that.
  • I think sometimes the reality of 'life' finally comes to the fore of all the 'marketing bulls*t' that dumb people believe and reality breaks free, in this case womens racing and the fact nobody wants to sponsor it because the mens racing is more popular.

    Women like Cooke can ring their bells and bleat all they want about Armstrong and how he supposedly, single-handedly, ruined womens cycling, but we all know thats got 20p for the swearbox all to do with it and comes down to the cash, and if you are a major marketing director at a big company you aren't going to park the best part of your million pound budget on the backs of lycra-clad women not on tv. Its got 20p for the swearbox all to do with how good the racing is, its purely about exposure.

    And Cooke of all people should know this, afterall, she spent many hours at the front of the peloton just plugging the team shirt sponsor.
  • Le CommentateurLe Commentateur Posts: 4,174
    edited January 2013
    Not enough women are interested* in racing regularly at grassroots level. If you discount the elites living and racing abroad, there are only 300 or so E123 category women with full racing licenses in the UK. Maybe they looked at the situation and thought that's not a big enough pool to trawl for talent good enough to attract serious sponsors without simply poaching riders from other teams.


    *It's a "chicken & egg" situation because without races set up to attract interest they aren't going to have to opportunity to race regularly, get hooked on the competitive side and so add to the numbers.
  • RonBRonB Posts: 3,984
    I can't help thinking that race calendar alignment could help. Have the majority of the races roughly coinciding with the men. That might help with recognition. Seems to work for women's tennis, for example.

    Maybe stage length, logistics and so on and so forth will be seen as problems here, but not insurmountable ones surely? Or has this already been attempted before and failed?
  • RonB wrote:
    I can't help thinking that race calendar alignment could help. Have the majority of the races roughly coinciding with the men. That might help with recognition. Seems to work for women's tennis, for example.

    Maybe stage length, logistics and so on and so forth will be seen as problems here, but not insurmountable ones surely? Or has this already been attempted before and failed?


    One of the problems is sheer economics. So many men's races of long-standing are disappearing from French, Spanish Portuguese and Italian calendars - or at hanging on by a thread, reducing the numbers of stages in an effort not to disappear altogether.

    On the other hand..thinking of a race like G-W last year - the womens was held in the morning, before the men's, so it got spectators...Was it the same with F-W and Flanders, anyone?
  • RonB wrote:
    I can't help thinking that race calendar alignment could help. Have the majority of the races roughly coinciding with the men. That might help with recognition. Seems to work for women's tennis, for example.
    Works brilliantly in Biathlon and XC skiing, too.

    If there can be a women's race for Flanders (that runs about an hour ahead of the men's peloton) it's surely possible to have one in Milan-San Remo, starting from maybe 140kms from the finish?

    The thing about the women's Tour of Flanders race is... it gets very poor TV coverage – edited highlights shown weeks or even months later.
  • ProssPross Posts: 20,992
    IWomen like Cooke can ring their bells and bleat all they want about Armstrong and how he supposedly, single-handedly, ruined womens cycling, but we all know thats got 20p for the swearbox all to do with it and comes down to the cash, and if you are a major marketing director at a big company you aren't going to park the best part of your million pound budget on the backs of lycra-clad women not on tv. Its got 20p for the swearbox all to do with how good the racing is, its purely about exposure.

    And Cooke of all people should know this, afterall, she spent many hours at the front of the peloton just plugging the team shirt sponsor.

    Cooke didn't say anything like that. She made the point that Armstrong had denied clean riders of a living and then cited examples of how clean riders in the women's peloton lost their jobs because they wouldn't dope. She also pointed out that when she started out in cycling women's racing was on the increase but that there were a few drug scandals that didn't exactly help encourage sponsors which are already difficult to get (for the various reasons you have mentioned). She wasn't blaming everything on Lance or even doping in general but pointing that it has been another nail in the coffin.
  • A million pound budget would fund at least half a dozen elite women's teams.
  • stevezstevez Posts: 29
    Creating a Women's Team Sky or Wiggle-Honda does not solve the problems that women's cycling has, and I think that's the essence of what Lizzie A was getting at.

    The issue for the sport is to put in the infrastructure to film standalone women's races is very expensive and therefore race organisers aren't particularly motivated to do it. Therefore the single biggest impact the UCI could have on Women's cycling is to dictate to race organisers of the World Tour single day races that they have to run a Women's pro race on the same day, as currently happens with Flanders & Flèche. The additional cost to the race organisers is minimal as all the infrastructure is in place for the men's race, and I know for a fact Eurosport will take the broadcast and give it decent airtime. Clearly once more women's racing is broadcast it makes it far easier for teams to generate sponsorship revenue which means they can start paying riders proper salaries.

    Having been at the Wiggle-Honda launch yesterday what Rochelle Gilmore has created is extraordinary bearing in mind she can't guarantee sponsors coverage for their brand(s) at present.
  • stevezstevez Posts: 29
    A million pound budget would fund at least half a dozen elite women's teams.

    Not ones run properly it wouldn't! 1 million wold run 2 well funded teams that could compete at the front end of the peloton.
Sign In or Register to comment.