Log in:  

Register

Women Racers have to face the challenge ON THEIR OWN.

A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

30 Jan 2013 11:54

The Eggman wrote:Here's the thing - I don't thing the problem is actually a lack of exposure. The sporting public are in fact aware that women's elite level cycling exists, just as we know lawn bowls exists, badminton exists, curling exists, archery exists, etc etc etc. The problem is the sporting public don't find it compelling enough to sit down and watch it on the telly/get out to the course/track/oval/court to warrant TV networks and sponsors investing in the sport.

And I come back to my initial point - Sport doesn't owe anyone a living. I'm sure elite women's cyclists would like to make more money out of their sport, as I'm sure do the elite lawn bowls players or archers, but at the end of the day it is only sport. A very lucky few in a handful of sports make great money out of what they do - that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it.

How do you think Britain got its public interested in cycling? There was a big population of people aware cycling existed but who couldn't give a damn for a long time.

When there are British big names, they get coverage, people who only paid a passing interest watch to cheer on their guys (or girls for that matter, especially on the track), and become fans of the sport.

But a lot of that would not have happened had the British sports funding through the lottery and whatever else it was not put a lot of focus on cycling, to try to develop it. It wasn't an organic groundswell of quality riders just happening to convene on the same place and time. It was carefully orchestrated and manufactured. The British population learnt the (British) characters, which gave them people they wanted to cheer on, and kept coming back. But had Britain not put the money in (partially based on the number of Olympic medals available) to develop the sport, it would never have happened.

Women's cycling has a decent amount of interest in only a handful of places. The Netherlands and Italy (to a lesser extent also Australia, who have a lot of top talents). Which just happens to be where most of the stars come from. The stars coming from there means there's more interest there, and there being more interest there means there are more races there which helps more stars be developed there.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14,630
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

30 Jan 2013 12:22

*Sigh* GreenEdge put 5 of their 6 riders in the break, leave it to the last 5km to attack it (seemed fair enough given the wind conditions), but Kirsten Wild polices every move, they let it go to a bunch finish with 10 remaining of the break, of whom 5 are GreenEdge riders, and GreenEdge manage 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14,630
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

30 Jan 2013 13:01

Clausfarre wrote:Really? Women's football more exciting? Really?!?? No further comment needed.


Is there a match from the men's tournament that matched the semi-final between the USA and Canada in the women's? A local rivalry featuring the most historically successful team in women's football. The underdog Canada went ahead three times, only to see the USA equalise each time, pushing the match in extra time where the USA clinched a place in the final with a goal in the 123rd minute. That's an exciting game if it's pub teams in the park, who are a long way below the level of top women. Frankly I thought the women's games showed more passion - they looked like they cared more about the tournament. Onto the attendances - yes it was in a country which was going mad for the Olympics, but there were three games which achieved over 60,000 - there is clearly a market somewhere for this sport.

You do a lot of senseless namecalling but you are not the holder of all things true. Women's tennis may be MORE exciting because it's not about just serving with 500 km/h. Things do not have to be equal. This is Earth, not Utopia.


Women's vs men's tennis is an interesting one. The play in women's is often more interesting (due, like you say to the excessive power of the men's game) but I really like the 5-setters at times.

And what is wrong with liking podium girls? Seriously, I can tell you have no sense of humour but is there really anything wrong with that? Sorry for my honesty, but I do not find women's cycling interesting just like women's snooker is boring. Sexist, mysoginistic.... Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Now please apologise.


I would contest that my namecalling was senseless. I would say it was perfectly sensible - you derided women who worked hard in actually achieving something in sports and praised the girls who just stand there and look pretty on the podium - you were quite simply being very misogynist so no, I won't apologise. There's nothing wrong with saying you like podium girls. I like pretty girls too; ironically, given your insinuation that I had no sense of humour, they've always seemed quite keen on that. What I think is wrong is the insinuation that the podium is in some way the place of women in sport. Again, it is not you saying that you find women's sport boring that I find offensive - it is you saying that it could never be interesting that I think is offensive. No apology forthcoming until you stop being a pig.
User avatar Caruut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,204
Joined: 30 Oct 2011 18:26

31 Jan 2013 02:14

The Eggman wrote:The UCI promotes the men's cycling as that's where the interest and thus the money is. But don't put the cart before the horse and mistakenly think you could magically create interest by spending money on promotion. Interest happens organically.


