Money Talks
There are many incentives for participating in a bike race, but probably one of the top incentives is the cash prize. Cash puts stars in the eyes of people who might otherwise just go out of their way each weekend to prep their bikes, bellies, family, chamois, and plans; travel; slap money on the registration table; suffer enteric crisis in Port-o-Lets; brutalize themselves on the course; risk broken bodies and bike parts; share a beer with tapped, incoherent peers; clean it all up, and pack it all in. Aside from bragging that they’ve placed 56th out of 117 racers and wincing while palpating this week’s hematoma, I can see no better reward than: cash. In bike racing, cash reward is called payout.
I’m going to jump right in and talk about the fact that women aren’t typically rewarded equal payout to men in bike racing (or any sport). It’s very rare to find a race where promoters have figured out a way to offer equal payout to the fastest men — and women — racers. This weekend, Olympian Lea Davidson participated in a race she helped create equal payout in by negotiating with a main sponsor. This seems like a great thing, but it can make race promoters, and some racers, grumble. Why? Because as I’ve been told:
Women don’t show up in the numbers men do, so don’t pay as much entry fee.
So why should they earn equal payout?
Fair enough. Not!
This excuse might seem “fair enough,” but it isn’t enough when so many people are working for progress in equality. Women — along with people of color, the elderly, the disabled, the non-heterosexual, the non-English-speakers, and others — are still fighting for basic rights that middle-aged white men (MAWM) have been enjoying for centuries. MAWM can easily forget that. Race promoters (mostly MAWM) need to realize that they can help make the world more fun for everyone by enticing everyone to their races. They can make the races better attended by attracting more top names to their races — women racers included — by equalizing payouts. If they can’t find the cash to do this, there will be cool sponsors willing to step up (as evidenced by Lea Davidson’s experiment in Providence).
Excuses (I’ve only elucidated one of them) perpetuate the problem. The only way to improve the situation is to put energy into changing it. The status quo is not working for half the audience.
In Portland, Oregon we have a flourishing cyclo-cross race scene. One prominent race series is called the “Cross Crusade.” This monolith has been around practically since the medieval times (mid-80s). I have raced it. I raced my way into the top Women’s category and won a pair of tires by lottery for all my efforts. Had cash prizes been higher and gone deeper, I might have won… maybe 25 bucks. Heh. I wasn’t that good. Had I thought there was ever even a remote chance of earning cash on par with my efforts or at least making my money back, I might have kept racing. That’s not why I quit racing, but the thought did cross my mind. I like the Cross Crusade and I like its promoters, so I’m definitely not trying to demonize them. I am calling them out as industry leaders, because racing is an industry and with their numbers they clearly show that they are leaders. I’d like them to look at this data and improve payouts for future seasons (if not this one).
I have put together some numbers from 2010 and 2011, from the Cross Crusade’s publicly available race data. Take a look (2010) (2011).
To quickly summarize:
- Club Vivo (operator of Cross Crusade) took in approximately $259,445 in 2010 and $287,305 in 2011 directly from racers. This doesn’t include other sources of income, such as gear sales and sponsorships.
- Overall women’s participation was 24.8% in 2010 and 26.4% in 2011
- Payout (crude data) to women was 36.8% of the men’s payout both years
- Payout was 4.5% of Club Vivo’s 2011 fee income, and 5% of their 2010 fee income
Questions
Does it look like Club Vivo is being generous giving approximately 36.8% payout to women, despite women only paying ~25% of entry fees?
Thinking yes? I’m afraid I might not be reaching you. Are you on another planet?
Could Club Vivo afford to pay out a few more percent of their income to raise payouts and entice more people to race?
For example, if in 2011, Club Vivo had paid equal payouts to Women’s A, B, and Masters 35+ categories, they would still only pay out 5.7% of their fee income. That’s only bringing women’s payouts to almost three-quarters (73.7%) of what men’s payouts are. Considering categories straight across (striking men’s categories off the board that don’t exist for women), it would bring EQUAL PAYOUT to men and women. And it doesn’t seem to cost Club Vivo much (approximately 0.7-1.2% more of their fee income). If they can’t afford it, I’m sure a sponsor would be willing to pay up.
