# Mammoth Pro Purse Money Men vs Women



## GGR Girl Wendy (Mar 19, 2014)

Ladies! We have a voice and now it's time to use it!

Do YOU think this is fair for the PRO purse?

Men:
1st Place = $700.00 
2nd Place = $500.00
3rd Place = $200.00
4th Place = $100.00
5th Place = $50.00 
Women:
1st Place = $150.00
2nd Place = $100.00
3rd Place = $80.00
4th Place = $60.00
5th Place = $50.00

OF COURSE YOU DON'T! Please flood their in boxes which your emails telling them we are not in the 60's anymore and prize money must be equal! Let them know what you think! WHAT message is this telling our daughters and future generation?? WHAT on earth is Mammoth doing here? They are telling women they are not equal to men. It's that simple. THIS needs to stop right now.

Lindsay Barksdale
Executive Director, MMCF
[email protected]

Bill Cockroft
Senior Vice President
[email protected]

Caroline Casey
Event Production Manager
[email protected]


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Is there a social media link to this that is easily distributed?


----------



## GGR Girl Wendy (Mar 19, 2014)

There is a large thread going on my FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/wendy.engelberg.1

Also, here is the contact page: Contact


----------



## GGR Girl Wendy (Mar 19, 2014)

update....we flooded their in boxes at Mammoth and they listened to the women's community. The purse money is now even. Way to go Mammoth!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Good going!!


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

Great effort!


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

This is ABSOLUTE BS, nothing to do with gender, everything to do with the amount of riders entered in the particular fields. Cannot believe that Mamoth caved to such BS. If you're interested, she posted another thread in the Cali/SoCal forum and not one person agreed with her, but I know that "You all" will say that's because it's all men 
http://forums.mtbr.com/california-socal/mammoth-pro-purse-money-men-vs-women-931924.html


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Well, there are many ways to look at the world, and the last time I checked, there were about the same number of men and women on the planet and able to compete for these prizes, so it makes sense to me that the purses should be equal.

Additionally, $150 would not even begin to cover the expenses competitors from afar, like our VT competitor who became the overall Pro Gravity Tour Champion in the DH after Mammoth.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

mtbxplorer said:


> Well, there are many ways to look at the world, and the last time I checked, there were about the same number of men and women on the planet and able to compete for these prizes, so it makes sense to me that the purses should be equal.
> 
> Additionally, $150 would not even begin to cover the expenses competitors from afar, like our VT competitor who became the overall Pro Gravity Tour Champion in the DH after Mammoth.


By that logic, we should have equal numbers of competitors. Why is there a 1:5 female to male ratio? It seems to me that 5 times as many men have sacrificed their time and money to enter the race. Why does the prize list not reflect that?


----------



## Gemini2k05 (Apr 19, 2005)

mtbxplorer said:


> Well, there are many ways to look at the world, and the last time I checked, there were about the same number of men and women on the planet and able to compete for these prizes, so it makes sense to me that the purses should be equal.


Just...wow. That is some serious mental/logical gymnastics.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I thought the point was to get more women racing. Maybe by equalizing the prizes, participation will step up. I'm glad Mammoth stepped up; maybe other venues will follow suit. Frankly, their first offering should be an embarrassment. 


Sent from my iPad - Stupid autocorrect!


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

I get where the guys are coming from, 150 v 700 is pretty insulting. My opinion on this matter has been that the top 3 racers should be paided out equally, but the men's pay out should go deeper.


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

There is definitely an issue with field sizes for women and equal pay... I can see the argument. There was a big hill climb race in CO this summer, and they offered a large, equal women's pro purse, but there were barely a handful that registered so the promoters made the choice to cut the purse. The high money wasn't drawing out more racers, and there were not enough entered to pay out equally. 

I like what kinsler suggested... maybe not as deep, but equal for the podium spots.


----------



## LadyDi (Apr 17, 2005)

A benefactor kicked in some money to boost the womens' purse. It was Mammoth's decision to accept it. I understand the feelings on both sides, but in this sport there may NEVER be an equal number of women competitors.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

As hard as we all try to bring women onto the sport and into racing, it is still a men's sport. For the last 15 years people in the NorCal area have tried to get women involved but they never seem to break the 20% barrier but stay neared 10-15%. 

