"Not less than the men"

[BillytheKid]

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

Good question.

I have no hard facts at hand. Just this thought. The first failure comes from the sponsor's obligation. They're aloud to save face because you cannot burn the money coming into the sport by burning the money having to leave. Saving face….

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good question.

I have no hard facts at hand. Just this thought. The first failure comes from the sponsor's obligation. They're aloud to save face because you cannot burn the money coming into the sport by burning the money having to leave. Saving face….

I have no idea what any of that means.

 

[BillytheKid]

I have no idea what any of that means.

Then you must work in a government job and never have owned a business.
Nothing wrong with that, but basically you should always allow someone to save face in business. And cycling, as all sport, is a business. I not going to get into specific team sponsor and their situations this year because I simply don't know for sure.

 

[BillytheKid]

Then you must work in a government job and never have owned a business.
Nothing wrong with that, but basically you should always allow someone to save face in business. And cycling, as all sport, is a business. I not going to get into specific team sponsor and their situations this year because I simply don't know for sure.

Probably better to say you should try to allow someone to save face.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then you must work in a government job and never have owned a business.
Nothing wrong with that, but basically you should always allow someone to save face in business. And cycling as all sport is a business. I not going to get into specific team sponsor and there situations this year because I simply don't know for sure.

That still does not make any sense or address the issue.
I have owned several business - not that that has anything to do with the price of milk.
I feel this 'saving face' line has more to do with your thoughts on a certain team rather than anything to do with business or economics.

 

[BillytheKid]

That still does not make any sense or address the issue.
I have owned several business - not that that has anything to do with the price of milk.
I feel this 'saving face' line has more to do with your thoughts on a certain team rather than anything to do with business or economics.

So you saying "Money never talks." Yes, the are standards and ideals, but money does talk. I think our world views differ and that's about all I can say.
Economics has to play some role because sport is a business. How could it not, in some way, be a factor in any given year with any given sponsor?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you saying "Money never talks." Yes, the are standards and ideals, but money does talk. I think our world views differ and that's about all I can say.
Economics has to play some role because sport is a business. How could it not, in some way, be a factor in any given year with any given sponsor?

Actually, no - it isn't all you can say. You could articulate your point and help educate me on these fundamentals.

'Economics' is a broad term - so of course it will have a role.
As for sponsors, they sit down and work out the cost/benefit and are then locked in to a contract - so you are pretty much back to my original point that the sport is living beyond its viable means and has little to do with World economics.

 

[BillytheKid]

Actually, no - it isn't all you can say. You could articulate your point and help educate me on these fundamentals.

'Economics' is a broad term - so of course it will have a role.
As for sponsors, they sit down and work out the cost/benefit and are then locked in to a contract - so you are pretty much back to my original point that the sport is living beyond its viable means and has little to do with World economics.

I'm sorry. I assumed that it would be a given, that for example, that riots in the streets of Europe over government cutbacks or tuition increases might ring a few alarm bells. The U.S. fed printing money like it was toilet paper? Unemployment hovering here at a record high for the longest duration since the Great Depression. No? I'll give you a nickel Doc. You can buy a clue so you might never say,

"I have no idea what any of that means."

Maybe it is you that can enlighten me on the rosy outlook for the "world" economy. If you want a thesis paper written, then I'll gladly work for wages. A severe downward trend in the world economy, especially devalue currency reflected as price inflation, would adversely effect the cost side of the equation so much so as to affect the benefit outlook. It is not impossible to think that this just might, just maybe, could have an effect on sponsorship or the cost/benefit of any business.

What is the cause of a sport living beyond it's viable means? Can you give the cost/benefit analysis on it? I'll give you a couple minutes.

What's all this about a debt crisis? It's all news to me! A Mad Hatter?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/02/economics-debt-crisis

Soooo this can create uncertainty among investors. We, I hope, can agree that sponsorship is a advertising investment. Some sponsors are friendly to the sport, but when real economic doubts set in, the cash can sit on the sidelines. Sometimes businesses, including sports interests, might find that sponsors may be having some problems and may look to merge under a new and brighter flag.

They what? Right class. POOL THEIR RESOURCES!

What a novel idea! Blink. Blink.

But if the uncertainty is great enough, this may slow the process. Turmoil may ensue. It is true, as in all business, entities not well thought out may be compelled forward first. It is also true that it may not go well for the workers.

This does mean that contracts should not be honored nor that I don't have great sympathy for any who are adversely effected.

