Womens racing. what a waste of time.

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

awavey

larkim wrote:

I think you're spot on tbh - the gulf between the commentary on the mens races vs the women's race currently on is significant.

In some sports (e.g. tennis) the difference in the spectacle is significant and I can see why some would prefer watching one particular gender (some prefer women's, some prefer men's) and in other sports the professional level for women's sport is visibly less entertaining than men's (e.g. I would suggest football or cricket). But there really shouldn't be any reason why getting involved in women's cycling should be less appealing to fan's of the sport overall.

hey Id like to point out the womens cricket team are world champions in one day game, won at Lords, which the men have never won the equivalent of, and I dont believe they have ever lost to Scotland either

rick_chasey

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

You do know he’s a troll, mrfb?

awavey

Lucan2 wrote:

It's the age-old dilemma - not enough of the general public are interested in womens' cycling, so ITV puts on 80s TV repeats as they are more popular. If they showed more, there may be more interest generated, but why would they?

It's a similar argument with the gender pay difference in cycling. Why is there far more money in mens' cycling? Because more people watch mens' cycling, so more TV companies will show it, therefore more sponsors want to be associated with it.

Paying women the same as men does nothing but bend reality. Womens' cycling as a commercial spectacle is not as valuable as mens', so there is no justification for rewarding women the same as men for racing.

but Id say if no one is watching the womens race, who are all these people you see roadside then ?

https://twitter.com/thewomenstour/status/1007721972703297537

ignore the schoolkids who get press ganged into it, there are plenty of people there for a race no-one is interested in, so why arent sponsors interested in selling products to them, the cost benefit ratio must be incredible given its bound to be low cost. Its the crazy thing about sponsors only seem to think men buy things and then ignore half the population.

and I dont think the womens peleton have ever demanded equal pay to the men, fairer pay certainly, it feels totally wrong for teams not to be paying their riders at all in lots of cases and just giving them expenses, how does anyone commit to cycling as a professional career in those circumstances, there can never be strength and depth in the womens peloton if they arent getting paid for it

Lizzie Deignan has said she isnt currently being paid by her team,shes taken a year out to have a baby, which means a year without any income from the team and if thats the situation with a top rider in a top team, what on earth is it like for the rest of them

Pooter

Well done The Telegraph. It seems to be the only national newspaper reporting on the stages.

gsk82

awavey wrote:

Lucan2 wrote:

It's the age-old dilemma - not enough of the general public are interested in womens' cycling, so ITV puts on 80s TV repeats as they are more popular. If they showed more, there may be more interest generated, but why would they?

It's a similar argument with the gender pay difference in cycling. Why is there far more money in mens' cycling? Because more people watch mens' cycling, so more TV companies will show it, therefore more sponsors want to be associated with it.

Paying women the same as men does nothing but bend reality. Womens' cycling as a commercial spectacle is not as valuable as mens', so there is no justification for rewarding women the same as men for racing.

but Id say if no one is watching the womens race, who are all these people you see roadside then ?

https://twitter.com/thewomenstour/status/1007721972703297537

ignore the schoolkids who get press ganged into it, there are plenty of people there for a race no-one is interested in, so why arent sponsors interested in selling products to them, the cost benefit ratio must be incredible given its bound to be low cost. Its the crazy thing about sponsors only seem to think men buy things and then ignore half the population.

and I dont think the womens peloton have ever demanded equal pay to the men, fairer pay certainly, it feels totally wrong for teams not to be paying their riders at all in lots of cases and just giving them expenses, how does anyone commit to cycling as a professional career in those circumstances, there can never be strength and depth in the womens peloton if they arent getting paid for it

Lizzie Deignan has said she isnt currently being paid by her team,shes taken a year out to have a baby, which means a year without any income from the team and if thats the situation with a top rider in a top team, what on earth is it like for the rest of them

Would it be fair if someone who is basically a rolling billboard gets paid more than a market rate just because of the modern interpretation of the word fair? Fair doesn't mean the same.

If their is ever a rule stating that their pay has to be the same as the men, teams and races will fold because it wouldn't be value for money. If itv are told they have to show full stages because they did that for the men, they'd stop showing it altogether.

