ringo182 wrote:
Like the majority of people in the world, I have no interest in Women's Sport. It's not a sexist comment. My opinion is that if I want to watch sport, I want to watch the best of the best. Women's sport is not the best of the best.
It's never going to be commercially successful as it will always have men's sport to compete against.
I have no problem with women's sport and think that women should be given the same opportunities to participate in any sport they want to participate in. My problem is the fact that various people seem to think, at the elite level, it should be equal to men's sport which is never going to happen.
Of course it should be equal we live in a equal rights world.
The world is anything but equal.
In the political sense and human rights sense yeah but we live in civilised countries, where gender should not determine how much investment you should get. Mariane Vos, she is no more successful than the likes of Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara or even Alberto Contador. But yet she is probably on a fraction of what those men riders get and that is not fair.
ringo182 wrote:
Like the majority of people in the world, I have no interest in Women's Sport. It's not a sexist comment. My opinion is that if I want to watch sport, I want to watch the best of the best. Women's sport is not the best of the best.
It's never going to be commercially successful as it will always have men's sport to compete against.
I have no problem with women's sport and think that women should be given the same opportunities to participate in any sport they want to participate in. My problem is the fact that various people seem to think, at the elite level, it should be equal to men's sport which is never going to happen.
Of course it should be equal we live in a equal rights world.
The world is anything but equal.
In the political sense and human rights sense yeah but we live in civilised countries, where gender should not determine how much investment you should get. Mariane Vos, she is no more successful than the likes of Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara or even Alberto Contador. But yet she is probably on a fraction of what those men riders get and that is not fair.
But it does and there is that. There is no more to it, where there is interest, there is money
ringo182 wrote:
Like the majority of people in the world, I have no interest in Women's Sport. It's not a sexist comment. My opinion is that if I want to watch sport, I want to watch the best of the best. Women's sport is not the best of the best.
It's never going to be commercially successful as it will always have men's sport to compete against.
I have no problem with women's sport and think that women should be given the same opportunities to participate in any sport they want to participate in. My problem is the fact that various people seem to think, at the elite level, it should be equal to men's sport which is never going to happen.
Of course it should be equal we live in a equal rights world.
In everyday life it should be but I wouldn't necessarily say so in sport.
I believe that Athletics it should be as the races are of the same length but in Tennis Grand Slam's it shouldn't be as the men play more sets than the women, if they both played best of 5 sets then yeah I'd agree but whilst the men to more the prize money should be proportionalised to that.
In cycling terms I believe the women's Giro prizemoney shouldn't equal the men's Giro because it isn't 21 days but it should be 10/21's of the men's prize pool being 10 stages long compared to the 21 of the men's GT. I'm not really sure how that would relate to one day races but if the KM's are similar then it should be the same but if there is a great difference then it should be proportional due to the men doing a longer race and having to work longer/ harder.
ringo182 wrote:
Like the majority of people in the world, I have no interest in Women's Sport. It's not a sexist comment. My opinion is that if I want to watch sport, I want to watch the best of the best. Women's sport is not the best of the best.
It's never going to be commercially successful as it will always have men's sport to compete against.
I have no problem with women's sport and think that women should be given the same opportunities to participate in any sport they want to participate in. My problem is the fact that various people seem to think, at the elite level, it should be equal to men's sport which is never going to happen.
Of course it should be equal we live in a equal rights world.
The world is anything but equal.
In the political sense and human rights sense yeah but we live in civilised countries, where gender should not determine how much investment you should get. Mariane Vos, she is no more successful than the likes of Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara or even Alberto Contador. But yet she is probably on a fraction of what those men riders get and that is not fair.
Who is she racing against? The fact one women usually dominates the whole sport is a fairy good indicator of the general competence of her competitors.
The fact is there is no commercial interest in women's sport. Therefore no money is generated. Therefore it will never be on the same level as men's sport.
Are you saying men's sport should subsidise women's sport. That is sexist.
ringo182 wrote:
Like the majority of people in the world, I have no interest in Women's Sport. It's not a sexist comment. My opinion is that if I want to watch sport, I want to watch the best of the best. Women's sport is not the best of the best.
It's never going to be commercially successful as it will always have men's sport to compete against.
I have no problem with women's sport and think that women should be given the same opportunities to participate in any sport they want to participate in. My problem is the fact that various people seem to think, at the elite level, it should be equal to men's sport which is never going to happen.
