AB-467 prize compensation: gender equity
 

California has a proposal that could have a large affect on the current way cycling is.
If this passes, I'd be curious if this leads to creative definitions of "identical" or eliminates gender categories.

"prize compensation be identical between the gendered categories at each participant level."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200AB467

I don't see what the problem is or what your concern is? There is already a growing movement to make prize money comparable between men and women's events.

If the law does pass and if identical means same purse (and it does to some), it will lead to elimination of less profitable categories, or have all genders race together.

It depends a bit how identical is defined. If identical means the same cut of profits goes to the winners, that is fair, but very hard to measure. For local races, where no one watches, a cut of the entry fee works. Just that there is a push (UCSD Boulevard RR example below) to make purses the same.

For pro races like the Tour of California there is a men's and women's race. The races are very different in length and revenue draw. I have no idea how they would make that prize identical. There would be lawsuits. It is much easier for the promoter to just cancel the women's race. Any gender can race the open races now (if they are good enough) and any winner gets the winners prize.

The author of the bill has a comment that she received 1/3 the prize of the man (not mentioned what type, but surfing was used as an example) who won his event. I know some about surfing culture and women surfers do draw fans, and sponsors. What proportion to men - don't know.

How to make these identical - only the lawyers will win.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...1c9cf056fe.png

The times, the are a'changin. (in a good way!)

Older generations will struggle with the concepts, newer generations will wonder why it took so long. Same old story.

I am watching the ToC. Day 1, there was an interview with the CEO of the ToC and she said that men and women will receive equal prize money. She was probed further on the matter, and as I remember, and I could be mistaken, Amgen is supportive / requires equal prize money for men and women.

Opinion: To say it another way, what sponsor in their right mind would sponsor an event, the size and scope of the Amgen ToC, and pay women less prize money? What kind of marketing/ promotion would that be when many of Amgen/s customers and prescribers are women?

First let me say I 100% support paying women equally to men in every shape and form.

For the Pros:
But I'm really curious how this is going to shake out. If a women's race is 1/3 the length of the men's, do they get 1/3 the purse? Is that equal?
Surely the most ideal situation is to just make the women race as long as the men, but is that feasible/possible with current sponsorship gaps? Making the women stretch their budgets three times as far will definitely reduce salaries and/or cause teams to fold altogether.

For the locals:
When prizes are calculated mostly by participant entry fees, how is equal calculated.
If a mens 1/2/3 race has 50 entrants, and the women's 1/2/3 has 13, how do they determine whether the payout is equal? What if the women's entry fee was cheaper?

I fear the short term ramifications of this, if passed, will actually mean less women's racing and ultimately damage the sport for women beyond the current situation.

There is a business end here I am trying to figure out. In for profit entertainment it is demographics and spending habits of the eyeballs that count. And the per view fee you can charge.


With ToC offering the same purse is a PR calculation, but different than a normal business one. To do a business around entertainment it is buying likelihood of the fans for sponsor product combined with what you can get in fees from spectators. That NBCSports annual fee.


Future I think - one/several of:

-AB cleaned up to define "identical"

-AB not be passed

-AB not be enforced at the local level (it has a $500 prize limit), although it applies

-Eliminate prize money

-Eliminate gender differentiation of categories.


I have long favored not splitting categories for anything but ability. So college type, age, gender etc. all create weird situations for promoters.

This is all a PR calculation.

The AB rules down to a $500 prize. 90% of local races.
The AB does not mention field size, ability or age. So...

Barrio Logan - Why shouldn't Girls U12 - all handful of them have the same purse as the men's P12?

Distance? Can't use that. Ability? Nope.

Girls U12 should get paid the same as Boys U12, Women P12 should get paid the same as Men P12.

How "same" is calculated is up for debate though, I guess. Same percentage? What if Men P12 is 50 riders, pays 10 deep, $1000 purse, but Women only have 12, do they have identical $1000 purse, 10-deep payout or pay out the top 3? The winner gets WAY more than the men in that situation...

Same % of entry fees on local races because it is a % of revenue works - for local races. For "entertainment" races (people pay to watch, sponsors pay) are very complex as there are sponsors and viewers and they want to know what is in it for them so % of revenue is more difficult.


Entertainment / sports are market driven, that will not change. Some sports pay more, as do some jobs.


Comply with the (proposed) law: All those that race in the same race get paid exactly the same, for the same result, regardless of gender or age.


That eliminates women's fields.

Doge, why must you reduce this to absurdism.

Comparing a Women U12 to a Men's P/1/2 is just silly. The law would require equal pay for comparable events, so U12women and U12men would be the same.

Cycling is already moving in this direction at the amateur level in many places. I'd bet the bigger issue is in things like women's professional tennis.

As for the issue on field size, a simple disclaimer that the promoter reserves the right to cut purse by 50% for any fields under 10 covers that.

