"Not less than the men"

[Libertine Seguros]

No "can be" about it, it already is. You had to pick one of the races that also has a women's version! (You could also have picked Omloop or Flèche Wallonne btw)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let's play a word substitution game.

Option #1:

Option #2:

Would you find either of those statements acceptable?

Being honest - I am not sure what you mean.
I appreciate you tried to dumb it down and make it as simple as possible..... but could you try and dumb it down a little bit more?

But in short, if you do the same role - you should get the same pay.**
(we shall call this Dr. Ms 1st law of gender equality in cycling)

Or would you say, along with me, that companies must pay everyone according to the role performed, rather than according to sex or ethnicity? And if they can't do that, they should go out of business? Does that sound reasonable to you?

It does.

But womens cycling in comparrison to mens does not fulfill my 1st law.
It is nothing to do with ability, excitement, entertainment, blah blah blah.
It is to do with value for the sponsors.

Company X will invest in cycling team Y because they get exposure valued at E for an investment of E/3 (E/3 is E divided by 3, I cant find the thingy to whatever...)

E is the problem.
The pot in mens cycling verses womens cycling is much larger.
No sponsor will pay a ladies team what they pay a mens team as they will not generate enough exposure to make it viable.

The best way to support women in cycling is to grant them and their sport the dignity of a living wage. And the best way to support the sport of cycling is to promote it, along with promoting the athletes who do it, men and women equally. If teams can't afford to pay their athletes, they should be made to fold.

Agree on the dignity part.

Regardless of sex, I have always felt that Professional Cyclists are undervalued and underpaid.
Certainly some have done quite well and they have earned it, but most of their wealth comes from outside the sport.
Which means there is a disparity between those that are successful (& marketable) as opposed to their ability.

I can certainly understand that. But this is how sports popularity is manufactured - by selling it as an arena where transcendent endeavors are engaged in by transcendent beings. If they applied this to women's cycling, the same thing would happen - it would become more popular. But first they have to start paying them.

That really is the bottom line.

To the highlighted, I again agree.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A few years ago, the Netherlands women football team reached the semi-finals of the European Championships. All of the Netherlands was very excited and we were all cheering (even though it was horrible to watch, tactic was 9 defenders and one striker for some reason). Semi-finals were broadcasted life on national TV, Nederland 1, equivalent to BBC1, actually just behind cycling - Vuelta mountain stage. Vuelta stage scored 700,000 viewers, the semi-finals: A dazzling 2.5 million or there about on Nederland 1 and a significant amount on Eurosport as well (who broadcasted the whole event).

So you would think, this is the ultimate chance to equalize. And so we tried. Several profesionall football teams started a women division, including the champion of the time. Summaries of women football were broadcasted every time on national television (not Nederland 1, but another free 2 view all acess channel).

Viewing figures? 30,000.

Appalling. It didn't improve with promotion and eventually the plug was pulled. At the same time, football teams started to close down their women division again, it costed money, no-one was watching either live or on telly and there were simply no benefits.

So even though there was a lot of attention, a massive kick-start, the lack of fundaments meant it was not to be. I've always argued that you cannot start a new cycling team a la Leopard or GreenEDGE or whatever and start in the ProTour immediately, as you have to prove there is a fundament, otherwise the efforts are often in vain. Which showed this year again, and same for Cervelo last year.

The only way to fundamentally improve a sport is organic growth, otherwise you will just kill off the sport by first being too ambitious and then pulling the plug.

Haha great post - and I agree with a lot of your points, but to the highlighted, thats where it all went wrong.

Why were people suddenly interested in the Dutch ladies team?
I have often read people saying cycling (as with all sports) is just entertainment - but to me everything is entertainment.

That team had many positive things, exposure, excitement, equality yada yada. That was all there because they were at the pointy end of a competition because of patriotism, which had nothing to do wit their football ability.

Which is why it failed to get accepted or followed - it was built on patriotism.
It lacked the fundamental - the football they played was not entertaining because it was crap.

 

[Maxiton]

Being honest - I am not sure what you mean.
I appreciate you tried to dumb it down and make it as simple as possible..... but could you try and dumb it down a little bit more?

No worries. Actually I wasn't trying to dumb down anything. I just wasn't being very clear.

The point I was trying to make is that if you took your statement and applied it to similar situations elsewhere in society, it would sound pretty retrograde and not at all reasonable, and would likely not be something you yourself would accept.

But in short, if you do the same role - you should get the same pay.**
(we shall call this Dr. Ms 1st law of gender equality in cycling)


It does.

But womens cycling in comparrison to mens does not fulfill my 1st law.
It is nothing to do with ability, excitement, entertainment, blah blah blah.
It is to do with value for the sponsors.