My theory, simplistic conclusion
Participation IS directly related to payout rate. Therefore: limit payout rates = limit racer and audience turnout.
So, Cross Crusade, I dare you: try raising your women’s payout from 36.8% to 73.7%. Sure it’s a bit of a “charity” on the behalf of the huge MCWM population showing up at your races, but just like they can drop for a new electronic gruppo, they can probably swing this. Without much complaint. Why? Because who takes care of the kids while they race? Who drives them to the races? Who cheers for them to go for that 55th place spot? Who hands off water bottles and prepares recovery food? Who drives them home? Who probably does the laundry? That’s right… the ladies. (Daughters are watching, too.) And maybe a lot of them would like to give racing a go themselves, if not just once*. It’s time to try bringing female participation in cyclo-cross racing above 25%. Other than reversing the roles I just mentioned (such as child care, food preparation, and laundry), one other ingredient to add would be C.A.S.H. to the women’s prize pot. With more cash incentive, they just might really go for it.
And speaking of going for it, there are numerous elite-level female bicycle racers looking to fill their race calendars with races that offer decent payouts. Just so they can afford to continue racing. It’s a career. They need to be paid, just like the men. Draw in these well-known ladies, promote the heck out of them just like you do when the big-name men show up, and inspire everybody.
* I see a little possible evidence of women’s eagerness to race when I look at data from races held far outside the Portland area. Where families are forced to camp or stay at hotels and day-to-day gender roles are set on end, perhaps the women feel more free to “kick back” and “adventure,” give it a try themselves. There is perhaps nothing else for her to do when she is captive audience. Race promoters have so many instances like this where they could market and capture new audiences!
Further Homework:
Read down this eye-opening, sobering list of comments by women about what it’s like to race cyclo-cross — specifically as a woman.
Hey. Very cool internet site!! Man .. Beautiful .. Very good .. I’ll bookmark your internet site and take the feeds additionally…I’m satisfied to locate numerous useful data right here in the article. Thanks for sharing.
I’m a little late to the post, but I’m so glad I stumbled upon it. I agree with everything you said and this topic [unequal pay in cycling] was actually my first (real) post for my blog, and what inspired me to finally make a blog in the first place! You are quite an excellent writer, and sufficiently argued your case against the above lame comments. And with a bit of an attitude that I quite enjoyed!
I very much like your writing style and am about to search for the follow button!
As a male who has raced for years as a cyclist, triathlete,and runner I can assure you that at no time did my racing goals have anything to do with prize payout. Now as to equality, perfect equality would be great and from your numbers it appears that the organizers are paying out a larger share to women than the the percentage of women in the race. So, why don’t we all try to do this bring a lady to the races. Not to watch but to actually ride. That will actually make your voice louder and make your participation more even. Then this won’t be a question. As to Lea Davidson she doesn’t just talk about these things she acts on them as seen by her little bellas camp for girl mountain bikers at sea otter classic. This is a great camp put on by a great team.
I was recently part of a state-wide discussion of women in bike racing and the traditional ideas came up, along with an idea came up that really appealed to me: Offer free entry to women riders in their first race. One race did that this summer and I almost drove 3 hours and skipped a family engagement just because it was free! But, as a social person, I would also like to add another idea. What if we gave 50% off to any racing woman who brings a new woman racer? We are hoping to have a crit series (3-4 races) in 2013 and I want to try this! So, first race in the series is free to all women racers and subsequent races are 50% off ($10 or so) if they bring a new woman racer.
Of course, what makes this easier is that we are planning for the crit series to be more of a training series and profits going to a good cause.
What do you think of those ideas? My heart is set on trying them, but maybe they will be a train wreck.
I think it’s false and insulting to imply that participation is based on something as mercenary as prize payouts. It’s telling, to me, that Elly’s example does not include the spectator seeing a person “like them” in the race and saying, “How much can I get if I do this next year?” Do we have any data that suggests women (or, really, anybody) doesn’t participate in these events because the money isn’t good enough?