But really, the smarter move is to just remove the purse for amateur racing.

Our local regulations say that the prize value must be equal, but the depth of prizing can vary given the number of entrants, so the total purses do not have to match. The winner of W1/2 gets the same as M1/2 but the women's field will probably only pay two deep whereas the men's field will pay 8 deep.

Absurd for illustration. How are you going to define identical when many things are different.

Having lived through Title IX (and read all of it and NCAA rules) with a kid in each gender, son being the least relative talent (I know you know), it has a drastic affect on sports offerings for genders.
For NCAA, no football for girls, now rowing for boys in NCAA and variance in money everywhere. I am not complaining, I used it. Non NCAA there is still "a market" for cycling in college. But it parallels what I see in the general "real world". That being, the money is going to follow interest, or what produces money.

If this passes, this will eliminate women's racing - or prizes as you state. OR what happened at Boulevard - they cancel the whole RR as having a men's race without a women's one was unacceptable to UCSD.

We can compare in a couple years if this passes.

Will it mean WNBA gets paid the same as NBA? That would be great.

In the weeknight crits I do here in the Dallas area, the women's fields are very small. Like just a handful of women. The promoters have done things to spice things up, like "women race free" nights. And one of the crits is having a special series in honor of a beloved female promoter who passed.

While there are lots of women rec cyclists from what I can tell, at each step up the chain, there are less women. I'm not sure that lack of prize money has anything to do with it. But who knows.

It is very easy to see 'how this would work' unless you purposefully want to make it seem more complicated than it is.

Yep. With races struggling due to costs and shutting down left and right, I'd be in favor of eliminating all (cash) prizes for everything but the elite Men's and Women's races.

As currently drafted, the bill would not apply to road races unless they were held in a state park or beach. And I am unaware of any in California that are.

The first and last sections, yes. Seems Section 3 and opinions below see cycling as affected. The PRC covers mountains too.

SEC. 3.

Section 6504 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 6504....(1) “Event” means a competition event that uses lands owned by the state that are under the jurisdiction of the commission.(2) “Prize compensation” includes prize or purse money, other prizes, goods, or other compensation.(b) The commission, for an event that awards prize compensation to competitors in gendered categories, shall require as a condition of a lease that, for any participant level that receives prize compensation, the prize compensation for each gendered category be identical at each participant level. The commission shall not approve a lease for an event that does not comply with this condition.

Some articles on it."If AB 467 passes, it is not clear where the initial impact will be. Boerner Horvath estimated there are thousands of events that could be affected across the state, but did not provide specific examples."https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...214-story.html

"Though inspired by efforts by surfers, Boerner Horvath’s hope is that equity extends beyond the World Surf League to all levels of surf contests as well as other sports leveraging California’s public lands – from cycling to marathons."

" If passed into law, the bill would require any competitive sporting event with different male and female divisions hoping to run on state-managed lands to offer equal prize money for men and women. Or else, permit and lease requests will be denied by state agencies."https://www.theinertia.com/news/cali...uality-equity/

Boerner Horvath is not the author, and her hope is not indicia of the legal effect of the bill. Just because a road runs through the mountains does not make it state-managed land.

I guess one could argue state roads qualify as state-managed lands.

One could. One would be wrong.

Laguna Seca used today by ToC and Sea Otter. Fort Ord National Monument comes up under http://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps...4a74a8c173e343
Big Sur may be federal.

I do not know who manages what, and it seems you do. The theme of this bill is pay everyone identically. Arguing that that only applies in certain geographical areas is something I'm sure they will correct - if it passes.
Events that pay money and use public lands (roads) I would expect to be affected.

Should the promoter have that tool removed by law? It (was) well known if you wanted a big attendance, put up a big purse. Told to me by the guy that did Dana Point GP. I agree Fiesta Island does not need a prize anymore than Red Trolley does. If you want a PRT RR - Redlands, Dana Point GP - you put up the prize. That should be a promoter choice.

We have officially/unofficially adopted an equal price purse policy and have for years. Like above - you can pay 20 deep in the mens and 3 deep in the women's if you want but the pay is equal for the same spots.

People who say things like, "The race has to pay for itself - if there are only x people racing then they shouldn't"- full stop. That's not how races work. anyone who thinks it is should be removed from race promotion immediately and their races boycotted.

Women make up over 50% of the population. They are currently around 15% of licensed racers. That only happens if they have been actively discouraged from racing. This is a very old sexist industry. It's beyond time for it to change.

Bottom line is that no one is watching anyway. Racing is simply a way for people to indulge their own egos. As such if anyone actually spends 5 seconds thinking it shouldn't be made unilaterally equal across genders immediately then they are only thinking so out of sexist spite.

I brought this up on a USA Cycling Masters post somewhere - It's not even remotely representative of our population. The last thing we need is more of them or to listen to their thoughts about what should be done to fix it. I include myself in that.