Company X will invest in cycling team Y because they get exposure valued at E for an investment of E/3 (E/3 is E divided by 3, I cant find the thingy to whatever...)

E is the problem.
The pot in mens cycling verses womens cycling is much larger.
No sponsor will pay a ladies team what they pay a mens team as they will not generate enough exposure to make it viable.



Agree on the dignity part.

Regardless of sex, I have always felt that Professional Cyclists are undervalued and underpaid.
Certainly some have done quite well and they have earned it, but most of their wealth comes from outside the sport.
Which means there is a disparity between those that are successful (& marketable) as opposed to their ability.




To the highlighted, I again agree.

My point though is that cyclists have to be paid - and it sounds like we agree on that. The fact that many female cyclists aren't paid is part and parcel of the corruption and backwardness of pro cycling in general and the UCI in particular. If we get the sport out of the grip of Fat Pat and his ilk, lots of good things will happen - one of which might be that women's cycling finds again its place on the map.

 

[Freddythefrog]

The wrong model !

The only way to fundamentally improve a sport is organic growth, otherwise you will just kill off the sport by first being too ambitious and then pulling the plug.

Arnout - ok let me try a different route to see if I can get you to understand.

Let's assume the model to success is as per your idea - no legislative intervention by the UCI, organic growth.

Now if we say that we are 24 years from a high water mark of Longo standing on the podium of the Tour with Roche and we accept that in the last 3-8 years, the women's calender of events has seen a major hemorrhaging of events,Boucle, Aude, Midi-pyrenees, Geelong Canada, going back further the HP tour in the USA, San Francisco, World Cups lost in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada, Holland, matched events at the Milan San Remo & Amstel, (I could go on). Then the view on the current "Low point" status would be that a lot of good folk have tried, for a very long time - and basically given up. You cannot beat the system.

OK well, tough medicine, but the solution is organic growth only, (the concept of a rigged market preventing change from the status-quo is dismissed). Now if in 1/4 century and say 3 x generations of competitive cyclists, we are back at where we started, from your eerie - how many times do you suggest we go through this cycle before you will contemplate that perhaps your model of what needs to be done might be wrong?

25 years obviously isn't enough.

So shall we say we will review it after 2 more complete cycles, say after 75 years. If it isn't working then, perhaps we will consider protecting female riders with a minimum wage like their male counterparts like the boy and girl who serve the coffee at the cafe or the guy who cleans up the litter on the beach? Until then we will use your model. Is that what you are proposing?

Or could, just possibly could, you contemplate that perhaps this is one aspect of the sport about which you don't understand the defining constraints and perhaps the views you hold are thus unsighted. This in turn makes the solutions you offer, invalid. That is a big ask of you I know, and, sadly, my view is, that for the majority on this board, it is a step too far. Even if you don't accept it now, take this post and think about it. Maybe in 25 years you will look back and see things differently.

Lord Rutherford - the guy who split the atom - the father of atomic theory - speaking in 1933 - "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." 12 years later, 2 atomic bombs released more energy in a moment than mankind had ever witnessed. Arnout - even the greats get it very, very, wrong sometimes.

 

[canyonball]

Late to the discussion, but...

The establishment of a minimum wage is a beautiful and fair thing to do. Not that it worked for Portugal. The limit is 1000 euros. What happens is riders either don't get the acorded value and keep their mouth shut, 'cause their just happy they have a job. OR they sign another contract donating part of their salary back to the team.

Mario Costa, a second place finish at the national championships, left the sport. Joni Brandão, winner of Volta a Portugal ao Futuro, said he would leave cycling as for next year. Nelson Vitorino, a hell of a performance on Volta a Portugal, is thinking of retirement as well. Three guy's, one same reason: They can't make enough money to survive. And how did a minimum wage helped their situation?

I would say there are more useful things to do for women cycling and more ideas worth discussing (for now), as some other posters pointed out.

 

[Benotti69]

<SNIP>

Sponsors invest in teams if it gives them viable exposure.

I never felt that in Italy, it always strikes me that the owner of said sponsor is a big cycling fan.

e.g. Acqua Sapone team is sponsored by a family who run shops that sell bathroom, beauty and kitchen cleaning products, successful business but you dont see anything to do with the cycling team in their shops to point people towards the sport and the success of Garzelli in this years Giro or previous years, no posters nothing.

Farnese Vini is another company i only am aware of due to being an avid fan of the sport.

I think the sport has only attracted sponsors from fans of the sport and they tend to stay in the sport while they can afford it.

Murdoch is cycling fan too.

 

[Havetts]

Whatabout Lampre? I would have no idea they were a company that produces steel if I hadnt looked it up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never felt that in Italy, it always strikes me that the owner of said sponsor is a big cycling fan.

e.g. Acqua Sapone team is sponsored by a family who run shops that sell bathroom, beauty and kitchen cleaning products, successful business but you dont see anything to do with the cycling team in their shops to point people towards the sport and the success of Garzelli in this years Giro or previous years, no posters nothing.