Of course it should be equal we live in a equal rights world.
The world is anything but equal.
In the political sense and human rights sense yeah but we live in civilised countries, where gender should not determine how much investment you should get. Mariane Vos, she is no more successful than the likes of Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara or even Alberto Contador. But yet she is probably on a fraction of what those men riders get and that is not fair.
Who is she racing against? The fact one women usually dominates the whole sport is a fairy good indicator of the general competence of her competitors.
The fact is there is no commercial interest in women's sport. Therefore no money is generated. Therefore it will never be on the same level as men's sport.
Are you saying men's sport should subsidise women's sport. That is sexist.
Where did I say men's sport should subsidise? nowhere. Of course men's sport shouldn't subsidise women's sport and it shouldn't have to. Women's sport should just be getting the investment that it deserves. It isn't just about the sport, it is more than that, it goes to the women wanting to get involved, watching sport, just like it does with men and investment is holding it back.
ringo182 wrote:
The fact is there is no commercial interest in women's sport. Therefore no money is generated. Therefore it will never be on the same level as men's sport.
You might want to use the word fact more carefully.
Look at Tennis. It's probably the sport with the highest interest in its women's tournaments and competitions. They're paid equally in price money and their matches are shown on TV just as much. So is it a charitable organization, since women can't possibly garner the same revenue as men? Probably not.
The statistics of personal ad revenue for 2013 amongst tennis players have five women in the Top 8. Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova generate more commercial value than most men in any sports. Because companies are charitable organizations, since women can't possibly garner the same revenue as men? Probably not.
Yes, women don't perform at the same level as men do. But the main reason why people don't care for most women's sports is in my opinions because they get no exhibition, because there's not major teams or stars to follow and cheer for. At the moment, there's little commercial appeal in it, and investing in it may be a losing game for some time, but there's no denying that the potential is there.
ringo182 wrote:
The fact is there is no commercial interest in women's sport. Therefore no money is generated. Therefore it will never be on the same level as men's sport.
Also, it might just be the right thing to do.
So would be feeding all the hungry in Africa and housing all the homeless around the world.
But this is the real world, not a fantasy. There is no investment in women's sport because investors know they wouldn't see any return on their investment.
People say they don't expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport, but as women's sport generates so little money how the hell do they expect women's sport ever to be on the same level in terms of interest or prize money?
Tennis is the closest women's sport to it's male counterpart and even then there is a huge gap between the money and audience they generate. Williams and Sharapova are exceptions and even they make the vast majority of their money from non-tennis related sponsorship/business deals. They are basically models who play a bit of tennis on the side. Hasn't Williams even reduced her Tennis Schedule to concentrate on her other businesses?
As said, I have no issue with women's sport. Just the people who claim it should be treated equally to men's sport at elite level despite generating a fraction of the income and audience.
Jesus ... I knew it was a mistake to write that last sentence ...
ringo182 wrote:
But this is the real world, not a fantasy. There is no investment in women's sport because investors know they wouldn't see any return on their investment.
People say they don't expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport, but as women's sport generates so little money how the hell do they expect women's sport ever to be on the same level in terms of interest or prize money?
Tennis is the closest women's sport to it's male counterpart and even then there is a huge gap between the money and audience they generate. Williams and Sharapova are exceptions and even they make the vast majority of their money from non-tennis related sponsorship/business deals. They are basically models who play a bit of tennis on the side. Hasn't Williams even reduced her Tennis Schedule to concentrate on her other businesses?
Did you even read my post? Sharapova and Williams are no exceptions. Li Na, Anna Ivanovic, Caroline Wozniacki, all of them generate more ad revenue than any other male tennis player outside the Top 3.
Them making more money from sponsorships is exactly my point. They get these sponsorships because there's a public interest in them! Because of all the money in women's tennis, people actually know them and care for them, which is why it's profitable for companies to invest in them, and for TV stations to show their matches!
All of the male top players gain more money from sponsorships than from price money as well, by the way. Are they also just models who play a bit tennis on the side?
Edited by cunego59 on 29-04-2016 16:43
cunego59 wrote:
Jesus ... I knew it was a mistake to write that last sentence ...
ringo182 wrote:
But this is the real world, not a fantasy. There is no investment in women's sport because investors know they wouldn't see any return on their investment.