I still want that report.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sorry. I assumed that it would be a given, that for example, that riots in the streets of Europe over government cutbacks or tuition increases might ring a few alarm bells. The U.S. fed printing money like it was toilet paper? Unemployment hovering here at a record high for the longest duration since the Great Depression. No? I'll give you a nickel Doc. You can buy a clue so you might never say,

"I have no idea what any of that means."

Maybe it is you that can enlighten me on the rosy outlook for the "world" economy. If you want a thesis paper written, then I'll gladly work for wages. A severe downward trend in the world economy, especially devalue currency reflected as price inflation, would adversely effect the cost side of the equation so much so as to affect the benefit outlook. It is not impossible to think that this just might, just maybe, could have an effect on sponsorship or the cost/benefit of any business.

What is the cause of a sport living beyond it's viable means? Can you give the cost/benefit analysis on it? I'll give you a couple minutes.

What's all this about a debt crisis? It's all news to me! A Mad Hatter?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/02/economics-debt-crisis

Soooo this can create uncertainty among investors. We, I hope, can agree that sponsorship is a advertising investment. Some sponsors are friendly to the sport, but when real economic doubts set in, the cash can sit on the sidelines. Sometimes businesses, including sports interests, might find that sponsors may be having some problems and may look to merge under a new and brighter flag.

They what? Right class. POOL THEIR RESOURCES!

What a novel idea! Blink. Blink.

But if the uncertainty is great enough, this may slow the process. Turmoil may ensue. It is true, as in all business, entities not well thought out may be compelled forward first. It is also true that it may not go well for the workers.

This does mean that contracts should not be honored nor that I don't have great sympathy for any who are adversely effected.

I still want that report.

As I thought - your opinion wasn't based on anything except defending your other position from another thread.

 

[BroDeal]

As I thought - your opinion wasn't based on anything except defending your other position from another thread.

What else did expect from flicker?

 

[BillytheKid]

As I thought - your opinion wasn't based on anything except defending your other position from another thread.

As was yours. Now, we should give this thread back to its original author.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As was yours. Now, we should give this thread back to its original author.

My view is consistent - you found yourself backpedaling when you realized it was at odds to your previous statements.

Discussing how the money flows through the sport has a relevance to womens cycling - as they are the ones to get squeezed out because the UCI & some mens teams does not support them.

 

[canyonball]

Vroomen entry on minimum wage. LINK

 

[MartinGT]

Womens road race World Champion Giorgia Bronzini is quoted as saying "We're not less than the men". Lets analyse this. If something is not less than then it must be greater than or equal to. I don't for one second think that she thinks that womans cycling is a greater spectacle than the mens events. So she is saying that womans cycling is equal to mens cycling right? Why didn't she say that? Because deep down she knows this is not true. She knows that womens cycling is beneath the mens but couldn't bring herself to say it.

1st post FAIL.

Its mostly because English isnt her mother tongue.

 

[joe_papp]

form a closed-shop union

1st post FAIL.

Its mostly because English isnt her mother tongue.

My teammate socialized a lot w/ Giorgia - I met her on numerous occasions and found her to be a nice, agreeable person. I can sympathize w/ her plight, too: double World-Champ but not really gettin' PAAAID! Nevertheless, when she said, “...I wanted to speak with the president of the UCI to inform him that my jersey was worth just as much as Cavendish’s one...” I guess she meant as far as retail cost in a bike shop in Placenza. B/c she's smart enough to know that her commercial value as Women's WC - even double WC - isn't but a fraction of Cav's. And that's not the fault of the UCI as much as it is a reality of the market.

She does herself and the women's peloton a disservice though (unless something got lost in translation?) when she seemingly confuses in the press the issues of 1) her own insignificant endorsement opportunities (relative to Cav's) and 2) a minimum wage for pro women. The first is lamentable but hopefully something she can overcome (to some degree) with the help of a good commercial representative who busts his or her **** for the next 8-9mos trying to line up deals for the Champ. The second is disappointing and bitter market reality: there's no minimum salary for pro women b/c the women's side of cycling couldn't sustain it. The UCI would kill the women's peloton if they tried to force the issue and implement a comparable minimum wage for women at a time when there isn't enough money in the sport to sustain the teams that are still functioning.

I very much so sympathize with Giorgia and come at it from a more personal angle than most, knowing her on a human level...she's not in the abstract for me. But what she wants isn't going to happen until the sport becomes more viable commercially. That's the job of the promoters, the team managers, the UCI, the sponsors, and finally the athletes themselves. The first thing Giorgia should do is form a closed-shop union of women riders and try to force her colleagues to not ride for below whatever she thinks the minimum should be, let alone for free...