Is it fair that the winner of the 2018 women's 2 day tour de Yorkshire took home the same prize money as the men's 4 day winner? To me that's not equal pay, that's a gender pay gap of 50%, even ignoring the fact that the men's winner will have got greater coverage for his sponsors

DeVlaeminck

Shortfall wrote:

It's the same reason F1 drivers, golfers and footballers get paid gazillions and why most of us can't name any crown green bowlers.

David Bryant - chap with the pipe ?

takethehighroad

Rick Chasey wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

You do know he’s a troll, mrfb?

Troll or not, Vino's Ghost has started a good debate

bompington

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

It's the same reason F1 drivers, golfers and footballers get paid gazillions and why most of us can't name any crown green bowlers.

David Bryant - chap with the pipe ?

What, you mean you don't know the difference between lawn and crown green bowling?

tim000

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

It's the same reason F1 drivers, golfers and footballers get paid gazillions and why most of us can't name any crown green bowlers.

David Bryant - chap with the pipe ?

indoor bowls , not crown green . and i cant believe i know that :shock: :oops: :shock: :oops:

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

You do know he’s a troll, mrfb?

Im not trolling at all, it was a fair observation; that you found it uncomfortable says more about you than it does about me and this is a forum, different opinions and views on cycling it reflects life, not everyone is the same. Difference (or diversity as the pc lot call it) helps move things forward and change.

Vino'sGhost

Pooter wrote:

Well done The Telegraph. It seems to be the only national newspaper reporting on the stages.

ah nice one I think ill subscribe, the times is woeful.

No_Ta_Doctor

bompington wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

It's the same reason F1 drivers, golfers and footballers get paid gazillions and why most of us can't name any crown green bowlers.

David Bryant - chap with the pipe ?

What, you mean you don't know the difference between lawn and crown green bowling?

I once came home so drunk I didn't know the difference between snooker and crown green bowling. Spent half an hour trying to work out who was playing. I could tell from the speed it wasn't Hurricane Higgins.

Lanterne_Rogue

Lucan2 wrote:

It's the age-old dilemma - not enough of the general public are interested in womens' cycling, so ITV puts on 80s TV repeats as they are more popular. If they showed more, there may be more interest generated, but why would they?

It's a similar argument with the gender pay difference in cycling. Why is there far more money in mens' cycling? Because more people watch mens' cycling, so more TV companies will show it, therefore more sponsors want to be associated with it.

Paying women the same as men does nothing but bend reality. Womens' cycling as a commercial spectacle is not as valuable as mens', so there is no justification for rewarding women the same as men for racing.

This ignores the fact that it's a virtuous circle.

Take cricket. The ECB - amongst other boards - put a serious push into funding female cricket a few years ago that raised the standard of the team noticeably (as they were no longer amateurs fitting it into a day job), By the time of the world cup last year there were a number of teams who had some serious quality, and the ECB could put a push into increasing the visibility of the tournament. That appears to have caught them by surprise - to sell out the final they offered a load of cheap tickets to kids on the All Stars scheme, which is why my family attended their first ever game of cricket and my German wife finally understands the appeal of TMS. This year it's noticeable that there's a lot more coverage of the female game than before the world cup - live commentary on TMS for starters - because its now been established that there's a market for it. In turn, the ECB are putting still more money in, because they've realised they're reaching a different audience...

You can kick start that circle of increased coverage -> bigger audience -> better funding -> better product -> increased coverage at any point, but with women's cycling the funding seems to be a particular weakness. You can't build a professional product with amateur riders.

Nobody is seriously arguing for equal pay, necessarily (it's not like male riders are on standard salaries either). But being paid fairly so that you can ride full time seems like a fairly basic requirement for a sustainable - and marketable - sport.

There's one bright point here. Races in the UK, at least, have spotted an opportunity to get top racing on the cheap, and there's a bit of a bidding war to get the top women's race. If it's going to take off properly - and it might well do so - there's every chance that the UK will be the place it properly happens. You can see the crowds at the side of the road. Build it and they'll come...