People say they don't expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport, but as women's sport generates so little money how the hell do they expect women's sport ever to be on the same level in terms of interest or prize money?
Tennis is the closest women's sport to it's male counterpart and even then there is a huge gap between the money and audience they generate. Williams and Sharapova are exceptions and even they make the vast majority of their money from non-tennis related sponsorship/business deals. They are basically models who play a bit of tennis on the side. Hasn't Williams even reduced her Tennis Schedule to concentrate on her other businesses?
Did you even read my post? Sharapova and Williams are no exceptions. Li Na, Anna Ivanovic, Caroline Wozniacki, all of them generate more ad revenue than any other male tennis player outside the Top 3.
Them making more money from sponsorships is exactly my point. They get these sponsorships because there's a public interest in them! Because of all the money in women's tennis, people actually know them and care for them, which is why it's profitable for companies to invest in them, and for TV stations to show their matches!
All of the male top players gain more money from sponsorships than from price money as well, by the way? Are they also just models who play a bit tennis on the side?
I did mis-read your post
Tennis is the exception. It is always dragged up in this debate.
We are talking about women's sport as a whole.
Look, this is getting out of hand so I will leave with this:
At grass roots level women deserve the same opportunities as men. To a large extent, in most countries, they get those same opportunities as men.
When sports get to the elite level the amount of investment the sport receives is dependent upon the amount of interest it receives and the amount of money it can generate. With the exception of Tennis women's sport receives less investment because it generates less interest and less money then the men's counterpart. Therefore women's sport at the elite level could never and should never be treated equally.
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
cunego59 wrote:
Jesus ... I knew it was a mistake to write that last sentence ...
ringo182 wrote:
But this is the real world, not a fantasy. There is no investment in women's sport because investors know they wouldn't see any return on their investment.
People say they don't expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport, but as women's sport generates so little money how the hell do they expect women's sport ever to be on the same level in terms of interest or prize money?
Tennis is the closest women's sport to it's male counterpart and even then there is a huge gap between the money and audience they generate. Williams and Sharapova are exceptions and even they make the vast majority of their money from non-tennis related sponsorship/business deals. They are basically models who play a bit of tennis on the side. Hasn't Williams even reduced her Tennis Schedule to concentrate on her other businesses?
Did you even read my post? Sharapova and Williams are no exceptions. Li Na, Anna Ivanovic, Caroline Wozniacki, all of them generate more ad revenue than any other male tennis player outside the Top 3.
Them making more money from sponsorships is exactly my point. They get these sponsorships because there's a public interest in them! Because of all the money in women's tennis, people actually know them and care for them, which is why it's profitable for companies to invest in them, and for TV stations to show their matches!
All of the male top players gain more money from sponsorships than from price money as well, by the way? Are they also just models who play a bit tennis on the side?
I did mis-read your post
Tennis is the exception. It is always dragged up in this debate.
We are talking about women's sport as a whole.
Look, this is getting out of hand so I will leave with this:
At grass roots level women deserve the same opportunities as men. To a large extent, in most countries, they get those same opportunities as men.
When sports get to the elite level the amount of investment the sport receives is dependent upon the amount of interest it receives and the amount of money it can generate. With the exception of Tennis women's sport receives less investment because it generates less interest and less money then the men's counterpart. Therefore women's sport at the elite level could never and should never be treated equally.
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
But Team Sky is a company (Sky being the company) investing in Men's Sport so if Sky invested in Women's Cycling then it wouldn't be Men's Sport subsidising Women's Sport.
ringo182 wrote:
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
I covered this yesterday in a post. Pooley critiscised British Cycling and Sky for their lack of support to womens cycling inside the British Cycling programme. Kennaugh made an ill thought through comment about Sky, which yesterday i went through and showed why it wasn't smart.
Pooley doesn't ask for Team Sky to subsidise and womens team or women cyclists. Sky gets pulled in because they are the biggest contributer to British Cycling who are the ones that should provide equal support to men and women, but they really badly don't.
There could be a whole separate debate about whether Team Sky should have started a womens team, in the same way you can say any mens team could/should start a womens team in the same way they have U23/Dev teams. But as i say, it's a whole serparate argument, and for a totally different thread.
Quite how we got from Pooley and Kennaugh to this i don't know!
cunego59 wrote:
Jesus ... I knew it was a mistake to write that last sentence ...
ringo182 wrote:
But this is the real world, not a fantasy. There is no investment in women's sport because investors know they wouldn't see any return on their investment.