This is hardly a problem exclusive to the ladies. Cipollini himself said, at the height of his career, that there were too many pro's in the Italian peloton who didn't deserve to be there and who were riding for very little, if anything at all - they either kicked their salaries back to their corrupt team managers, or they brought sponsorship w/ them.

 

[gregod]

...
a lot of interesting stuff. click on the link above to read it.
...

+1
that is how i read georgia's comments. her jersey cost the same to make or buy as cav's.

 

[greenedge]

Considering the fact that the course at Copenhagen was so easy of course that win by Bronzini is equal to Cavs'. She dominates sprints ( if in good form ). Women cycling should be paid more attention to by the UCI.

 

[Panda Claws]

I personally find it quite annoying to see women so tired, I have this problem with tennis as well.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Considering the fact that the course at Copenhagen was so easy of course that win by Bronzini is equal to Cavs'. She dominates sprints ( if in good form ). Women cycling should be paid more attention to by the UCI.

Ina-Yoko Teutenberg and Kirsten Wild would like a word with you.

Giorgia is more a Thor than a Cav, she's better when some of the other sprinters have been burned off, at lurking with intent and being there as the group gets smaller (like Goss at Sanremo in fact), or in longer races (a bit like Freire). In fact, the Worlds were only her 4th victory of the season, and 2 of those were in North America. By contrast, Teutenberg had 19 (though 2 in TTTs and 1 in an ITT) and Wild 6. Vos has 8 sprint wins in UCI races this year (plus god knows how many on the Dutch national circuit).

 

[Freddythefrog]

My teammate socialized a lot w/ Giorgia - I met her on numerous occasions .................

Victims. Ever stopped and thought? Sadly and perversely the women's peloton has been more hard hit than the men's by the drugs scandals that have rocked the sport - mainly on the men's side. First hand experience. I was busy trying to tie up a deal for women's cycling with a female health and beauty products company at the time the Landis explosion hit. Did not walk away - ran. That the women's side was not as tainted as the men's made not one jot of difference. I have tried since. Women's products and competitive cycling are not compatible sponsorship routes due to PED abuse. ("It is a mad house - phantom twins, testosterone patches - who are these people ?")

The women's circuit has declined seriously in the last 5 years. Sadly, it is not going to get better on its own. Like it or not either the decision is:

1) be a s e x i s t pig and treat women unfairly and accept that is what you are doing under the disguise of "its only what the market will take", just as in the early 60's women's wages across the western World were always a fraction of the male equivalent regardless of equality of effort - that is the market. "Market" is merely a convenient excuse to allow an unprincipled stand. Maintaining the status quo is what this is about

2) legislate where possible. UCI - tier 1 teams - must have a female team of 10 riders on a minimum wage. Event organisers have tier 1 status - promote a UCI women's race as well as a men's race. Think what has been lost already - Women's Milan san Remo. Women's Amstel Gold. They tried and gave up. They need an incentive to do it. Some teams and organisers will drop out.

And critical beyond and well above 2 is selling the transmission rights with a proviso that they have to transmit a quota of quality broadcast of female racing.

It is called - no easy solution. Turning over the page and pretending it is not there is the weak way out. Discrimination in the work place was never going to be sorted out by the market. Legislation forced on highly resistive employers was the only way out. History told us that. This is the same.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Victims. Ever stopped and thought? Sadly and perversely the women's peloton has been more hard hit than the men's by the drugs scandals that have rocked the sport - mainly on the men's side. First hand experience. I was busy trying to tie up a deal for women's cycling with a female health and beauty products company at the time the Landis explosion hit. Did not walk away - ran. That the women's side was not as tainted as the men's made not one jot of difference. I have tried since. Women's products and competitive cycling are not compatible sponsorship routes due to PED abuse. ("It is a mad house - phantom twins, testosterone patches - who are these people ?")

The women's circuit has declined seriously in the last 5 years. Sadly, it is not going to get better on its own. Like it or not either the decision is:

1) be a s e x i s t pig and treat women unfairly and accept that is what you are doing under the disguise of "its only what the market will take", just as in the early 60's women's wages across the western World were always a fraction of the male equivalent regardless of equality of effort - that is the market. "Market" is merely a convenient excuse to allow an unprincipled stand. Maintaining the status quo is what this is about

2) legislate where possible. UCI - tier 1 teams - must have a female team of 10 riders on a minimum wage. Event organisers have tier 1 status - promote a UCI women's race as well as a men's race. Think what has been lost already - Women's Milan san Remo. Women's Amstel Gold. They tried and gave up. They need an incentive to do it. Some teams and organisers will drop out.