I think that you may have made that up on the spot.

If women's events were run congruently with men's and with a little promotion, then maybe the 'organic' interest may occur. It's a nudge for gods sake, not a push. Once again though, that's speculation. That said, it seems to me a for cry more likely though than your argument.
nepetalactone
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 03:03
Location: West Coast, USA

31 Jan 2013 17:48

Netserk wrote:I think a solution would be that ANY protour race would have to have a race for both gender, and that when applying for proteam licens, teams that have a team of each gender gets a benefit.



Yes because more quota for women is exactly what our society needs.
Mich78BEL
Junior Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 10:06

31 Jan 2013 17:58

Mich78BEL wrote:Yes because more quota for women is exactly what our society needs.


I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start
User avatar Djave Bikinus
Junior Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 29 Jan 2013 19:31

31 Jan 2013 19:06

Djave Bikinus wrote:I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start


Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.
Aapjes
Junior Member
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 20 Apr 2009 22:27

31 Jan 2013 19:09

Djave Bikinus wrote:I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start


Where does it end?
phanatic
Junior Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 16 Apr 2011 18:39

31 Jan 2013 19:14

Lack of a priviledged position for either men or women.
User avatar Djave Bikinus
Junior Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 29 Jan 2013 19:31

31 Jan 2013 19:19

Djave Bikinus wrote:Lack of a priviledged position for either men or women.


Men and women have different capabilities. It would be silly to deny that. In sport, men usually have the edge due to the physical nature of that activity.
User avatar Arnout
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,102
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 14:01
Location: Netherlands

31 Jan 2013 20:07

Djave Bikinus wrote:I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start


Equal pay for equal work yes. In that case women tennis players for example should be paid less at the grand slams as they only have to win 2 sets in stead of 3. Women's cycling races are also shorter usually, so again they should be paid less. I can go on...

(Off topic but there's no patriarchal nature of our society, thats bull**** feminist made up)
Mich78BEL
Junior Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 10:06

31 Jan 2013 20:14

Aapjes wrote:Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.


Well spoken!
Mich78BEL
Junior Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 10:06

31 Jan 2013 20:34

Mich78BEL wrote:Equal pay for equal work yes. In that case women tennis players for example should be paid less at the grand slams as they only have to win 2 sets in stead of 3. Women's cycling races are also shorter usually, so again they should be paid less. I can go on...

(Off topic but there's no patriarchal nature of our society, thats bull**** feminist made up)


I don't know the reason behind only 3 sets in women's tennis, but a lot of the divides in event length are archaic. Mentioning the shorter races in cycling is not really fair because the UCI has instituted rules insisting on a ten day maximum, 110km average maximum and other things like that, so there isn't the opportunity to race the same as the men even if they wanted to. If a winner of a decathlon gets paid more than a winner of a heptathlon on the basis that they've had to do more events and have therefore earned it more, then that's not reasonable because there is no decathlon for women, so they don't get equal earning potential. There isn't equal opportunity to earn. So there needs to be another way to quantify it.

You praised Aapjes' post suggesting that men's sport should be economically different to women's sport based on the audience it draws. Which seems eminently sensible, since it keeps the bottom line in mind. It does make it hard for a sport without exposure to gain exposure unless it gets given a helping hand, either by an injection of funding for national interest (like British cycling) or from extensive dedication to development from the governing bodies (like the LPGA), but it's reasonable. But it would then stand at odds with your argument above that the amount of work done should be the driving factor behind salarying sports.

Women's tennis events are shorter in length, but they often draw a comparable audience to men's (note comparable, not necessarily equal or better), so should their earning potential reflect that instead of the shorter events? Do you then feel that, say, female biathletes should be paid less than the men as their races are shorter in distance, or equal because they're typically similar in time run? Or equal, potentially even higher in many places, on the economic basis because the women's races draw similar audience numbers?