People say they don't expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport, but as women's sport generates so little money how the hell do they expect women's sport ever to be on the same level in terms of interest or prize money?
Tennis is the closest women's sport to it's male counterpart and even then there is a huge gap between the money and audience they generate. Williams and Sharapova are exceptions and even they make the vast majority of their money from non-tennis related sponsorship/business deals. They are basically models who play a bit of tennis on the side. Hasn't Williams even reduced her Tennis Schedule to concentrate on her other businesses?
Did you even read my post? Sharapova and Williams are no exceptions. Li Na, Anna Ivanovic, Caroline Wozniacki, all of them generate more ad revenue than any other male tennis player outside the Top 3.
Them making more money from sponsorships is exactly my point. They get these sponsorships because there's a public interest in them! Because of all the money in women's tennis, people actually know them and care for them, which is why it's profitable for companies to invest in them, and for TV stations to show their matches!
All of the male top players gain more money from sponsorships than from price money as well, by the way? Are they also just models who play a bit tennis on the side?
I did mis-read your post
Tennis is the exception. It is always dragged up in this debate.
We are talking about women's sport as a whole.
Look, this is getting out of hand so I will leave with this:
At grass roots level women deserve the same opportunities as men. To a large extent, in most countries, they get those same opportunities as men.
When sports get to the elite level the amount of investment the sport receives is dependent upon the amount of interest it receives and the amount of money it can generate. With the exception of Tennis women's sport receives less investment because it generates less interest and less money then the men's counterpart. Therefore women's sport at the elite level could never and should never be treated equally.
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
But Team Sky is a company (Sky being the company) investing in Men's Sport so if Sky invested in Women's Cycling then it wouldn't be Men's Sport subsidising Women's Sport.
But Sky (the company) know they would make no money from a women's team and so have decided not to waste their money in starting one. How many Men's teams have corresponding Women's teams? 2?3?
You can't criticise a company for not investing in something it knows will loose money.
ringo182 wrote:
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
I covered this yesterday in a post. Pooley critiscised British Cycling and Sky for their lack of support to womens cycling inside the British Cycling programme. Kennaugh made an ill thought through comment about Sky, which yesterday i went through and showed why it wasn't smart.
Pooley doesn't ask for Team Sky to subsidise and womens team or women cyclists. Sky gets pulled in because they are the biggest contributer to British Cycling who are the ones that should provide equal support to men and women, but they really badly don't.
There could be a whole separate debate about whether Team Sky should have started a womens team, in the same way you can say any mens team could/should start a womens team in the same way they have U23/Dev teams. But as i say, it's a whole serparate argument, and for a totally different thread.
Quite how we got from Pooley and Kennaugh to this i don't know!
Fair enough
Though I think the women's medal haul at the last couple of Olympic games shows that British Cycling have invested a considerable amount into women's cycling over the last few years.
ringo182 wrote:
This debate started because Peter Kennaugh criticised Emma Pooley for critising Team Sky for not investing in women's cycling. Why would she expect the men's sport to invest in the women's sport? Why is it ok to expect the men's sport to subsidise women's sport but it's sexist to state the fact that women's sport receives less investment because there is no interest in it.
I covered this yesterday in a post. Pooley critiscised British Cycling and Sky for their lack of support to womens cycling inside the British Cycling programme. Kennaugh made an ill thought through comment about Sky, which yesterday i went through and showed why it wasn't smart.
Pooley doesn't ask for Team Sky to subsidise and womens team or women cyclists. Sky gets pulled in because they are the biggest contributer to British Cycling who are the ones that should provide equal support to men and women, but they really badly don't.
There could be a whole separate debate about whether Team Sky should have started a womens team, in the same way you can say any mens team could/should start a womens team in the same way they have U23/Dev teams. But as i say, it's a whole serparate argument, and for a totally different thread.
Quite how we got from Pooley and Kennaugh to this i don't know!
Fair enough
Though I think the women's medal haul at the last couple of Olympic games shows that British Cycling have invested a considerable amount into women's cycling over the last few years.
They have and yet they had someone at the helm who didn't believe in the equal treatment in Shane Sutton. When someone like Victoria Pendleton comes out and backs that up then it is clear that there is discrimination going on there.
But Sky (the company) know they would make no money from a women's team and so have decided not to waste their money in starting one. How many Men's teams have corresponding Women's teams? 2?3?
