This is a touchy subject (obviously) but there if we stipulate that equal pay would be "nice" there's a tension between whether that should come from the top down (forcing the UCI to mandate minimum pay, pressuring Sky to run a women's team), or the bottom up (putting the onus on female athletes to raise the interest in their sport through their performances).

Someone will know the history better than me but it seems that in sports where pay is equalizing (tennis), interest in the women's game has justified the process. Sure women may have lobied for it but advertizers, event organizers and fans could see the sense because women's tennis has broad appeal and is incredibly marketable. It may not be as fast as men's but, especially before they slowed the men's game, it had much more finesse, better rallies and some great personalities.

I'm not sure you can say the same about women's cycling yet which sucks for current competitors but may not be that easy to fix.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

I was lucky enough to be invited to the 2008 US Open men's semi and final/women's finals. For the women's final the stadium was maybe 50-60% full. Men's final was standing room only sell out and only slightly less for the semis. If you can't put butts in the seats where does the money come from? Take it from the men's side who stuffs the stadium?

Is it sexism that female models get paid so much more than male models?

It is the market..

--

I agree, sportsmen and women get paid according to how popular/wealthy their sport is, and how successful and/or popular they are within their sport. Sexism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that male sports are nearly all more popular than their female equivalents, partly because the majority of sports fans are male, and partly because sportsmen are faster and stronger than their female equivalents. More spectators = more sponsors + more ticket sales = better-paid athletes. The best-paid sportswomen are mostly those that have managed to combine sporting success with good looks - Maria Sharapova makes more money than Serena Williams despite having a far more modest tennis career.

The women's road race was actually far more entertaining than the men's race the day before, it was a great advert for the sport and I hope that it helps them to pull in some more viewers and sponsors. Armistead is relatively lucky - there is at least enough money in her sport and through state funding these days that she can be a full-time professional, not that long ago she'd have had to pay her own way with a day job to go with the training. And she's a good looking girl, which won't hurt her when she's looking to find new sponsors.

There's a recurrent theme in cycling (or basketball, soccer, etc.) where a couple of times a year some woman complains that it's not fair...

They don't seem to understand the nature of professional sport.

The market value of the athlete isn't determined by how good they are, it's basically determined by how many people want to watch them do what they do.

To argue that the UCI should do something, basically stealing money from men's cycling to subsidize the lack of interest in women's cycling is absurd. How is that going to make anyone more interested in watching women's cycling?

I remember this conversation in college sociology class....

Question: How much do male supermodels make compared to female?

supply and demand dictates...

A strangely compelling argument...

I have no problem when women make less than men in competitive sports. I don't expect a woman playing in the WNBA to make as much as a man playing in the NBA. To me, it's similar to a guy making less playing professional football in Canada vs professional football in the NFL.

However, I also think it's cool when tournaments or races offer equal prize money. I feel the organizers are supporting women in sport at the fundamental level which only helps get more women involved and racing/playing. That in turn creates better competition and better sport. A good thing all around.

Is it sexism that a female pornstar or supermodel will make 20x what their male counterparts do?

I don't have a lot to add, but I hope that Skid (Scott Molina) chimes in on this.

His wife, Erin Baker was one of the first really "PROFESSIONAL" triathletes, who actively advocated for equal prize money. Personally I think it is needed even if the interest level is not there from fans, to elevate the women's pro competition, and by doing so, it inspires an entire generation of our youth. As a coach in youth sports, many of the girls that I have coached lack female pro athlete role models....I'd like to see that change. I think equal prize money helps that scenario. It takes several decades to change many decades of media bias towards male sports, so we have to start somewhere. I commend triathlon on the balance for being a progressive sport on this front. Cycling and a number of other sports are stuck in the dark ages.

OK, I did not read all the posts....I hear what you guys are saying about market demand, however, I think there is an opportunity here to do better. At least in our sport and other endurance sports where the exploits of female athletes can be as compelling as those of men....names like Carfrae, Jenkins, Wellington, Norden etc etc come to mind

Well when I look at the races... The men's pot and women's pot is the same, so by that regard, women get paid the same, unlike say the NBA versus WNBA.