Farnese Vini is another company i only am aware of due to being an avid fan of the sport.

I think the sport has only attracted sponsors from fans of the sport and they tend to stay in the sport while they can afford it.

Murdoch is cycling fan too.

Yes, but thats the point.
Sponsors will invest in the sport if it is viable - what you highlight is the 'fan' element of sponsoring, that is usually not viable.

It is a massive part of the problem in cycling presently - the sugardaddys (BMC, Katusha, Leopard, Astana) are pouring in money above what is viable and sustainable - which is squeezing the traditional team structure out.
Hence we have the 'mergers' or white elephants like Pegasus.

 

[BillytheKid]

Yes, but thats the point.
Sponsors will invest in the sport if it is viable - what you highlight is the 'fan' element of sponsoring, that is usually not viable.

It is a massive part of the problem in cycling presently - the sugardaddys (BMC, Katusha, Leopard, Astana) are pouring in money above what is viable and sustainable - which is squeezing the traditional team structure out.
Hence we have the 'mergers' or white elephants like Pegasus.

Hey Doc, you forgot to mention Sky in your sugar-daddy lineup. I question the idea the "massive..problem...presently" is really anything new...start with La Vie Claire and move forward through the list of teams that poured fourth money into the sport. Those darn evil sugar daddys.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hey Doc, you forgot to mention Sky in your sugar-daddy lineup. I question the idea the "massive..problem...presently" is really anything new...start with La Vie Claire and move forward through the list of teams that poured fourth money into the sport. Those darn evil sugar daddys.

I wouldn't put Sky (or La Vie Claire) in with it as both at least have an established brand, so there is value or worth in putting in large sums.

Nor did I mention it was a new problem - but it is getting worse and is being implicitly encouraged when you can buy your way in to the World Tour.

 

[BillytheKid]

I wouldn't put Sky (or La Vie Claire) in with it as both at least have an established brand, so there is value or worth in putting in large sums.

Nor did I mention it was a new problem - but it is getting worse and is being implicitly encouraged when you can buy your way in to the World Tour.

OK. That's fair enough. I guess the question is what's the driving force behind it? Astana and Katusha I would chalk up to the idea that's just the way they do business out east.

In general, cycling has to compete with other "mainstream" sports. There's only so much money to go around. Given the state of the world economy, I am not surprised at the lack of standards in sponsorship. The show must go on!

In light of this thread, women's cycling would benefit greatly from an infusion of money over a period of time. (couldn't we all) I find women's sport very competitive and just as entertaining. It's an uphill battle for sponsorship because there is the traditional bias and only so much money to go around. One feeds the other. Sponsors mostly put their money on the best bet to reach a wide audience.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK. That's fair enough. I guess the question is what's the driving force behind it? Astana and Katusha I would chalk up to the idea that's just the way they do business out east.

In general, cycling has to compete with other "mainstream" sports. There's only so much money to go around. Given the state of the world economy, I am not surprised at the lack of standards in sponsorship. The show must go on!

In light of this thread, women's cycling would benefit greatly from an infusion of money over a period of time. (couldn't we all) I find women's sport very competitive and just as entertaining. It's an uphill battle for sponsorship because there is the traditional bias and only so much money to go around. One feeds the other. Sponsors mostly put their money on the best bet to reach a wide audience.

Your last paragraph again goes back to the original point, which is tied in to womens cycling. The sport needs to be able to sustain itself through sponsorship not sugardaddys.

The current difficulty is a team like Greenedge (that doesn't even exist) can buy enough riders to secure points for entry to the World Tour.
ie money gets you up the ladder - not performance, ethics or history.

I have stated before, that if a team is looking for a long-term WorldTour licence the length should be on what it brings, besides money (which gets consumed on wages for a few riders)
If you want a 6 year licence, then you must also run a womens or U23 team - if you want a longer licence then you can get it by having both.

The licence holder can even have different sponsors for there mens & womens teams.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, but thats the point.
Sponsors will invest in the sport if it is viable - what you highlight is the 'fan' element of sponsoring, that is usually not viable.

It is a massive part of the problem in cycling presently - the sugardaddys (BMC, Katusha, Leopard, Astana) are pouring in money above what is viable and sustainable - which is squeezing the traditional team structure out.
Hence we have the 'mergers' or white elephants like Pegasus.

The major problem with the sport being viable is the idiots running it and the nepotism afforded the sugar daddy's.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The major problem with the sport being viable is the idiots running it and the nepotism afforded the sugar daddy's.

Correct - they are wooed by the guys coming in with the money.
It is not a long term strategy to sustain it and build the sport.

