[Closed] That poll over there

I'm gonna put the kettle on.

I’ll bring the biscuits.

Oh dear.

Choccy digestives please.

If men are happy with their prize money, it won't bother them if women get the same money, so no loss

Spectators will still get to see the sports they want to see, so no loss

Expanding rights doesn't dilute them, so no loss

Equal rewards might encourage more women to compete, so no loss

What does it say about gender equality if we are prepared to have a difference in reward? We have lots to gain, and literally nothing to lose in offering equal reward.

I say all prize monies should be removed. Back to a golden age of amateurism. Let them pay for their own doping.

🙂

Well, that's an interesting way to cut it I suppose.

I only follow DH and the races are the same length.

But, the poll lacked options for me, so I had to tick "whatever the organisers choose" which seemed a bit of a dick / dismissive answer but still.

For me, Professional Sport is a business, it's a form of entertainment - Prize Money should be based on 1) how much money the sport makes for the organisers through TV rights and advertising 2) how much they think they need to offer to ensure they attract the best talent to create the best spectacle for maintain and grow that. 'Free Markets' can be cruel, but they're also fair.

However it's divvied up based on those principles is the right way.

It’s like in Tennis, at the Grand-slams the men’s finals are best of 5 and the women’s are best of 3 sets, so why given that they are not doing equal amount of “work” in the final, should the prize money be equal?

Should Roger Federer get less money because he can beat an opponent in 3 sets and it takes Rafa Nadal 5 sets?

I only follow DH and the races are the same length.

In which case the prize money should be the same.

What does it say about gender equality if we are prepared to have a difference in reward? We have lots to gain, and literally nothing to lose in offering equal reward.

Gender equality yes, but receiving the same financial reward for doing less "work" is not equal to both genders is it?

Should Roger Federer get less money because he can beat an opponent in 3 sets and it takes Rafa Nadal 5 sets?

No, because it's still best of 5.

Race prize money has nothing to do with ' work done' in laps or whatever.  It is a reward for being the best on that day in that race. The women and men at the top have no doubt put in a similar amount of training and raced to a standard representing the same top x% of the racer population on that day. This should be rewarded equally imo.

Surely the ladies are less likely to be on 29ers.

That means their smaller wheels have to rotate more. More rotations means going further.

So for any given length the ladies are cycling further.

It's all down to science if you think about it.

but receiving the same financial reward for doing less “work” is not equal to both genders is it?

They're not being rewarded for the amount of work they're putting in, they're getting rewarded for winning.

The fact that Tennis rules says best of 3 for women, isn't because the women tennis players have said "That's all we're prepared to do." it's because that's what the rules say.

I only follow DH and the races are the same length.

In which case the prize money should be the length.

FIFY

so why given that they are not doing equal amount of “work” in the final, should the prize money be equal?

Because they aren't labourers, they don't get paid per hour or per set FFS.  How ridiculous.  The women put the same amount of effort in over the year, they train just as hard, and in tennis they're an equal part of the same event that is generating the money.

In the case of MTB, where there's no money anyway, it makes no odds.

AND on top of all that - equality is important.  Do you want to promote the idea of women as second class citizens?  Cos if you do, unequal prize money is a great way to do it.

EDIT: Molly if we paid men the same as women for less work how would that be helping equality?

tennis is an interesting one to start the equal pay seeing as they play different lengths of game. Given that there is an obvious explanation to any gender pay gap. I Am not sure what an equitable solution is but i think i would be annoyed to have to play more to earn the same.

What you really want to look at is the massive difference in sponsorship the male tennis players receive v the women.

The mission is for equality and this is hard to achieve when they play  one as best of 3 and one as best of 5.

if we paid men the same as women for less work how would that be helping equality?

Prize money isn't about work completed, it's about winning the event. It's not up to the Tennis players to set the game length, that's up to the organisers, and as has been pointed out, there are plenty of sports were men and women play the same game as the men (length of time, area of play, course length and so on) so in that respect tennis isn't a great example

Strange to set the deciding criteria as length of course, usually people cite the smaller size of the field as the primary reason for unequal prize funds. While both reasons appear to have their merits at first glance, I think both are too reductive.

It's not like the competitors decide how many laps they want to do (in XC) or that they only want to do 100km instead of 200km (road), it's what they're offered by the race organisers.

On the other hand, the argument that lower prize funds put women off entering is misguided. They should be equal IMO but don't expect an influx in entries once they are.

The women and men at the top have no doubt put in a similar amount of training and raced to a standard representing the same top x% of the racer population on that day. This should be rewarded equally imo.

In cx races where the men and women start together this would appear not to be true. The 3rd place woman may not even be in the top 100 men - if she can't beat me, a middle aged, overweight lump who doesn't train at all should she be entitled to the same prize as the 3rd man? Basically just for turning up.

Prize money should be proportionate to the revenue generated for the event simples. So if men get 10% of the revenue as prize money, then women get 10% of the revenue that their event generates.

if she can’t beat me, a middle aged, overweight lump who doesn’t train at all should she be entitled to the same prize as the 3rd man?

Yes. HTH.

Prize money should be proportionate to the revenue generated

Why? says who?

So the year gwinn win everything by 10 plus seconds at time he should get less because he didn't have to try? Should straw men get the same pay as straw women?

Yes. HTH.

Why? Does the last but one male rider get a prize as well?

Prize money isn’t about work completed, it’s about winning the event.

Helpful way of looking at it, cheers, [ not sarcasm]

I also think the debate is part of the lets pretend men are the oppressed one because we can find the odd weak example of discrimination against us.

