On Equal Prize Money

Equal Prize Money.
Why is it important?
Why bother?
Aren't there other issues out there that we should be focussing on?

I wrote the following opinion piece last year, but never published it. Recent events have given me some pause. It is worthwhile to note some encouraging developments in this space. Of particular note:

On February 21st the Cycling Australia board adopted a policy to introduce equal prize money at National Road Series (NRS) events and for the overall NRS awards. As the NRS season is about to commence, and as Cycling Australia sets about establishing new leadership, it is expected that this new policy will take some time to implement. Good news, but there is still more work to do.

It is time: equal prize money in cycling

As Chair of the Cycling Australia Women’s Commission, Executive board member of Cycling Victoria, and recently retired Chair of the Cycling Victoria Women and Girls' Commission, I wear a few hats regarding women in cycling. My roles consider many off the bike aspects to the sport with a view to ensuring our sport continues to provide a welcome environment for all women. Women make up one in five of the Cycling Australia membership, and are underrepresented in many off the bike aspects such as leadership positions, commissions and paid positions related to cycling. Changing these aspects to improve the gender diversity across our sport takes time, and part of my role is to help facilitate this change.

Making our sport more female friendly has many practical on and off the bike benefits. On the bike, the more women seen cycling, the more it encourages other women to try cycling. The more women we can encourage to race at Club level, the more opportunities we have for talented athletes to race against other women. The more women supported to progress their cycling will produce more women racing at all levels of the sport, providing the depth of talent we need to continue producing medal winning performances at World Championship and Olympic level. Off the bike, the more women volunteering or working in cycling ensures that the sport benefits from the entire population, exposing new knowledge, ideas, skills and experiences. It is also well proven that gender diverse boards perform better. Creating a welcome environment for everyone requires a mixture of getting the right people, the right policies and the right cultural practices in place. In a volunteer-based sport, this is sometimes not an easy task!

In Victoria, we have worked very hard over the past three years to make a number of changes to create a more welcome environment for women. We have introduced policy to encourage more women in leadership positions, provided resources to support our Clubs and introduced a number of development programs. We also banned ‘podium girls’: the only podium girls we want to see in Victoria are first, second and third place on the podium!

One of the biggest changes we made was the creation of an equal prize money policy. We have now mandated that all State level events in Victoria provide equal prize money, regardless of the differences between women and men in race distances or field sizes. We have also provided guidance to Clubs and promoters to encourage them to introduce similar practices. Providing equal prize money reflects our core philosophy of recognising a place getter as equal, no matter their gender. It also provides a direct benefit to our female athletes: an increase in prize money in a sport that is mostly unpaid is greatly appreciated by athletes who sacrifice so much to get to the start line. I should point out that in some circumstances not paying equal prize money can be considered a form of sex discrimination in Victoria under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. But above all, the practice says to all women: cycling welcomes and respects you.

As a result of all the changes made in Victoria we have seen significant increases in race participation and memberships by women. We also found another flow-on benefit: Clubs that have really worked to create a welcome environment for women are not only attracting more females to join their club, they are also seeing the biggest increases across the State in terms of male memberships. It seems when you welcome women, you welcome everyone.

Victoria is not alone in pushing for equality across cycling. The ACT has been one of the first States or Territories to work on increasing their female membership, and have long established welcome programs to encourage female participation. In 2013, when Cycling ACT took on running their first NRS event, the National Capital Tour, they immediately introduced equal prize money.

The UCI are also emerging as leaders when it comes to equal prize money and treatment of women. In 2013 they announced equal prize money for all World Championship events, and have moved to also establish this at regional Championships. There is still a long way to go, with many off-road World Cup events featuring large disparities between men and women in prize payouts. Under the leadership of Brian Cookson and Tracey Gaudry, these events now appear to be on notice.

In Australia, the debate continues over establishing equal prize money across all events. Here are some of the reasons that have been presented to me on why some people are against equal prize money, followed by my response to them. Yes, these have really been said to me!

Introducing Equal Prize Money will Negatively Impact the Men

The two main components of this argument are a) that a move to equalise prize money will do so at the expense of the total men’s prize payout, or b) that a move to equalise prize money could threaten the financial viability of an event which could lead to an event being forced to discontinue. I will respond to each separately.

Our experience in Victoria is that since moving to equal prize money we have had no complaints from the men about the changes in pay out. While it is noble that many people are concerned about the welfare of the men, I find this an odd position to take when the welfare of the women in the sport of cycling is much more dismal.

There has also been no uniform method that event organisers have used to equalise the prize monies. In some circumstances, events have increased the total prize payouts to both men and women. Sometimes the men’s payout has taken a small hit in order to balance it out for the women. And in others, event organisers have gained additional sponsors to address the women’s prize shortfall. Our preference is to maintain the highest payout and encourage more sponsors to come on board to support women’s cycling. 