Whether that proportion should dictate purses is a worthy discussion. That it effects the portion, in spite of any theories on priming the pump, cannot be denied.


----------



## Oaken (Apr 18, 2004)

formica said:


> I thought the point was to get more women racing. Maybe by equalizing the prizes, participation will step up. I'm glad Mammoth stepped up; maybe other venues will follow suit. Frankly, their first offering should be an embarrassment.
> 
> Sent from my iPad - Stupid autocorrect!


Maybe isn't good enough. Some empirical evidence would be appropriate. 
To be frank, MTBing is a niche sport, and there are few of us that actually race, let alone DH. 
Like it or not, there aren't a lot of women who are interested in getting dirty and scratched up. That probably isn't going to change a whole lot.
Equal payouts when there are significantly less participants is just as unfair to the guys.
Maybe the number of payouts should be based on the number of participants?
That way the top prizes would be equal, and the odds of winning something would be as well.


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

Gemini2k05 said:


> Just...wow. That is some serious mental/logical gymnastics.


Thanks for the negative rep because you apparently disagree with me. Professional troll says it all.


----------



## Gemini2k05 (Apr 19, 2005)

kinsler said:


> Thanks for the negative rep because you apparently disagree with me. Professional troll says it all.


FINE. Here's your reply. Not that it matters. No logical argument or presentation of facts is going to change anyone's mind. 95% of the people who read this post will just scoff and think I'm a misogynist a$$hole (to be fair, I am an a$$hole).



kinsler said:


> My opinion on this matter has been that the top 3 racers should be paided out equally, but the men's pay out should go deeper.


Why should even the top 3 be paid equally? That sounds rather arbitraty and implies to me that their achievement is equal. Marco, Kevin, and Cole had to take an order of magnitude more risk (I'm talking physical, life threatening risk) to get on the podium. Not to mention train wayyyyyyyy harder (for some it's their job), endure way more injuries, and deal with a much lower win rate for the races they show up to.

Meanwhile Becky (the pro women's winner) can put in much less effort into training, cruise down the trail at a leisurely pace, and be guaranteed at least some payout (only 5 finished and the payout was 10 deep). That's no dig on the women's riding abilities. Those times are respectable, and they are certainly good riders. But to make the leap and say they deserve equal pay? They would've DFL-ed in men's pro class (and Cat1 almost). An equal payout is patronizing to the women, and insulting to the level of effort, sacrifice, and risk then men's class requires.

The argument that women need a bigger payout to incentivize them to show up is a joke. For this race the expected value of the prize for the *median* male pro racer is...close to zero (let's be honest). The expected value for the median female pro racer is ~$300. And yet the men still show up at a 10x higher rate.

I'm all for women and girls getting into riding. I've put plenty of effort and money into that cause.

But then again who cares about any of this, it's DH racing. Anyone who takes DH racing seriously needs to try a real competitive sport like motocross or basketball.


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

Gemini2k05 said:


> FINE. Here's your reply. Not that it matters. No logical argument or presentation of facts is going to change anyone's mind. 95% of the people who read this post will just scoff and think I'm a misogynist a$$hole (to be fair, I am an a$$hole).


Despite this assumption, I can understand both sides of the argument on this. I primarily race endurance events with the occasional xc event if I'm really looking to punish myself. I race the same course, same miles and put in the same effort as the guys. Equal work....

I've never raced downhill and I've only ridden a few times at a downhill course as part of training/racing for an enduro. I can understand your argument about the degree of risk involved, although I think it's a jump to say women don't train as hard as men or make sacrifices to train/race.

The question is how can you quantify this risk/race day effort? Based on the initial pay scale for the first place finisher (700 vs 150), the men race 5x as hard as the women. You may think equal payout is patronizing to women, but I personally find the initial payout insulting. To me, this says the race promoters don't value female participation in their event.

But the fact of the matter is not everybody who races pro/open is really a professional- men and women included. Most, myself included, have real jobs and this bike racing thing is a hobby. I don't need payout as an incentive to race, but with a pay out discrepancy on the order of 5 fold, it would make me think about doing another race or just riding for fun that weekend.