No_Ta_Doctor

underlayunderlay wrote:

There's one bright point here. Races in the UK, at least, have spotted an opportunity to get top racing on the cheap, and there's a bit of a bidding war to get the top women's race. If it's going to take off properly - and it might well do so - there's every chance that the UK will be the place it properly happens. You can see the crowds at the side of the road. Build it and they'll come...

With Brian Cookson's planned GB based but international women's WT team it's not a bad bet that if it happens it happens in GB. The Netherlands is probably the other place where it might get some traction.

Personally I'd like to see the men's WT teams investing in women's teams. Lot's of the men's WT teams have managed to understand the importance of a media platform, and where they can share stuff about their women's team (e.g. Sunweb) they've got a really good headstart on making it attractive to sponsors.

above_the_cows

imafatman wrote:

When I go out for a ride on Sunday morning it's 99% blokes. Perhaps if more women had an interest in cycling there would be more interest in womens cycling?

Even in France, it's relatively rare to see a woman riding. Maybe it's just not that interesting to women.

Well if you will ride your bike around and around HMP Oakwood what do you expect?

awavey

gsk82 wrote:

Would it be fair if someone who is basically a rolling billboard gets paid more than a market rate just because of the modern interpretation of the word fair? Fair doesn't mean the same.

If their is ever a rule stating that their pay has to be the same as the men, teams and races will fold because it wouldn't be value for money. If itv are told they have to show full stages because they did that for the men, they'd stop showing it altogether.

Is it fair that the winner of the 2018 women's 2 day tour de Yorkshire took home the same prize money as the men's 4 day winner? To me that's not equal pay, that's a gender pay gap of 50%, even ignoring the fact that the men's winner will have got greater coverage for his sponsors

in terms of the prize money, thats a choice being made by sponsors of those races who arent forced to do it, they clearly see the value of the publicity of doing it which is fine. Id be happier with an equal prize pot, but a distribution model that meant the winners actually didnt get the same and the money was spread down. Because what you get is this headline figure of equal prize money, but its only really the winner/winning team, who almost certainly probably reasonably funded anyway, who benefits. Everyone else in the race is still more than likely paying to race at a loss

and again Im not arguing for the same pay as the men, unless all the mens teams drop to the same terms of pay as the women as then maybe the mens side would understand the issue more keenly trying to be a professional rider whilst basically living off hand outs from friends & family, Id like to see a minimum wage introduced for women riders on pro registered teams, I dont think its fair or right in a professional sport that alot of the women riding in it arent getting paid at all, we can argue about how much they should be able to earn from it in comparison to men, once we break this zero ceiling, though its almost certainly actually it costs them to race they dont break even on it.

awavey

No tA Doctor wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

There's one bright point here. Races in the UK, at least, have spotted an opportunity to get top racing on the cheap, and there's a bit of a bidding war to get the top women's race. If it's going to take off properly - and it might well do so - there's every chance that the UK will be the place it properly happens. You can see the crowds at the side of the road. Build it and they'll come...

With Brian Cookson's planned GB based but international women's WT team it's not a bad bet that if it happens it happens in GB. The Netherlands is probably the other place where it might get some traction.

Personally I'd like to see the men's WT teams investing in women's teams. Lot's of the men's WT teams have managed to understand the importance of a media platform, and where they can share stuff about their women's team (e.g. Sunweb) they've got a really good headstart on making it attractive to sponsors.

but sadly I suspect thats just Cooksons pipe dream to still sound relevant in cycling circles, BC have gone cold again on the idea of setting up a proper womens trade team and seem to be expecting the likes of Sky to just fill the gap for them, but with the complete mess of the womens road race series BC made this year I dont know that being based in the UK helps. And Wiggle are a UK based team,but havent really been visible at any UK races this year, and it doesnt seem to be helping them much

Vino'sGhost

I suspect that if bc got the applause from a top flight team they’d be on it. Wiggle gets results for wiggle, bc seem to want to “be” cycling in the UK, possibly less control not more is required, a morph into an enabling organisation ahead of self promotion.