Judging the payment of sportspeople by demand is sensible, but dooms the niche or smaller sports (and here much of women's sport is included) to outsider, underfunded status which leads to small fields, and external assistance is needed in order to create development (which is what the women have been asking for that starts this debate periodically). Judging it on the amount of distance run, or time spent, or work done, is only fair if there is the opportunity to do the same distance run, or time spent, or work done, as the men. If you judge it on the economic basis, then at least theoretically, women can earn as much as men if their events draw as much in attendance/audience figures and so on - it's just that only a select handful of sports have women's events developed enough that they are able to do this.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14,630
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

31 Jan 2013 20:55

Libertine Seguros wrote:I don't know the reason behind only 3 sets in women's tennis, but a lot of the divides in event length are archaic. Mentioning the shorter races in cycling is not really fair because the UCI has instituted rules insisting on a ten day maximum, 110km average maximum and other things like that, so there isn't the opportunity to race the same as the men even if they wanted to. If a winner of a decathlon gets paid more than a winner of a heptathlon on the basis that they've had to do more events and have therefore earned it more, then that's not reasonable because there is no decathlon for women, so they don't get equal earning potential. There isn't equal opportunity to earn. So there needs to be another way to quantify it.

You praised Aapjes' post suggesting that men's sport should be economically different to women's sport based on the audience it draws. Which seems eminently sensible, since it keeps the bottom line in mind. It does make it hard for a sport without exposure to gain exposure unless it gets given a helping hand, either by an injection of funding for national interest (like British cycling) or from extensive dedication to development from the governing bodies (like the LPGA), but it's reasonable. But it would then stand at odds with your argument above that the amount of work done should be the driving factor behind salarying sports.

Women's tennis events are shorter in length, but they often draw a comparable audience to men's (note comparable, not necessarily equal or better), so should their earning potential reflect that instead of the shorter events? Do you then feel that, say, female biathletes should be paid less than the men as their races are shorter in distance, or equal because they're typically similar in time run? Or equal, potentially even higher in many places, on the economic basis because the women's races draw similar audience numbers?

Judging the payment of sportspeople by demand is sensible, but dooms the niche or smaller sports (and here much of women's sport is included) to outsider, underfunded status which leads to small fields, and external assistance is needed in order to create development (which is what the women have been asking for that starts this debate periodically). Judging it on the amount of distance run, or time spent, or work done, is only fair if there is the opportunity to do the same distance run, or time spent, or work done, as the men. If you judge it on the economic basis, then at least theoretically, women can earn as much as men if their events draw as much in attendance/audience figures and so on - it's just that only a select handful of sports have women's events developed enough that they are able to do this.



If was mostly continuing with the logic of equal pay for equal work but ultimately it comes down to this: sport doesn't owe anything to anybody, if audiences watch it, the athletes will make money/there will be money to be made. If the audience isn't intrested then there won't be much money regardless of the level of the athletes. Governments already 'sponsor' plenty of sports/athletes (for example olympics athletes).
Mich78BEL
Junior Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 10:06

31 Jan 2013 21:03

Djave Bikinus wrote:Lack of a priviledged position for either men or women.


Thanks, what does that look like?
phanatic
Junior Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 16 Apr 2011 18:39

31 Jan 2013 21:14

Mich78BEL wrote:If was mostly continuing with the logic of equal pay for equal work but ultimately it comes down to this: sport doesn't owe anything to anybody, if audiences watch it, the athletes will make money/there will be money to be made. If the audience isn't intrested then there won't be much money regardless of the level of the athletes. Governments already 'sponsor' plenty of sports/athletes (for example olympics athletes).


But then what is "equal work"? Hence why the economic factor (the audience potential etc) is fairer, to my mind. Because it's not a female tennis player's fault she only plays 3 sets, she isn't able to play 5 because of the rules, so her earning potential is blocked from ever being able to match that of the men.

Women's cycling, as things stand, is clearly financially struggling to the point of being borderline uneconomical. The amount of part-time "pro" riders also studying (for example, Christiane Söder gave up the sport when an academic post came up and offered more money than she could earn on the road), and top names giving up the battle to make ends meet in the sport is testament to that. But it's only natural then to feel like your work is under-appreciated.

The UCI are under no obligation to help women's cycling in any sense other than that as the international body responsible for governing the sport, they help with the organisation of the races, so if they're not interested then they shouldn't be surprised if nobody else is. Perhaps, like with some other sports, the women need their own governing body, like the LPGA, a dedicated body that has the intent of growing and improving the exposure the sport has.

"Organic growth" in a sport is a really rare thing. There is almost always some factor behind it. Spain has traditionally been more interested in motorbikes than car racing, but the current boom in F1 viewership is all about Fernando Alonso. Cycling has traditionally been a small minority sport in Britain, but thanks to it being targeted as a sport with great potential for Olympic success in the wake of the poor performances in Atlanta and the huge financial injection as a result of that, it has grown. Most of the time a sport grows because of a reason for a particular audience to pick it up (usually the creation of a new team or a local interest star being successful), or because somebody takes the risk of putting a lot of money into it in order to try to generate the successes that pick up buyrates.