You can't criticize a company for not investing in something it knows will loose money.
You can't criticize Sky, yes, but let's not forget when Sky were assembled, they were partnering with the British Cycling. The opportunities were there by BC to work something out without much cost. The legacy to create a team. They didn't take it. It resurfaced now again with Lizzie's success, but let's not forget back then they had Cooke and Pooley, the big riders without a team were there to make something, nothing happened.
And this is the point Pooley tries to make. This is all bullshit. Brailsford talking like he wants to start a women's team forever now. It's clear he doesn't, it's all bullshit he feeds to media. The opportunities were there for a team, Brailsford never gave a fuck, yet he keeps feeding media that womens team is in his mind.
Anyway I love this controversy purely becayse Kennaugh must think public cares, give a shit and know about his publicly acclaimed victories in Tour of Austria and that random 2.1 Italian stage race.
ringo182 wrote:
Though I think the women's medal haul at the last couple of Olympic games shows that British Cycling have invested a considerable amount into women's cycling over the last few years.
It's more than Olympic Track Cycling. They cover all aspects through Road and Track to CX, MTB, BMX etc. It's no secret British Cycling has a pretty bad record of supporting it's non-mainstream riders (see Tre Whyte).
Pooley and Cooke both spoke almost exclusively about Road Cycling, and again i covered a lot of this yesterday. One example is British Cycling spending 10's of thousands of Mclaren bikes for reserve road race riders at Worlds, whilst women have to supply their own bikes via their teams. Let alone talking about the continued support of riders who fail to even finish national team races whilst the women have a much better finishing percentage and average position. For an organisation based around getting results they really have a pretty questionable record outside the Olympics.
But again, really a lot of this should be a discussion for another part of the forum.
In Tennis, some women competitions are subsided by men's competition, it still works tho. However I do not think that subsidizing is key for a fair sport infrastructure: What is important is that women sports can profit of the general development of a sport. This is what Pooley hinted at. Steps have to be taken in this regard and cycling is just really miles down still.
Ski winter sports work very well in this regard. Ski Alpine ladies have their own competitions and their races are set up next to the Men's in air time. Sure, the payout is less but eg SKI Austria has a very solid sponsor campaign. They are also quite exciting to watch too. Biathlon@Women is actually more interesting than Biatholon@Men. If you love the sport, it's exciting anywhere.
At the end of the day, each sport has to take care itself. If it's unattractive to the viewer than c'est la vie.
It has been rightly stated by Cunego has rightly stated that women sports need public attention to generate money. This however can not happen just by asking for it.
If we take women cycling as example than they need following things to even succeed in the first place: a) races b) media coverage c) screen time d) competition e) sponsor money, and lastly, some countries will be more enthusiastic about women cycling than others due to 1) success and 2), because certain companies are pushing it.
Do you remember how popular cycling was pre-SKY era in Britain? Yeah, it wasn't really talked about at all. Now look at it and how much it has grown in mainstream media and general talk. I don't see why this shouldn't be applicable to women cycling in general - you just need to broaden your horizon a bit really.
To simply say, women don't deserve this because they are not as good and nobody cares about it is false reasoning. It is the very effect of poor, unequal sport structure. It will probably take decades for women to catch up. Cycling lives of its history and prestige. Thus it's important to continue building history day by day in the present to make it better for future years, by adding races, creating teams, building some hype.
When great stories are told people will get involved. This is what happened 100 years ago with cycling for men. The shape that men's cycling is right now, in fact I argue it could use some good headlines by women's cycling by the way.
Currently Tour of Yorkshire does a nice job at generating interest in cycling. Kirchen said, Armistead won more than Kennaugh. She has probably also done more for cycling than Kennaugh ever will.
One thing I am particularly puzzled at though is ringo's claim of only watching "the best of the best". So, you basically only care about World Tour races?
P.S.: Ofc, I think performance should be valued. Right now, for men to win is way more difficult than for women. Also, higher numbers, it's way tougher competition, more spectacle. To me, it is also more exciting.* S/He who makes the most money should get the most.
However, more equality in cycling doesn't mean complete equality like some of you seem to understand. It means that the very huge gap between men and women sports needs to become smaller over time.
*But why is men cycling more exciting than women? Because you never see women. Some world championship races of women were way more thrilling than men btw!
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