 

[BillytheKid]

Your last paragraph again goes back to the original point, which is tied in to womens cycling. The sport needs to be able to sustain itself through sponsorship not sugardaddys.

The current difficulty is a team like Greenedge (that doesn't even exist) can buy enough riders to secure points for entry to the World Tour.
ie money gets you up the ladder - not performance, ethics or history.

I have stated before, that if a team is looking for a long-term WorldTour licence the length should be on what it brings, besides money (which gets consumed on wages for a few riders)
If you want a 6 year licence, then you must also run a womens or U23 team - if you want a longer licence then you can get it by having both.

The licence holder can even have different sponsors for there mens & womens teams.

No doubt, the cart is before horse more and more. My thought was perhaps it is getting harder to find sponsorship so you see team floated out in order to attract the money. Fund raising is tough going even in the best of times. It is becoming more and more a ploy. Bourne out of necessity?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No doubt, the cart is before horse more and more. My thought was perhaps it is getting harder to find sponsorship so you see team floated out in order to attract the money. Fund raising is tough going even in the best of times. It is becoming more and more a ploy. Bourne out of necessity?

True enough, but the question is - why is that?

Teams budgets have increased significantly over the last few years - yet the sport has not become that much more expensive to run.
The extra money is spent on a limited number of riders to ensure the points that guarantee their place in the WorldTour.

Yet for the sponsors the 'value' to them is pretty much the same as it was - so very few are in a position to stump up the big money - quite simply, the sport is living beyond its means.

 

[BillytheKid]

True enough, but the question is - why is that?

Teams budgets have increased significantly over the last few years - yet the sport has not become that much more expensive to run.
The extra money is spent on a limited number of riders to ensure the points that guarantee their place in the WorldTour.

Yet for the sponsors the 'value' to them is pretty much the same as it was - so very few are in a position to stump up the big money - quite simply, the sport is living beyond its means.

Like I said, The show must go on!

It is hyped or beyond its means, but you can only go into the red zone for so long. Then things correct themselves. I don't necessarily see as an established long-term trend yet. There are always shortcomings.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Like I said, The show must go on!

It is hyped or beyond its means, but you can only go into the red zone for so long. Then things correct themselves. I don't necessarily see as an established long-term trend yet. There are always shortcomings.

The 'show' will always go on - cycling is cycling, its not like it will stop.

However as the sport lives beyond what is sustainable then you have teams folding or merging and where contracts are worthless.

 

[BillytheKid]

The 'show' will always go on - cycling is cycling, its not like it will stop.

However as the sport lives beyond what is sustainable then you have teams folding or merging and where contracts are worthless.

Back to my first thought: the world economy is in the tank. Layoffs and businesses folding, or being folded into another by way of the merger. It's an ugly situation for many right now no doubt. I would argue that you are seeing a reflection of that in cycling. I was using "The show must go on" not to argue the right or wrong of it, but rather: "It is just so."

Why did I put the last sentence in quotes?

Answer: famous novel, 1930s, John Steinbeck, Chapter 5, Last sentence. The Grapes of Wrath.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Back to my first thought: the world economy is in the tank. Layoffs and businesses folding, or being folded into another by way of the merger. It's an ugly situation for many right now no doubt. I would argue that you are seeing a reflection of that in cycling. I was using "The show must go on" not argue the right or wrong of it, but rather: "It is just so."

Why did I put the last sentence in quotes?

Answer: famous novel, 1930s, John Steinbeck, Chapter 5, Last sentence. The Grapes of Wrath.

It has very little to do with the World economy.
If it was then there would be no new teams or sugardaddys.

Teams are not downsizing - it is the opposite, there is money in the sport - the problem is it is being spent on inflated wages to buy in to the WorldTour.

 

[BillytheKid]

It has very little to do with the World economy.
If it was then there would be no new teams or sugardaddys.

Teams are not downsizing - it is the opposite, there is money in the sport - the problem is it is being spent on inflated wages to buy in to the WorldTour.

Then the WorldTour scheme needs to change?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then the WorldTour scheme needs to change?

Which is what I have been saying - but probably best summarized by Benotti69s post earlier......

The major problem with the sport being viable is the idiots running it and the nepotism afforded the sugar daddy's.

 

[BillytheKid]

Then the WorldTour scheme needs to change?

I would still maintain economics plays the main culprit here. It may not be as dire as the aforementioned fiction, but in the interest of riders with contracts that are not honored, I will concede the UCI is letting things slide too far.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would still maintain economics plays the main culprit here. It may not be as dire as the aforementioned fiction, but in the interest of riders with contracts that are not honored, I will concede the UCI is letting things slide too far.

Well, economics is a broad term - but if you mean the global economic downturn, then why?