Ashburton Investments boosts elite women's prize purse to equal men's

[Patchelicious]

I'll try

 

It's a case where economics aren't "self-correcting" and need some "intervention". To take an analogy in football, Barcelona and Real Madrid is dominating spanish football, therefore they have the most fans/viewers and in turn the biggest income which allow them to buy the best players/coaches/stadiums which perpetuate their dominance - a self-feeding circle (. Under normal circumstances it would be impossible for another team to permanently break into the top 2 unless some rich Arab/Russian with oil money show up...

 

It's the same with male-dominated sports, over years they have received the most investment which produces the better product which in turn attract the most investment.

 

One way to start breaking this cycle is equal prize money.

 

2013 and 2014 US open tennis woman finals drew more viewers than the mens finals, so the potential is there.

Good point.

 

I agree that equal prize money is a good starting point. But as you say, we need to acknowledge that this is intervention to correct an issue, so if some people question the economics we cannot just cover them with a blanket "bigot" label. Without sorting the root issue, equal prize money might not be a sustainable solution.

 

Equal prize money is also not the only solution, so along with equal prize money we need to support other angles too. The Spur school series seems to be attracting lots of young ladies to the sport.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Patchelicious

[jcza]

Very similar debate been going on in pro tennis.

 

I think it's ridiculous that the women's and men's purse is equal. Not because I'm sexist, but because of the pure economics that drive the sport (for reference, the Aus open tickets were starting at $200 for the ladies, $403 for the men's - TV viewing gets about double the audience for the men's).

 

It is obvious to see that it is much harder to make the top 30 in the men's field than it is to make the top 10 in the ladies. It can be argued that more prize money will attract more ladies, but I think equal prize money does very little to promote the sport (beyond the window dressing, and paying the few elite ladies). Catch 22 situation really.

 

Fritz has been roasted for being a dinosaur here, I sympathise as his argument is sound. Dangerous game for a pro athlete to hold organisers publicly like this (in my opinon as a total outsider).

 

Pro tennis is a slightly different story - One of the Williams sisters wiped the floor with her opponent in 60 minutes in 2 sets and walks away with the same purse as Murray/Nadal/Djok/Fed that fought for nearly 6 hours in a 5 setter.

 

Not quite sure how that works. Make the ladies play best of 5 sets then.

[Skubarra]

Equal prize money is also not the only solution, so along with equal prize money we need to support other angles too. The Spur school series seems to be attracting lots of young ladies to the sport.

 

Think this is a storm in a tea cup anyway, lets be honest, the prize money we are talking here aren't exactly earth shattering. It is more about the principle.

 

One can convincingly argue economics to keep the status quo but there is a bigger picture here, the sport as a whole will benefit if it can attract more ladies.

[Patchelicious]

Think this is a storm in a tea cup anyway, lets be honest, the prize money we are talking here aren't exactly earth shattering. It is more about the principle.

 

One can convincingly argue economics to keep the status quo but there is a bigger picture here, the sport as a whole will benefit if it can attract more ladies.

I'm not disputing that, and I agree 100% with what you are saying.

 

I am just saying that if some people do question the economic aspects of it, it's not right to take the shortcut and simply label them bigots.

[PygaSchmyga]

Surely somebody can raise questions without being called archaic and ignorant.

 

It is a very valid point to discuss, because we all support equality, how ever sometime the pure economics of some cases make it a tough thing to get right.

Perhaps a bit harsh, but when people use non-relevant facts to justify an argument that reinforces an unfair status quo, then why is it NOT fair to call it ignorant? 

 

I find it ironic that BikePub quoted stats from the aussie open, because the purse for women and men is the same, in spite of ticket prices being different! 

 

And I disagree with you - I do not think there is any debate here.  It is not right to award female winners less purse.  Quoting this and that about different participation levels etc etc is merely using the historic situation, which was born out of discrimination in the first place, to justify continuing an unfairness is self-defeating.  Change has to start somewhere, and the fact that Ashburton have acknowledged this ends the debate in my mind.

[Patchelicious]

Snip

 

And I disagree with you - I do not think there is any debate here. It is not right to award female winners less purse.

That is not what I said!!!! I NEVER said that females deserve less.

 

I said equal purse is correct, but refusing to engage in the debates around it and simply labeling anybody who questions the mechanics of it as bigots is ignorant.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Patchelicious

[Shebeen]

Perhaps a bit harsh, but when people use non-relevant facts to justify an argument that reinforces an unfair status quo, then why is it NOT fair to call it ignorant? 

 

I find it ironic that BikePub quoted stats from the aussie open, because the purse for women and men is the same, in spite of ticket prices being different! 

 

 

I think the tennis debate is a good analogy. The debate has been going on for much longer, and the arguments/status quo are similar.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/21/novak-djokovic-is-right-male-tennis-players-do-deserve-to-be-paid-more-than-female-stars-5765546/

 

I was pointing out that it doesn't make sense at the aussie open, but because it is in the spotlight the organisers are forced to do equal pay. Rest of the year the men make the money in tennis. So you actually got that one loud and clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I disagree with you - I do not think there is any debate here.  It is not right to award female winners less purse.  Quoting this and that about different participation levels etc etc is merely using the historic situation, which was born out of discrimination in the first place, to justify continuing an unfairness is self-defeating.  Change has to start somewhere, and the fact that Ashburton have acknowledged this ends the debate in my mind.