We no as he lost his category. Do you compare formula 3 lap times with F1? If all of the good guys are at another race and you win something do you hand it back citing the opposition were not good enough for you?

Why? says who?

Says me. Its business plain and simple otherwise there wouldn't be advertising revenue, broadcast rights, prize money at all.

So, if its all just about business then pay the winners like you would salesmen, based on the revenue they generate.

I don;t understand why women's events are shorter than men's in a number of sports.

No one suggests that the women only do the 1250m race or the 80m sprint? Why do cycling and tennis insist that women aren't hardy enough to compete for further/longer?

I know Helen Wyman has been campaigning for women's cross races to be the same time as men's.

In some cases I think it's just because organisers would struggle to fit in an extended women's competition to their schedules.

IMO prizes should be linked to the size of the field. If the winner of the blokes has beaten 500 blokes, that is a greater acheivement than a woman beating 12 women.

Where the fields are the same size, prizes should be equal

I kind of agree with Trailwagger.

Like women's boxing/rugby/football- never going get the same audience (live/TV) as the male versions, so they don't earn the same.

But, obviously, from the poll results, I'm wrong and I can live with that.

Where the fields are the same size, prizes should be equal

If the mens event generates £1m revenue

The womens event generates £100k revenue

The winning man gets £100k prize

Why should the event organizer make a loss on the womens event just because it had the same field size??

Its business plain and simple

Cool, then as part of your business plan you'd want to make sure that your prize money attracted the best players, right? and that the advertising pull of making a stand about equal pay would generate lots of press and interest in your event, and bump up the revenue, you'd sell more tickets, and could charge more for advertising, and pass on that extra income in prize money. so still no loss for you, and potentially lots to gain.

That approach doesn't seem to have harmed the Grand Slams (US Australia, and Wimbledon) in any way, and they've done this since at least 2007.

There are lots of factors that could effect the prize equality.

In tennis, it kind of swings between men and women which is the most compelling competition, since the emergence of Federer, the mens game has been on top, but before that and probably stretching back to Mcenroe's retirement the womens game was the main draw. Also in tennis it seems that the fan base is largely female.

In football the mens professional  and national game is such a massive money machine, there is no way that the womens game can be equally paid. However I do think the national associations could and should take money from the mens game to subsidise the womens national team (if required).

In  mountain biking it is mainly a hobbyists sport, very few fans who don't get out on a mountain bike themselves. Most race organisers do so for the love of the sport, and sponsors are usually directly selling to mountain bikers. Currently the sport/hobby is numerically dominated by male participants so if you are selling to the current base, you would proritise men, but on the other hand women are an obvious expansion market, so if you want to increase participation/sales then maybe that is where your focus should be.

Personally if I were to organise a race, I would want to have equal prize money, but I can see that reality may overtake good intentions.

Like women’s boxing/rugby/football- never going get the same audience (live/TV) as the male versions, so they don’t earn the same

Why is it never going to get the same audience? Because the male version is 'better'?

prize money should be equal.

Cool, then as part of your business plan you’d want to make sure that your prize money attracted the best players, right? and that the advertising pull of making a stand about equal pay would generate lots of press and interest in your event, and bump up the revenue, you’d sell more tickets, and could charge more for advertising, and pass on that extra income in prize money. so still no loss for you, and potentially lots to gain.

So we are in agreement then. cool.

Why is it never going to get the same audience? Because the male version is ‘better’?

I think he meant it will never currently get the same audience.

Why is it never going to get the same audience? 

OK, maybe it will and I'm wrong about that too. Cool. When it does, pay em the same. Or more!

One of the womens' (very valid) arguments on the Tennis tour was that their flights, hotels, support teams etc all cost the same as mens did, as did all their kit etc, regardless of 3 or 5 sets.

Tailwagger, the organisers of events don't actually split the revenue along gender lines. In your example rather than your breakdown, the organisers of the Grand Slams would say "The Event" has generated £1.1m in revenue, the prize pot is 10% and thus, gets divided equally.

so no, not quite in agreement. 🙂

And yes, the male version (boxing, in particular) is better. (Ooh sexist!) Not really surprising seeing as how much more established the professional male versions of the sports are.

So the combined men and women bring in 1.1mill, pay both winners 110k, assuming equal field sizes.

Tailwagger, the organisers of events don’t actually split the revenue along gender lines. In your example rather than your breakdown, the organisers of the Grand Slams would say “The Event” has generated £1.1m in revenue, the prize pot is 10% and thus, gets divided equally.
so no, not quite in agreement. 🙂

But that's unfair to the men, who generated significantly more revenue.

One of the womens’ (very valid) arguments on the Tennis tour was that their flights, hotels, support teams etc all cost the same as mens did, as did all their kit etc, regardless of 3 or 5 sets.

That's got to be the weakest argument ever. Petrol costs me the same amount as it does our CEO, doesn't mean I deserve the same wage as him/her.

But that’s unfair to the men, who generated significantly more revenue.

it isn’t, they now get 11% of the revenue they generated, rather than the 10 they’d have got without the girls.

or do you object to the women getting more added than the guys?

assuming equal field sizes.

why the caveat?

But that’s unfair to the men, who generated significantly more revenue.

if your event sold all it's advertising, sold all its tickets, met your income revenue targets, what does it matter?

why the caveat?

As as I said before. It’s a bigger achievement for a bloke to beat 500 competitors, than for a girl to beat 100 competitors. so prizes should be linked to the size of the field. Trailwagger than said what if the blokes brought more revenue etc etc