I think that while there is a terrible underestimation of sexism in sport, and life in general, that mandating equal pay for prizes/sponsorships/salary/etc. would be destructive and divisive. I have no doubt that Armistead has suffered through sexism, but deficient prize and sponsorship is a symptom, and not the cause of the problem.

Agreed, and I think that is a good thing. We're not a spectator driven sport, we are a participation driven sport. There are many races around here where we have equal numbers of male and women athlete. Maybe not that quite yet at the Ironman events, but maybe one day. In the mean time, even at the adult level, many female pro athletes serve as role models for our peers who are women age groupers.

Exactly. If you're really good at something nobody cares to watch you do then it's a hobby not a professional sport. If Armistead is really interested in furthering women's cycling the UCI's or sponsors' money would be better spent through some sort of promotional campaign or something that gets people interested. These sorts of athletes seem to think that if you beg, borrow or steal enough money to support "pros" then people will watch, rather than understanding that it's just the opposite. When there are enough people watching then there will be the money to support pros.

That's a good point. If for whatever reason a sport has decided to take participants' money and redistribute some of it to the folks finishing at the front of the race rather than the promoters who did all the work to put on the event and there is equal women's/men's participation, makes perfect sense to distribute it evenly.

I use to promote cyclocross races, again a participatory sport where there is expectation of cash payouts to the top finishers. Every once in a while this issue would come up. I'd point out that at best women's participation was maybe 20% of men's and I found the argument that if you gave out more money to the top riders there would be more women showing up silly. Money would be better spent putting on clinics or something.

Should Ron Jeremy get paid as mush as Jenna Jamison? You do it because you love to do it.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

... a sexist market value that devalues women athletes. So, yes, sexism.

Yes ... it is sexism. Because we objectify, fetishize, and hyper-sexualize the female body.

Seriously, people? You're legitimizing this by comparing athletes to porn stars? Seriously?

We don't have to pay women in sports (or any other industry, other than the porn industry) as much so we can offset the fact that female porn stars make too much money? Is this seriously how you rationalize pay inequity?

You seem to seriously be lacking a sense of humour...

---

I have an outstanding sense of humor. For things that are funny.

Most people who cry sexism ussually seem to lack the humor gene.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

Bmanners wrote:

Most people who cry sexism ussually seem to lack the humor gene.

Most people who turn this into a matter of humor seek to deny the existence of sexism ... and have something to gain by maintaining the status quo.

I can tell I should probably add a bit more historical relevance to answer the OP's question ... perhaps that will keep us on track. And, by the way ... the OP asks a great question. I just answered simply.

Many of us can remember a time prior to legislation that required equal funding be provided to female athletes. Prior to then, women were considered, in a general sense and with a few exceptions, as incapable of truly competing sports endeavors. You can still find many first-hand accounts of what it was like for Athletic Chairs to suddenly find room in their budget for female athletes at the university level, and the backlash the legislation created. Some did an outstanding job of responding and some dug their heels in, scrambled for loopholes, and fought the entire way. There is a documentary currently available on Netflix Instant Download called "Starting at the Finish Line" about legendary Duke University track coach Al Buehler, who took a pretty bold stand on the matter.

So when we, as a society, were suddenly made to consider women as competitors, it took a long time to actually have that paradigm take hold. Cue some race director forcing Katherine Switzer off of the Boston Marathon course. That's sexism, and it creates a legacy that remains. Then, Cue Mary Decker, Joan Benoit Samuelson, Jackie Joyner Kersey ... etc. Cue the Williams sisters. So many brave women who taught us differently than we believed before them.

Thankfully, we are coming into an era where our collective memory is fuzzy on what it was like when women were not allowed to compete. Chrissie Wellington shows up and it just makes sense that women can also be long standing competitive forces.

But the legacy of sexism remains. Today, it shows up when we dismiss the pay inequity as "market responses". We don't devalue women athletes deliberately, we're merely responding to a long standing practice of only seeing men compete. 1972 wasn't all that long ago, and we're still getting used to seeing women share the spotlight, the TV air time, and the prize money.

Then, when somebody asks a legitimate question about whether or not this is rooted in sexism ... rather than wondering out loud if we're somehow complicit in the honest answer, we turn it into a joke so we don't really have to play a role in that legitimization process. To bring us back on track and seek that honest answer then gets explained away as a lack of humor. It's simply not.


Edited for grammar.