 

 

ok. let's look at this from the otherside then.

Male model's deserve the same money that female models do. http://fortune.com/2015/07/15/male-models-pay/

It's a stupid argument, because in my mind equal prizemoney doesn't really do much for the development of elite females. 

 

[V12man]

Fritz seems to have had a lot to say, all of which seems to justify lesser treatment of women. Fritz needs to enter the 21st century, and leave behind his sexist views. #getwiththeprogram

Seems to have made a u turn in his approach after Ashburton boosted the prise money... what a tjop

[Shebeen]

Think this is a storm in a tea cup anyway, lets be honest, the prize money we are talking here aren't exactly earth shattering. It is more about the principle.

 

One can convincingly argue economics to keep the status quo but there is a bigger picture here, the sport as a whole will benefit if it can attract more ladies.

the answer is simple here.

 

Epic made equal prize money in 2014, so we have a bit of data to work with.

Is the ladies elite field better in 2017 than it was in 2013?

 

If that really is the case then I concede all arguments.

[PygaSchmyga]

I think the tennis debate is a good analogy. The debate has been going on for much longer, and the arguments/status quo are similar.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/21/novak-djokovic-is-right-male-tennis-players-do-deserve-to-be-paid-more-than-female-stars-5765546/

 

I was pointing out that it doesn't make sense at the aussie open, but because it is in the spotlight the organisers are forced to do equal pay. Rest of the year the men make the money in tennis. So you actually got that one loud and clear.

 

 

 

 

 

ok. let's look at this from the otherside then.

Male model's deserve the same money that female models do. http://fortune.com/2015/07/15/male-models-pay/

It's a stupid argument, because in my mind equal prizemoney doesn't really do much for the development of elite females. 

On what do you base this fairly bold assumption?  Also, I'm sure Ariane disagrees with you. And probably so does Ashburton. 

 

In any event, this was never about development of Elite riders - nobody every mentioned this - only you.  This is about doing the right thing.  All your economic arguments are just not relevant, whether they are right or wrong.  Why do you want to continue to defend unequal treatment for female riders - it seems futile given that the sponsors reacted so quickly to change it?

[Shebeen]

I'll try

 

It's a case where economics aren't "self-correcting" and need some "intervention". To take an analogy in football, Barcelona and Real Madrid is dominating spanish football, therefore they have the most fans/viewers and in turn the biggest income which allow them to buy the best players/coaches/stadiums which perpetuate their dominance - a self-feeding circle (. Under normal circumstances it would be impossible for another team to permanently break into the top 2 unless some rich Arab/Russian with oil money show up...

 

It's the same with male-dominated sports, over years they have received the most investment which produces the better product which in turn attract the most investment.

 

One way to start breaking this cycle is equal prize money.

 

2013 and 2014 US open tennis woman finals drew more viewers than the mens finals, so the potential is there.

I don't think equal prize money is the tool to grow the women's field, but I agree that it doesn't hurt.

 

2013 US Open(now you got me going).Women's final was the highest rating in 11 years, and was on a Sunday. the men's was on the monday night  I would call that an anomoly. (source - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/09/us-open-womens-final-scores-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/ when a early season NFL game beat them both out the park!)

[Skubarra]

I don't think equal prize money is the tool to grow the women's field, but I agree that it doesn't hurt.

 

2013 US Open(now you got me going).Women's final was the highest rating in 11 years, and was on a Sunday. the men's was on the monday night  I would call that an anomoly. (source - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/09/us-open-womens-final-scores-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/ when a early season NFL game beat them both out the park!)

 

and in 2014? I'm sure I can find more anomalies with a bit of effort. But my point is just that the potential is there for the gap to be much closer than it is now. Staring blindly into past economics is missing the bigger picture imo

 

I'm not saying equal prize money is a silver bullet but I also think it is a good start. And it is not something that will be fixed overnight (referring to your Epic example)

Edited January 30, 2017 by Skubarra

[Gen]

the answer is simple here.

 

Epic made equal prize money in 2014, so we have a bit of data to work with.

Is the ladies elite field better in 2017 than it was in 2013?

 

If that really is the case then I concede all arguments.

No the field is bigger this year because there is no Olympic build up and they have revamped the whole ladies race. .. from starting batch to team combinations..

 

 

Yes equal prize money is a big incentive as well.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Gen

[Gen]

Seems to have made a u turn in his approach after Ashburton boosted the prise money... what a tjop

I wonder if Ashburton are really aware of where all the money goes?

 

Seems he is just in charge and carries on.

[Danger Dassie]

the answer is simple here.

 

Epic made equal prize money in 2014, so we have a bit of data to work with.

Is the ladies elite field better in 2017 than it was in 2013?

 

If that really is the case then I concede all arguments.

Would say the racing in 2016 is a clear answer to that, the clear favourites were under a lot of pressure and had at least one of the teams not had a rider pull out. We may well have seen a different result. 

Also considering that a couple of the riders were/are past and current World Cup Champs, World Champs and Olympic medalists/contenders shows that the field is better. Including looking at the team pairings for 2017. 

['Dale]

Sweet response

 

Well done, Sponsor