Women's cycling isn't going to grow if just left to its own devices. Hell, neither is men's cycling. But pretty much no sport does that. Football teams are going into administration all over Europe because the money is concentrated into the hands of a few.

Nobody is obliged to take the risk of putting a bunch of funding in to grow women's cycling. But neither are the people in the sport wrong for wanting somebody to do so, and trying to solicit that.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14,630
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

31 Jan 2013 22:08

Paying anyone to play a game, or to ride a bike, men or women is just kind-of dumb. Let them all get a job and pay their own way, like the rest of us do. There would still be sport, and there would still be those that rise to the top of it. We might not be able to see as much of it on TV, but isn't the point to participate, not watch?
winkybiker
Junior Member
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 14:59
Location: Vancouver, BC.

31 Jan 2013 22:56

Injecting money in to a sport doesn't always work. Just look at some South-American economies where they tried to develop some industries by injecting a lot of money. Now those sectors are totally dependent of that money and are just not profitable without it.(there are some success stories as well though, but most end in failure). Take the money away and the sector will collapse with a lot of people losing their jobs.

Honestly, injecting money in female cycling seems like a very poor investment choice.
Ryo Hazuki wrote:horrible. boonen just the same guy as years before and this course is too hard for him. that's why he rode like a coward there were at least 3 guys stronger than boonen today and none of them won: sagan, ballan, pozzato


The Hitch wrote:Goss will woop boonens candy a[color="Black"]ss[/color] in a sprint he cares about, any day of the week
User avatar El Pistolero
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14,298
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 21:53

01 Feb 2013 00:48

Aapjes wrote:Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.


RE First bold: Exposure is what creates interest is what generates revenue. We can all agree about that. Since women's sports aren't offered as much exposure (read: marketing support), they don't generate interest (read: viewership), so there's not as much revenue. It's a self-sustaining cycle.

Second bold: See above. Plus, you're pretending that the rules and structures that govern our culture are natural, not historical constructions, and that the forces that built and perpetuate them are invisible. Why are you so invested in protecting a system of artificially constructed discrimination?

Third bold: I think you have no idea what you're talking about w/r/t feminism. Feminism as it stands is actually just a form of Marxist deconstruction that seeks to illuminate the cultural structures as they stand today, fostering awareness and--hopefully--a move toward a more equitable society.

To anyone who actually knows what words like "feminism" mean and have meant during their different iterations (waves one, two, and three), as well as what theoretical ideas they are based on and that they interact with and evolve with, you just make yourself sound like an idiot when you write things like that.

PS: Please try not to lose your mind over the word "Marxist." Chances are good you also have no idea what IT means.
User avatar mr. tibbs
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,869
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 19:48
Location: Austin, TX

01 Feb 2013 00:51

El Pistolero wrote:Injecting money in to a sport doesn't always work. Just look at some South-American economies where they tried to develop some industries by injecting a lot of money. Now those sectors are totally dependent of that money and are just not profitable without it.(there are some success stories as well though, but most end in failure). Take the money away and the sector will collapse with a lot of people losing their jobs.

Honestly, injecting money in female cycling seems like a very poor investment choice.


I think you've changed too many variables for this to be an accurate comparison. Industry is not sport. NASCAR is a good example of this. As far as I know, they're plan was to invest a whole bunch of start-up capital marketing the hell out of it. This spread the word about it, building "hype," which in turn generated sponsor interest b/c it suggested people are looking. Ditto network television.

EDIT: Have written that, I do think Eggman makes some good points--though I don't agree with everything he's written.
User avatar mr. tibbs
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,869
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 19:48
Location: Austin, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Professional road racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandre B., argyllflyer, Broth3r, Dazed and Confused, DFA123, dusty red roads, Echoes, el_angliru, Fearless Greg Lemond, Gigs_98, Google [Bot], HelloDolly, Hugo Koblet, irondan, Je ne sais quoi, Kwibus, Libertine Seguros, LPP68!, Mr.White, nuvolablu, Progsprach, rei_da_montanha, Ricco', Sleimas, Verious, zlev11 and 100 guests

Back to top