The lack of parity of prize money in men’s and women’s professional bike racing has come under the spotlight once again due to the huge difference in the amounts won by the male and female winners of Omloop Het Nieuwsblad at the weekend – although the CEO of Flanders Classics, which organises the race, says the focus on that issue deflects from other steps that it is taking to try and achieve equality in the sport.
The winner of the men’s race, Deceuninck-Quick Step’s Davide Ballerini, won €16,000 for his efforts as highlighted by an Instagram post from Internationalles, the women’s cycling group who campaign for gender equality in cycling. Parto of this includes their annual ride of the entire Tour de France route, a day ahead of the main race.
The group highlighted that world road champion Anna van der Breggen of SD Worx, who won the women’s edition of Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, got just €930 – just 5.5 per cent of the winners’ pool for the two races.
However, Thomas Van Der Spiegel, CEO of Flanders Classics, defended the allocation, saying on Twitter: “Quite disappointed with all the reactions we are getting about prize money after all the financial investments we have continuously made into women’s cycling for years now.
Quite disappointed with all the reactions we are getting about prize money after all the financial investments we have continuously made into women’s cycling for years now. #OHN21 #OHNWomen
— Tomas Van Den Spiegel (@tomasvds) March 1, 2021
“This year alone around 6 figures were invested into moving the race up a category and into a first time TV production. If equal pay is all you are asking for you clearly have no idea about the challenges women’s cycling is still facing.
“Of course we will keep investing, we will try to stay the driver for change and we will keep pushing for equality in cycling in the near future,” he added.
A lot of the work Van Der Spiegel mentions will be happening behind the scenes, and in not providing equal prize money, many would see the organisation as having scored an own-goal.
For others, however, the real problem lies in the lack of TV coverage that women’s racing receives, and maintain that by increase both the length and quality of that, the sport will become more attractive to sponsors. This could make teams – which operate on shoestring budgets compared to their male counterparts – and riders less reliant on prize money.
Replying to Van Der Spiegel, Eurosport and GCN commentator José Been pointed out: “Increased prize money mostly goes to the same riders who mostly already make a decent pay. Investments in women’s racing and mostly broadcasting benefits many riders and more importantly many teams who are then able to attract more sponsors and grow the sport further.”
Dutch ex-pro Iris Slappendel, who co-founded the Cyclists’ Alliance – effectively the women’s pro cyclists’ union, which in 2019 was awarded a $75,000 grant from the Rapha Foundation – said in reply to Van Der Spiegel: “Coverage should be priority to grow the sport. Prize money is an easy ‘target’ and should be higher in the future, but also only benefit the top riders that already make a reasonable income. Live coverage benefits everyone. Good discussion, thanks for the perspective.”
One distinction between the two Omloop Het Nieuwsblad races on Sunday is that while the men’s race forms part of the top-flight UCI WorldTour calendar, the women’s edition is not on the UCI Women’s WorldTour schedule, instead being classified as a second-tier 1.Pro race.
But even when races are at the same tier, there can be big discrepancies in prize money. In 2019, for instance, after winning the men’s edition of the Tour of Flanders, which is also organised by Flanders Classics, Alberto Bettiol said it was a “disgrace” that he received €20,000 for his victory, while the first rider home in the women’s race, Marta Bastianelli, only won €1,265.
UCI President David Lappartient has previously outlined the governing body’s intention for the minimum salary for riders in UCI Women’s WorldTour teams to match that of the men’s second-tier UCI ProTeams by 2023.
Trek-Segafredo has gone beyond that, however, announcing earlier this year that the riders on both its men’s and women’s teams would receive the UCI WorldTour minimum salary of €40,045 for those employed directly, or €65,673 for those who are self-employed.
55 thoughts on “Equal prize money row after Anna van der Breggen gets €930 for winning Omloop Het Nieuwsblad… while men’s winner bags €16,000”
The disparity in prize money
The disparity in prize money is indefensible, despite the CEO saying he is “pushing for equality in cycling in the near future”. Why not just distribute the prize money equally between the men and the women?
alchemilla wrote:
The disparity is glaring in this case. Is the men’s race 17x more popular, 17x more exciting? No.