Cultural change is difficult when there no pressing incentive

Vino'sGhost

awavey wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Would it be fair if someone who is basically a rolling billboard gets paid more than a market rate just because of the modern interpretation of the word fair? Fair doesn't mean the same.

If their is ever a rule stating that their pay has to be the same as the men, teams and races will fold because it wouldn't be value for money. If itv are told they have to show full stages because they did that for the men, they'd stop showing it altogether.

Is it fair that the winner of the 2018 women's 2 day tour de Yorkshire took home the same prize money as the men's 4 day winner? To me that's not equal pay, that's a gender pay gap of 50%, even ignoring the fact that the men's winner will have got greater coverage for his sponsors

in terms of the prize money, thats a choice being made by sponsors of those races who arent forced to do it, they clearly see the value of the publicity of doing it which is fine. Id be happier with an equal prize pot, but a distribution model that meant the winners actually didnt get the same and the money was spread down. Because what you get is this headline figure of equal prize money, but its only really the winner/winning team, who almost certainly probably reasonably funded anyway, who benefits. Everyone else in the race is still more than likely paying to race at a loss

and again Im not arguing for the same pay as the men, unless all the mens teams drop to the same terms of pay as the women as then maybe the mens side would understand the issue more keenly trying to be a professional rider whilst basically living off hand outs from friends & family, Id like to see a minimum wage introduced for women riders on pro registered teams, I dont think its fair or right in a professional sport that alot of the women riding in it arent getting paid at all, we can argue about how much they should be able to earn from it in comparison to men, once we break this zero ceiling, though its almost certainly actually it costs them to race they dont break even on it.

If they aren’t earning a living from it it’s not a professional sport.

milemuncher1

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/0 ... cles-1895/

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

You do know he’s a troll, mrfb?

Im not trolling at all, it was a fair observation; that you found it uncomfortable says more about you than it does about me and this is a forum, different opinions and views on cycling it reflects life, not everyone is the same. Difference (or diversity as the pc lot call it) helps move things forward and change.

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sometimes it’s better when you keep your “opinions” to yourself.

You do know this is the internet, Rick?

You do know he’s a troll, mrfb?

Im not trolling at all, it was a fair observation; that you found it uncomfortable says more about you than it does about me and this is a forum, different opinions and views on cycling it reflects life, not everyone is the same. Difference (or diversity as the pc lot call it) helps move things forward and change.

Assigning labels Rick, doesn’t alter the validity of my original post.

john80

awavey wrote:

Lucan2 wrote:

It's the age-old dilemma - not enough of the general public are interested in womens' cycling, so ITV puts on 80s TV repeats as they are more popular. If they showed more, there may be more interest generated, but why would they?

It's a similar argument with the gender pay difference in cycling. Why is there far more money in mens' cycling? Because more people watch mens' cycling, so more TV companies will show it, therefore more sponsors want to be associated with it.

Paying women the same as men does nothing but bend reality. Womens' cycling as a commercial spectacle is not as valuable as mens', so there is no justification for rewarding women the same as men for racing.

but Id say if no one is watching the womens race, who are all these people you see roadside then ?

https://twitter.com/thewomenstour/status/1007721972703297537

ignore the schoolkids who get press ganged into it, there are plenty of people there for a race no-one is interested in, so why arent sponsors interested in selling products to them, the cost benefit ratio must be incredible given its bound to be low cost. Its the crazy thing about sponsors only seem to think men buy things and then ignore half the population.

and I dont think the womens peloton have ever demanded equal pay to the men, fairer pay certainly, it feels totally wrong for teams not to be paying their riders at all in lots of cases and just giving them expenses, how does anyone commit to cycling as a professional career in those circumstances, there can never be strength and depth in the womens peloton if they arent getting paid for it

Lizzie Deignan has said she isnt currently being paid by her team,shes taken a year out to have a baby, which means a year without any income from the team and if thats the situation with a top rider in a top team, what on earth is it like for the rest of them