Equal payouts is, of course, an excellent ideal in principle. However, the folks who fund these things are interested in profits, not principles (except insofar as principles can bring them good PR and higher profits). And if you start to make arguments based on profit-motive (in your case, of racers rather than sponsors), you are simply making their own case for limiting payouts based on their analysis of ROI. [Not to undermine my own argument here, but I think their ROI argument is bullshit, too. The foolishness in the excuse given above about race attendance and payout is the assumption that men do not show up to watch women race and vice versa. And, hence, men are just as inspired to buy new gear after watching women do their thing as they are after watching men.]
I’m still not sure how, in this day and age, we rationalize segregating our races by gender in the first place. We know there is more variation within the genders than between them and our modern conception of gender is transcending sex. It seems perhaps more sensible to make separate classes by something that actually differentiates riders. In boxing and wrestling, they have simple weight classes, but I don’t think that would translate perfectly to cycling. Off the top of my head, I might naively suggest something like upper and lower height divisions each subdivided into upper and lower height/body mass ratio leaving four “classes”: big/tall, small/tall, big/short, small/short or Beefy, Lanky, Stout, and Petite. Arguing for equal payout in classes of that type should be easier than fighting against tradition practices in traditional categories.
I think it’s silly to deny that nobody is aware of payouts and that some racers, especially in the elite categories, hope to at least earn their money back. Some people have careers racing! There is a pot at the end of the rainbow, don’t you be naïve… only the pot is usually much bigger for men than for women.
False and insulting? Sorry. I might have to re-write my article just for you, or maybe just have you re-read it. God knows I have raced ‘cross and attended enough ‘cross races to know some things about ‘cross. I challenge you to also make a list of all the great benefits of racing cyclo-cross, but with your tongue-in-cheek, just like I did. Money and swag (and beer) come out as just about one of the only tangible perks. I’m sorry if I actually said it. The charm of cyclo-cross has a lot to do with its undeniable bittersweetness, though. I broke the charm?
Maybe I know that money doesn’t factor in for 99% of participants. But if you’re a woman, it factors in even less — because the money isn’t there.
It doesn’t matter how many women show up. As I was quoted saying in Elly Blue’s piece, “The problem is discriminating based on sex and disguising it as objective discrimination based on number.” There is still a problem either way.
We rationalize segregating our races by gender because of the truth that women simply cannot race as fast as men. They need their own category, just like the clydesdales and unicyclists do. That’s fine. You start to confuse me with your boxing and wrestling analogies. Think of it this way:
What if Lotto or bingo halls started awarding payouts based on how many men or women bought tickets?
I think I can safely say that women want to be able to show up and race against one another (and sometimes against the men) but just be treated — respectfully — like one of the men. For the ones that come out on top, that involves that pot of gold.
The simplest way to prove your theory is to organise an event with equal(ish) prize money and show us that there are these hundreds of women waiting in the wings gagging to race for 19th place and $20. I dare you.
The Mulebar Girls showed it can be done as a one-off track meeting for women only called Velo Jam and people travelled from all over the UK to race. Would it work for a cyclocross race?
(My original comment to Philip was lost in a database crash but I will try to paraphrase it here.)
1) I am not a race promoter. But I can just make observations and point out discrepancies where I see them.
2) I proposed a hypothesis here that equal payouts will help bring more women to the start lines. There is certainly no way my theory will be proved in one race (and certainly not if a rookie like me organized it) or overnight, but I think if larger and better-promoted and attended races and series offered equal payouts they might eventually see gaggles of gagging women racing for 19th place. I don’t expect my hypothesis to work for smaller, homegrown races but I do hope that the big guys try to set a more equitable gold standard for everyone to look up to.
Fair point about the established series thing, but I do think it can happen in one off races if the push for racers and sponsorship is huge (see Velo Jam again).
With the gold standard thing, perhaps it would be easiest to persuade promoters to increase the women’s prize list incrementally year on year? I voluntarily organise a small local race on behalf of my club and I make sure that I pay out the women more and further down the field than any other similar event but if I were to pay the same as the men one year without much increase in numbers, my club would lose money.
Incremental changes have their place — but honestly, I think the easiest thing, as far as getting results, would be to make the purses for women’s races double that of the men’s. Sounds like you’re eager for change to happen fast — that’s how to do it.