I would welcome Flanders Classics telling us about what they are doing to build the women’s sport (it may well prompt other organisers to emulate them) but this massive gulf in prize money speaks louder than words like “encouraging”, “developing” and “growing”.
But Jose Been’s point is the more important matter – growing the coverage and profile of the women’s sport is more important than the prize money for one event. When more riders and teams can be paid fairly, when events can be run equitably, then we will have something approaching fairness.
In the meantime let’s make a fuss about it.
alchemilla wrote:
It is not the race that decides the minimum level of prize money. It is the UCI who set that, they paid the minimum across both races I believe. So let’s not attack the race, they are trying their best in difficult times to put on a race.
Let’s turn our focus on the UCI with their crappy regulations and slow movement on equality and the teams who fail to pay their riders.
the Healthy Ageing tour are
the Healthy Ageing tour are literally crowdfunding 9,500 euros to sponsor live tv coverage of the womens race, theyve raised 3,210 euros so far from just 116 people.
That 3210 euros is 3 times the amount OHN gave as prize money in their womens race, and thats money people have just donated as an online whip round, you cannot tell me Flanders Classic couldnt have done more to find sponsors to pay better prize money for the womens race, especially after theyve supposed to have signed this exclusive broadcasting deal, which is why the UK rights for live coverage for OHN werent confirmed till the last minute.
waiting for the UCI to do anything we’ll still be arguing about sock length & hands on bars position in a decade, race organisers can take it upon themselves to be agents of change, they dont have to wait to be told or its written in the UCI regs.
No, it certainly is
No, it certainly is defendable… as already pointed out, the organiser paid the minimum prize fund allowed by the UCI for both the men’s and women’s resepective events category.
Now, a question should be asked as to why the events are at different UCI levels, seeing as they are effectively the same event, which I believe the organiser has addressed perfectly adequately.
His focus was to first bring coverage, that will enable the event to generate revenues that will allow further enhancement of the event to World Tour level, which in turn will lead to parity in prize money.
Personally, the organiser sounds as though they have the right intentions and a plan in place… seems a shame to blindly attack one of the better guys.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
No, it’s not defensible in ethical terms.
“I have deliberately paid one group of people significantly less on the grounds of nothing more than they are female. The rules allow me to do this”
This is not a defence. It’s predictable. The organiser is not the only one to blame. But it’s not a defence.
I’d rather teams actually
I’d rather teams actually paid their riders before demanding races pay a certain level of prize money. OHN was nearly lost a couple of years ago because of the UCI demanding increased fees. It’s one of the reasons I believe OHN didn’t apply for WWT. You’ll note that it’s “campaign” groups coming out and attack races, not the riders or teams who raced it.
It’s not the fault of the race, they only have so much money to put in. It’s the UCI demanding too much in fees and not having regulations that say if you put on a mens WT you have to put on a womens WT alongside.
I’m just fed up with Internationalles trying to make a song and dance when they are actually a part of a bigger problem. They’ve been taking sponsorship and support away from smaller women’s teams for a couple of years, doing their sportives to “raise awareness” while excluding riders because they wanted to race the TdF route at a reasonable pace, rather than just pottle round. They wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the ego of one person, who was turned down to ride with the original Donnons des Elles au Velo who rode the whole course of the TdF.
What they fail to factor in when attacking OHN as a race. The UCI requires minimum prize purses for levels of racing. The mens race was World Tour vs a 1.pro for the womens race. I understand OHN paid the minimum on both because they simply didn’t have funds to pay any more. They’ve admitted that themselves since the costs for putting on a race in UCI fees went up. Rather than cancelling events, they put them on, there was also live coverage. So things are improving, I don’t think on the back of the pandemic is the right time to call out races who are barely surviving. Their attention is being focussed in the wrong direction and it’s the reason they aren’t gaining support from many sectors.
If your problem is with prizes, lets scrap that all together and just race for your wages because that is your job at the end of the day….As I started with though, until teams step up with proper sponsorship and pay riders a fair wage, the whole sport is screwed. I admire what Trek has done with equal minimum pay. Then you get some teams who only are UCI registered because someones got a wealthy family. No-one is being paid and it’s run like a club team….