Statutory maternity pay in the UK is 90% of average weekly earnings for 6 weeks then £145.18 or 90% of your weekly earnings whichever is lower for the next 33 weeks then nothing. Whilst some employers offer up to 6 months wages then down to statutory for up to the 33 weeks this is not the norm for most women and is mainly the public sector or higher earners that benefit from this. If Froome wanted to take a year off to spend time with his kid whilst his wife went back to work then he would not be getting paid by Sky either. There will not be many sports paid employment gigs that offer to pay maternity as lets face it you are hardly winning a medal whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying your for. Even the GB track team probably don't pay this and only offer a speedy return for proven performers.

davidof

wouldn't cyclists be self employed?

bobmcstuff

john80 wrote:

There will not be many sports paid employment gigs that offer to pay maternity as lets face it you are hardly winning a medal whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying your for. Even the GB track team probably don't pay this and only offer a speedy return for proven performers.

This seems like a spurious argument to me, as it applies to every job - if you swapped "winning a medal" with any other job purpose it would be equally applicable.

E.g., I am a consultant and you could rewrite that sentence "you are hardly charging consultancy fees whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying you for" (and I know this very well as it plays havoc with our profitability).

The whole point of maternity pay is that we are explicitly saying that you (the mother) will not be fulfilling your job role during that time yet we assign some social value to mums spending time with their newborns and therefore the government makes us pay you anyway.

Vino'sGhost

davidof wrote:

wouldn't cyclists be self employed?

I'd imagine so, but would still have workers rights i presume? I suppose it depends on the contract.

Vino'sGhost

bobmcstuff wrote:

john80 wrote:

There will not be many sports paid employment gigs that offer to pay maternity as lets face it you are hardly winning a medal whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying your for. Even the GB track team probably don't pay this and only offer a speedy return for proven performers.

This seems like a spurious argument to me, as it applies to every job - if you swapped "winning a medal" with any other job purpose it would be equally applicable.

E.g., I am a consultant and you could rewrite that sentence "you are hardly charging consultancy fees whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying you for" (and I know this very well as it plays havoc with our profitability).

The whole point of maternity pay is that we are explicitly saying that you (the mother) will not be fulfilling your job role during that time yet we assign some social value to mums spending time with their newborns and therefore the government makes us pay you anyway.

The pimlico plumbers case is decided, quite interesting reading.

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

davidof wrote:

wouldn't cyclists be self employed?

I'd imagine so, but would still have workers rights i presume? I suppose it depends on the contract.

I assume contracts in sports in general include a clause along the lines that you will keep yourself in a physical condition to be able to compete with exclusions covering general illness and injuries picked up during the course of training for or competing in the sport.

awavey

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

davidof wrote:

wouldn't cyclists be self employed?

I'd imagine so, but would still have workers rights i presume? I suppose it depends on the contract.

I assume contracts in sports in general include a clause along the lines that you will keep yourself in a physical condition to be able to compete with exclusions covering general illness and injuries picked up during the course of training for or competing in the sport.

didnt Wiggos famously stop him from trying out winter sports ?

I cant believe the top male riders in the top teams arent on a minimum contract retainer simply just to secure their services for a season to that team,regardless of whether they then ride any races, I mean the UCI rules state the men get a minimum of 25,000-40,000ish Euros depending on what level they are at, theres nothing I can see in that which says...and they must ride this many races to qualify for it or a minimum threshold, there might be smoke and mirrors into how its ultimately paid, but the principal is its a professional sport,if you are contracted to a professional team they pay you a wage. and then I assume when you get picked to ride for the team you get daily expenses top ups and get to share in the team prize money from the results.

but clearly even at the top levels of the womens pro tour, riders arent getting a guaranteed salaried income from their teams, which probably explains why Lizzie does have several personal sponsorship deals as well,think she also gets the lottery funding from BC as being part of the road program, but as I say if thats the situation at the top for the likes of her, whats it like half way down, or even at the bottom,and then people wonder why most riders,even the really talented ones quit in their mid twenties after theyve stopped trying to combine studying and riding as a pro rider, because they basically cant afford to live & ride like that and make a career of it, hence the talent depth is always going to be limited.