And critical beyond and well above 2 is selling the transmission rights with a proviso that they have to transmit a quota of quality broadcast of female racing.

It is called - no easy solution. Turning over the page and pretending it is not there is the weak way out. Discrimination in the work place was never going to be sorted out by the market. Legislation forced on highly resistive employers was the only way out. History told us that. This is the same.

Female sports stars are capable of performance significantly below that of men. Don't talk arrant nonsense by trying to compare it to fields where women are equal or better.

 

[joe_papp]

...Sadly, it is not going to get better on its own. ..
2) legislate where possible...They need an incentive to do it. Some teams and organisers will drop out.

Forcing conditions upon what should be a market solution does not equal incentivization. It equals forcing someone to do something via "legislation" (by which I take it you mean regulation? Or are you suggesting that government should get involved in professional cycling sponsorship?).

The idea of forcing a tier 1 men's team to also field a women's team is actually reverse gender discrimination. Why should the men's peloton, which has proven itself moderately viable as a commercial venue even during these lean economic times, be penalized for the fact that women's professional cycling is not interesting or compelling to spectators? Gender-bias has nothing to do with it.

I like watching men's professional cycling. I don't find women's professional cycling interesting. Are you going to tell the hundreds of thousands of other fans who think the same thing that they're sexist, too?

 

[Freddythefrog]

Female sports stars are capable of performance significantly below that of men. Don't talk arrant nonsense by trying to compare it to fields where women are equal or better.

My sporting viewing tonight was some Skeleton Bob cresta run stuff. I had no idea what a "fast time" was and certainly could not tell men from women apart from when the commentator informed me. They competed separately by gender and I had no way of knowing that I should be looking down my nose at the women. The "faster, higher, stronger" is a naive refuge to hide a lack of principles. Waterloo you may well be in the majority with this unprincipled, but highly convenient position.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Forcing conditions upon what should be a market solution does not equal incentivization. It equals forcing someone to do something via "legislation" (by which I take it you mean regulation? Or are you suggesting that government should get involved in professional cycling sponsorship?).

The UCI can sit, like Pilate, basking in the proceeds, attempting to wash their hands of the responsibility or they can take a stand. Other sports have and a minority of corporate bodies only sponsor sporting activities that provide equality of gender access and reward. A far greater number of multinationals have codes of ethics in their public corporate governance polices that preclude them from involving themselves with bodies or organisations that distinguish by race or gender (Different prizes male/female). Marketing departments either are unaware of these policies or pretend not to be aware of them. I have only attempted once to get a corporation (American) to self police to its policy. It certainly passes the hours away. Denial, avoidance, refusal to respond. Brick wall, head, bloody.

The idea of forcing a tier 1 men's team to also field a women's team is actually reverse gender discrimination. Why should the men's peloton, which has proven itself moderately viable as a commercial venue even during these lean economic times, be penalized for the fact that women's professional cycling is not interesting or compelling to spectators? Gender-bias has nothing to do with it.

Because via abuse of PEDs the men's peloton has trashed the women's far more. One hell of a lot of victims out there.

I like watching men's professional cycling. I don't find women's professional cycling interesting. Are you going to tell the hundreds of thousands of other fans who think the same thing that they're sexist, too?

I am not telling anyone on this board anything when I state that the reasons you watch a sport are many layered and it is what you have engaged in. Too often it is not possible to "engage" in women's cycling to "critical mass", unlike other sports, because of the discrimination exercised from top to bottom and crucially, particularly in the media. It ain't healing itself, so sadly it needs the UCI to legislate.

Not that I think they will.

The solution is ugly, and would cause damage but cycling has caused more than enough self harm to prove itself capable of standing up to this.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Forcing conditions upon what should be a market solution does not equal incentivization. It equals forcing someone to do something via "legislation" (by which I take it you mean regulation? Or are you suggesting that government should get involved in professional cycling sponsorship?).

Joe, this thinking is a mess. In cycling, the UCI IS government. They already do their best to monetize cycling.

The idea of forcing a tier 1 men's team to also field a women's team is actually reverse gender discrimination.

Agreed. But, this is not a social issue. It's economic.

Why should the men's peloton, ...be penalized for the fact that women's professional cycling is not interesting or compelling to spectators?

Who says? As other posters have mentioned, Women's tennis has an enormous audience. Why not cycling?

If the UCI mandated a women's team budget, the UCI would call it "an investment in expanding cycling's audience." No penalty there...

Bike racing is putting a group together on a course and generating some drama. Gender doesn't matter.