This topic is a tough one.
This topic is a tough one. Typically the laides don’t ride as far, the racing isn’t as good and less people watch it. May I bring your attention to when the Australia Women’s national team were beat 7-0 to the Newcastle Jets, Boys Under-15 side. It’s not the fault of the organiser, or the males. If the females aren’t comparable to the males, then why should they get paid the same? Paying them more won’t make more people watch them.
If there’s a market for it, and people tune in, then the prize money can increase then we can all be happy. If there isn’t, then there won’t be. It’s not anyone’s fault, no one is doing anything wrong. Men are typically bigger and stronger than women, which makes for more compelling entertainment in cycling.
I have always said the same,
I have always said the same, look at Wimbledon for example. The men and women get the same prize money. I have no issue with that at all, but the women should play for the best of five sets, just like the men. If we have to have parity, it must be across the board, the same with the Tour and the Womens Tour. Pay them the same, but the women must race for three weeks.
Nonsense. Womens racing can
Nonsense. Womens racing can actually be far more entertaining, CX racing… men tend to just xxxx off into the distance, womens racing tends to be closer.
Even if womens racing cannot attrct the same prize money, to give just a 1/16th is an insult, women train just as hard as the men and take the same risks.
Having watched my daughter receive £2 from the organiser of a BC youth series, after he forgot any sort of prize or trophy, whilst the male winner got a big piece of silverware, i have a different POV.
Cycling, like most sport is run by men and they want to keep it that way.
you i’m afraid are part of the problem
Was your daughter the first
Was your daughter the first girl accross the line of a mixed event, or the winner of a distinct category? I find it hard to beleive that BC intentionally didn’t have a trophy.
Ladies racing is far more entertaining you say? I’m afraid that the masses don’t agree with you. Oh, I forgot, we’re all the problem. Its always someone else’s fault isn’t it.
I dont find that hard to
I dont find that hard to believe at all,not in CX especially, even national trophy level, though they usually blame the individual race organisers for mucking it up, but Ive certainly been at BC sanctioned events where the mens categories got trophies for winning, and the womens races didnt get a single one.
I thought one of the junior categories one season, for the girl riders they didnt even award a jersey for winning or leading the standings, they expected them to turn up every race, pay race fees,race their hearts out, and just had to stand on a stage looking embarrased for being there, and then they wonder why theres this big drop off in participation as those girls grow up.
Awavey wrote:
During a recent committee discussion on equal prize money (it’s been brewing in the TT community of late) one member mentioned how his daughter said that she has zero chance of winning any of the club trophies. It certainly gave her the impression that the things of value within the club are only available to men.
alexuk wrote:
Jasjas said the organiser forgot, even though the category was there. Having participated in amateur sports events on a national level I can assure you this is hardly beyond teh realm of credibility. Also I can certainly see how that would be seen as insulting, no matter the lack of intention.
Neither did Jasjas say that we’re all the problem, rather that you were part of the problem. In context, the meaning I took was that your way of thinking is the problem, especially when repeated in the minds of decision-makers. I would concur with this conclusion.
Lastly your closing sentence seemed to imply that you believed that Jasjas or their daughter as at fault, and not the organiser. A very strange conclusion to draw.
It’s fine. I spoke to all the
It’s fine. I spoke to all the men in the world, we apologise for everything, it’s all our fault, we’re all to blame.
This message was brought to you by the sweeping generalisation committee and the letters F and U.
Blackiegray wrote:
Not sure what Jasjas said to elicit such a response….
jasjas wrote:
Inexcusable, I don’t think anyone is paying large sums to watch the kids race or to televise the event.
the womens England cricket
the womens England cricket team scored more runs and lost only 3 wickets in 37.4 overs, than the mens cricket team did in 2 whole innings In fact Tammy Beaumont scored more runs in one game than the whole England mens team put together in their second innings for the 3rd test against India, which shows just how rubbish those kinds of comparisons can be made to look if you pick the right data.
its a total distraction to say that the women should only be paid the same as the men if they have some physical parity, they are still pro athletes, still train the same, still dedicate their lives the same. You cannot justify paying the winner of the womens pro race a mere 5.5% of the prize fund.