In Victoria, no event has been forced to discontinue due to the impact of equalising prize payouts. Threats to financial sustainability of events are real, but these are unrelated to prize payouts. The single biggest increase in costs to event management is in road safety measures. This is a completely separate issue and remains a genuine concern to everyone involved in organised cycling.

Women don’t deserve equal prize money: they (generally) have smaller field sizes

This argument is the one most commonly used by event promoters. Traditionally, race payouts have been determined by field size in each category, with a percentage of entry takings returned as prize money. 

Despite many promoters stating the formula is still in use, it actually isn’t. Case in point: the Highland Fling. Event promoters received criticism from participants for not paying equal prize money. In defending the difference in payout between the men and women, the event promoters argued that prize money was determined, among other things, by field size. There were 35 elite men and 8 elite women. However, in the support events, there were 40 master’s women racing the ‘Half Fling’, and 312 master’s men racing the same category. Yet the master’s women and master’s men did not receive the biggest payout; this was reserved for the elite men. This also occurs at club racing, where men’s B and C grades regularly attract the biggest field sizes. They do not receive more prize money than A grade. The real reason A grade, or elite categories, receive the biggest payouts are because they reflect the best of their gender. The formula used today combines monies received through sponsorship and total entries; prizes are then distributed based on grades. This needs to be adapted to ensure that the best athletes are appropriately rewarded, regardless of their gender.*

While women’s fields have traditionally been smaller than the men, this is changing as we undertake measures to promote the sport of cycling as being welcoming to women. Having disparities in prize payouts suggests to those outside of the sport that cycling doesn’t value women, and this is no way to market a sport that wants to see more women involved. Our experience in Victoria has seen field sizes grow in almost all female categories. Any business wishing to enter a new or develop an existing market knows that you need to invest over the long term. The real returns from welcoming women will be seen through the overall growth in the sport over the next five years: new women, new men, and new juniors.

The best example in recent times is the Bay Crits. Equal prize money was introduced in 2013 and twelve months later, the women's race featured a bigger field than the men's and with much better quality (measured by the number of International professionals participating), including two time world road champion, Giorgia Bronzini.

One final comment on this subject: it seems incredibly unfair to penalise women who do enter events simply because other women have not entered. Women prepare just as diligently as their male counterparts. They use the same expensive equipment and make the same sacrifices to get to the start line. If women have not entered an event, then the event promoter needs to ask some serious questions as to why the event is not supported. In Victoria, we review and monitor participation trends all the time, and are always looking at ways to further attract participation.

Women don’t deserve equal prize money: their racing is not up to ‘standard’

The belief by those who make this argument often aligns with the notion that women’s racing is boring. Sometimes it is. But so can all racing. The men’s 2013 Road World Championships in Florence went five hours without a single attack. There was plenty of predictable race strategy occurring throughout the 2013 Tour de France. Not all men’s racing is negative, but the longer the distance, the more time the men are required to ride tempo and maintain an appropriate distance between the peloton and the break before the inevitable occurs. Women’s racing is contested over shorter distances, so the down time of ‘no action’ is significantly reduced. Check it out sometime!

By far the most spectacular cycling moment of the 2012 London Olympics, or of any other in recent history, was THAT track stand. When we saw this on our screens during Race Two of the Sprint Final in the early hours of the morning, we all knew this was The Moment. The pressure, the skill, the composure, the drama and the joy unveiled so wonderfully in front of our sleep deprived eyes. That we were watching women was irrelevant. This was simply sport at its finest.

In Australia, the quality of women’s road racing is certainly progressing. The participation rate in the women’s NRS doubled between 2012 and 2013. There are many new comers to the sport, and we hope to see that continue. And there has been some terrific racing, with plenty of action, tension and drama. How can you measure the standard of any female race, and hold it to a prize money ransom until it meets these expectations? Would you ever ask that of a men’s event? This argument must be discounted purely on the impossibility of being able to measure such a statement.

While arguments for and against equalising prize payouts in cycling may continue for some time, I believe that before any decision is made on the matter, one must first answer: what is it that we want our sport to represent? We want cycling to grow, develop and prosper. To do this, we need demonstrate that our sport welcomes and respects everyone, and invest in the aspects of the sport that need it the most: women.

Providing equal reward and recognition, and ultimately respect for our female athletes should be the priority.

Monique Hanley
Chair, Cycling Australia Women’s Commission
Executive board member, Cycling Victoria

*The debate on whether lower grades deserves the same prize money as higher grades is a good one and deserves further consideration. Ultimately, and with an improved grading system to minimise sand bagging, payouts should be equal across all grades and genders. But back to the first step. Equality between genders.