Lets say you pay the womens winner 10000 Euros instead, its a bit over half the mens prize still, but maintains the physically different aspect of the races if you insist on it, but it would still be nearly 1000% better than what they get now.
You can justify it as the
You can justify it as the prize fund is not related to training or dedication or physicality.
It’s related to profit.
When women’s sport is as profitable as men’s sport the prize funds will be equal.
Rich_cb wrote:
That would suggest that it isn’t profitable due to some intrinsic quality of the women’s sport.
It’s more to do with how the events are publicised and marketed. This is down to the organisers. Forcing equal pay would force the organisers to spend as much effort in marketing the women’s sport as the men’s. It would also make it more realistic for female athletes to concentrate on their sport which in turn will serve to develop the women’s professional field.
The difference in pay is, whichever way you cut it, sex-biased, and therefore clearly not an acceptable principle. Crying “but profit” as soon as inequality is challenged is lazy, and further enables sexism and misogyny.
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t see that as any kind of solution. I suggest that you’re looking at it the wrong way round.
You fix the prize fund (or at the very least reduce the glaring gap) and attend to the other issues when possible. The discrepancy shouldn’t rely on profit margin any more than all the other costs of the event. It’s a signal that the organisers value the women’s race, even if others do not. Lead by example, use a ‘build it and they will come’ type principle.
Do the barrier team and the motorcycle outriders only get paid if the event makes €xx profit? No.
Does the printer charge less for signage and literate for the women’s race? No.
Do the medics give their time and resources free or a token fee to attend for the women’s race while charging for the men? No.
Do the organising team sacrifice any pay or perks for organising and promoting the women’s event because it’s not as profitable. Ha ha, as if!!
If the total costs of the
If the total costs of the race exceed the money that the race generates the race will simply cease to exist.
If, as you suggest, we immediately increased all women’s race prize funds to be equal to those of the the men then many races would immediately cease operating.
This would cause far more damage to women’s cycling than any prize fund discrepancy.
The cyclists are in a rather unique position compared to the other employees of the race, they are not paid by the race directly but receive a prize if they do well. Most will receive no pay whatsoever directly from the race organiser. Your comparisons with race medics etc is therefore not valid.
Rich_cb wrote:
Why not redistribute the pot for parity between women and men? Surely the men will understand…
Of course, with greater visibility of the women’s game more revenue will be generated with the increased interest. – the running costs will be similar as there already is a women’s section to the event.
Captain Badger wrote:
The whole problem there is UCI, OHN paid out the minimum amount relevant to the level of event classification as per UCI regulations. To split the pot, it could not be a world tour event and therefore lose out on sponsorship values that comes with a world tour. Thus actually having less money to cover the races.
Gkam84 wrote:
Unless the pot was increased to ensure that it met the rules
Bullshit. Women should get
Bullshit. Women should get the same prize money as men.
I imagine that if OHN was
I imagine that if OHN was forced to have an equally sized prize pot for the Women’s race as for the Men’s then there would be no further women’s editions of the race.
Not sure how that would help grow Women’s cycling.
Now if a prominent road cycling website starting giving coverage to women’s racing instead of just covering rows about women’s prize money that might actually help…
Women are 50% of the
Women are 50% of the population therefore 50% of the potential audience. There should be positive encouragement for womens racing and making the prize money 5.5% of the male prize money is not the way to do it. The big prize is greater participation in cycling both recreationally and professionally.
If you increase the prize
If you increase the prize fund that money has to come from somewhere.
Do you think an equal prize fund is the most effective way to increase the participation rate?
I would argue that coverage is far more important and that costs money to establish, money that wouldn’t be available if the prize funds were equal.
radarbug wrote:
Is your argument that the main reason women watch sport less than men is that they are not seeing women competing?
I’m not sure that holds up.
If their tweets are to be
If their tweets are to be believed you imagine wrongly.
They claim to be investing 6 figure sums in womens cycling, if you believe that (huge pinch of salt imo) the disaparity in prize money is a drop in the ocean to rectify.
Plus do you really believe that the prize pot is one of the biggest costs of a flagship race like this – such that it would make or break it? They are treating the women like dirt because they are full of unconscious biases.
There’s a big difference
There’s a big difference between investment and profit.
A 6 figure sum is €100,000. The men’s winners prize alone would be nearly a 5th of their entire investment in that case.
Once you include the other prizes (€40,000 total) you’re at 40% of your six figure sum just on prizes. That’s before you pay any other costs.
It’s hardly ‘a drop in the ocean’.
Money talks, there’s a reason that the prize fund for men’s cycling is fairly dismal compared to other elite sport, cycling races are very difficult to stage profitably. The frequency of races going bust is testament to this.
MTB & CX World Cups give the
MTB & CX World Cups give the women the same coverage as the men, and the same pay. Time the road side of the sport caught up.
Saying that, the 1st prize for the men 16,000 Euros – in a so called elite pro sport….absolutely laughable.
I personally don’tv think
I personally don’t think that the women should get the same prize money as the men in this instance, their race is shorter, they don’t pull in as many viewers/fans etc etc.
That said the disparity between the two is appalling, 930 euros ? thats a bloody joke.
half_wheel79 wrote:
Funny that, in the Netherlands alone, Dutch TV saw approx 330k viewers for the womens race and only 170k for the mens…
Was it on terestrial tv and
Was it on terestrial tv and the mens on subscription ? Mens racing pulls in the advertising big bucks too.
I’m not saying its right, its just the current state of play. We’re a long way away from getting this right.
No, it was on the same
No, it was on the same platform and I think you are wrong about mens racing pulling in the money.
dont be ridiculous ! mens
dont be ridiculous ! mens racing pulls in more viewers world wide and more advertising revenue and tv rights. Which is why they can afford to pay them more.
It doesn’t make it right, but its just the way it is. If womens racing was given more exposure it should attract more sponsorship.
If male winners such as
If male winners such as Bettiol feel so strongly about it then is there anything stopping them from giving half of their prize money to the women’s winner? Any contractual obligations not to or similar?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
I don’t think the women need charity. What they need is recognition
Captain Badger wrote:
— Captain BadgerMany of them are unpaid and only get expenses or on a token salary so I’m sure they’d be glad of some money! bob Varney of Drops has always been clear that he has been pushing and pushing to secure enough backing to pay riders but still haven’t got to that point yet.
Doesn’t prize money usually go to the team and divided up? And even if Bettiol subbed a female rider’s salary that doesn’t address the problems with funding the women’s sport.
Have you not noticed that an increasing number of events are doing exactly that?
You don’t grow Women’s cycling by offering kiddy prizes and a pat on the head alongside a men’s event offering 17 times the amount. Do you actually want to fix the problem or just keep things as they are?
Women should be paid the same as men, whether they are doctors, plumbers, athletes or BBC News presenters.
I want to solve the problem,
I want to solve the problem, you don’t solve the problem by bankrupting all the Women’s races.
If Women’s races are struggling now, with unequal prize money (indicating quite clearly that there is not a surplus of money in these races) how do you think they’ll fare with equal prize money?
Many more will be completely unviable.
That would be a disaster for Women’s cycling.
Rich_cb wrote:
And there is the problem. The women’s race is not a separate sideshow to the men’s. It is one event with 2 sections. When equal investment and attention is applied to both we can argue there is parity, but for that the organisers have to organise it as such.
Organisers have had over a century and a half to sort their acts out. They are still dragging their feet.
Captain Badger wrote:
I don’t know much about cycling as a competitive sport, but I guess it is a commercial enterprise undertaken by private companies? So they invest money in the hope of making a viable return on investment, taking into account all the revenues and costs. Or they go bust.
And I suppose that the investment in a women’s event does not produce as much return as the same investment in a men’s event. I’m not sure what the solution is? I think we are a long way yet from women’s sport generating as much money as men’s sport, and that has consequences for the economics of the game.
Sriracha wrote:
The idea that paying women equally will result in the removal of the women’s game is nonsense.
A private company should not be running an event that explicitly excludes women. Therefore the event has a men’s and a women’s category. Equal prize pots to be allocated to each, and equal timings and access to the media.
All events are subject to the same rules, so this is not an issue for competition. In fact, those companies that properly promote the women’s section will have a competitive edge over those that don’t, as their event will be more interesting, and accessible to a wider audience.
But this requires a forceful change in policy. As long as “the market” is seen as the driver, we will never reach parity – the money will go where it is seen to be safe, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rich_cb wrote:
The spectre of bankrupting all women’s races is quite a leap from improving a drastic imbalance in one race.
Both races are run by the same profitable organisation so your argument is not relevant. As I said, I’m sure that all the workers and contractors on the event will be paid so why not include the participants?
Prize money is far from being the solution but that doesn’t mean the glaring disparity shouldn’t be addressed (except for those that think a men’s race is 17 times better than the women’s version).
Whether or not the overall
Whether or not the overall organisation is profitable is irrelevant. If Tesco was profitable overall it wouldn’t stop it closing loss making stores. You can’t expect a parent company to subsidise a loss making race indefinitely.
In order for women’s racing to be viable in the long term the actual women’s races need to be profitable in their own regard.
If you demand that prize money is equal with that of the men’s events you will ensure that many, perhaps all, women’s races are no longer profitable and therefore no longer viable in the long term.
Professional sport is essentially entertainment.
In the entertainment industry you’re paid largely based on your popularity, if a lot of people listen to your songs or watch your films you’ll get paid more.
In sports it’s the same, if you have a lot of fans you’ll be paid more, if you have fewer fans you’ll be paid less.
In order for women’s cycling to attract more fans you need a viable racing calendar.
Making huge swathes of the racing calendar financially unviable will not help to achieve this.
Simon E wrote:
Sorry yes badly worded
I meant to say that recompense should not be at the generosity of their male colleagues (charity) but should be set in stone by the organisers (recognition)
I back read it, and no, it didn’t come across quite as I intended
But do you not think a winner
But do you not think a winner splitting his prize money might be the gesture which makes somebody sit up & realise how dumb the current situation is and then look to remedy it?
Better would be if all the
Better would be if all the teams came together before the event and agreed to split the prizes equally whoever won – that would demonstrate a unity and solidarity behind the principle of equal prizes, rather than it being an individual act of good conscience.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
It may have a political effect, like a “taking the knee” moment I guess. Be interesting to find out. Next time I win I’ll try it out.
Perhaps if events paid women
Perhaps if events paid women similarly to the men more women would choose it as a career. Yes it’ll take time to see the effect, but saying that women shouldn’t be paid the same for x reasons is just outdated. The women raced the OHN as it was presented to them, they likely wouldn’t have complained at riding a longer race, not that it would have made it more entertaining by tacking on more kms, often the shorter nature of women’s racing makes it more entertaining, a fact that some of the grand tours have exploited with some shorter more exciting stages, the obsession with super endurance extra long races might make for great stories about the past etc, but often doesn’t provide the most exciting racing.
I honestly dont understand
I honestly dont understand why many races even have a cash prize for the winner. Why is the winning and trophy (and results in you racing CV) not the main takeaway for pro cycling?
This even more so when it comes to handing out £25 (or often less) at local CX and TT events, won by the same handful of people. How does that make an even better? these people will still race if there was no prize, and the money could be put back into the event, running free entry for kids races or something.
Just a random thought –
Just a random thought – instead of raising the women’s prize money to match the men’s, reduce the men’s prize money & invest the difference in supporting & promoting women’s racing. The winners of big races are generally paid fairly well anyway – not like top flight footballers or golfers obviously but better than, say, hockey players – so it’s not the *level* of the prize per se, so much as the fact of winning that matters. I kind of doubt Chris Froome wants that 5th TdF title simply coz he needs the money…
A crowdfunding campaign for
A crowdfunding campaign for the Strade Bianche equal prize money for the women’s peloton has raised 5,000 euros in just a couple of days,its not the solution ultimately, but I think it sends a strong message to race organisers to stop hiding behind UCI regulations awarding the minimum prizes they can, the money is out there to fix this if they can be bothered to go look for it.
Update, the Strade Bianche equal prize money for the women’s peloton has raised 12,445 euros now.
Update 3, now upto 20,205 Euros…