Gemini2k05 said:


> But then again who cares about any of this, it's DH racing.


Couldn't agree more... I'd rather spend most weekends ripping around trails with my boyfriend who thinks racing is dumb.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

kinsler said:


> The question is how can you quantify this risk/race day effort? Based on the initial pay scale for the first place finisher (700 vs 150), the men race 5x as hard as the women. You may think equal payout is patronizing to women, but I personally find the initial payout insulting. To me, this says the race promoters don't value female participation in their event.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is not everybody who races pro/open is really a professional- men and women included. Most, myself included, have real jobs and this bike racing thing is a hobby. I don't need payout as an incentive to race, but with a pay out discrepancy on the order of 5 fold, it would make me think about doing another race or just riding for fun that weekend.


For me this describes the situation pretty succinctly.


----------



## gabrielle (Jan 2, 2005)

kinsler said:


> Despite this assumption, I can understand both sides of the argument on this. I primarily race endurance events with the occasional xc event if I'm really looking to punish myself. I race the same course, same miles and put in the same effort as the guys. Equal work....
> 
> I've never raced downhill and I've only ridden a few times at a downhill course as part of training/racing for an enduro. I can understand your argument about the degree of risk involved, although I think it's a jump to say women don't train as hard as men or make sacrifices to train/race.
> 
> ...


Yes, I am quoting the whole thing just to say +1.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

Gemini2k05 said:


> Why should even the top 3 be paid equally? That sounds rather arbitraty and implies to me that their achievement is equal. Marco, Kevin, and Cole had to take an order of magnitude more risk (I'm talking physical, life threatening risk) to get on the podium. Not to mention train wayyyyyyyy harder (for some it's their job), endure way more injuries, and deal with a much lower win rate for the races they show up to.
> 
> Meanwhile Becky (the pro women's winner) can put in much less effort into training, cruise down the trail at a leisurely pace, and be guaranteed at least some payout (only 5 finished and the payout was 10 deep). That's no dig on the women's riding abilities. Those times are respectable, and they are certainly good riders. But to make the leap and say they deserve equal pay? They would've DFL-ed in men's pro class (and Cat1 almost). An equal payout is patronizing to the women, and insulting to the level of effort, sacrifice, and risk then men's class requires.


Are you ufcking kidding me? You're saying that a pro woman doesn't train and race as hard as a pro man? That's total bullsh*t. I have a pro license, and there's no difference in my dedication and effort in training, racing, or sacrifice. Women may be genetically limited in speed compared to men, but they sure as hell aren't limited in effort or competitiveness at the elite level. 
I can see the argument to not make a women's payout as deep as the men's, because yes, there are not as many that show up. They're still elite athletes who are equally as dedicated as the men, and you claiming that any lady on a bike can show up without any training, tool around, and still walk away a winner, is 100% wrong.


----------



## gabrielle (Jan 2, 2005)

Apparently I have to spread some reputation around before giving it to Andrea138 again, so I'll just say a "heck yes" here. (What I *actually* said won't get past the filters.)


----------



## GGR Girl Wendy (Mar 19, 2014)

Just an FYI: This was not just about the Enduro being equal prize money, the DH was, but not one other category was. Mammoth made all women's pro purses the same to equal the mens in ALL categories


----------



## jm2e (Mar 26, 2012)

I think it's important to clarify a few things about racing and sports in general.
Unlike high school and college, nobody deserves a damn thing here. There is no such thing as fair when it comes to who gets more money.
Organizations will sponsor riders and they will sponsor events and they will sponsor teams. It's entirely up to the organization to decide what to do with their support, unless they are limited by governmental laws or the regulations of the event location or the overseeing body of sport.
If a non-for-profit organization decides they want equal payout to everyone, they can just go right ahead and do it.
If a for-profit organization decides to sponsor something, they're probably doing it because it gives them a return on their investment. Redbull sponsors "extreme" sports and such because it strengthens their brand and makes them more money. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a charity hoping to promote cycling out of good will and donations.
If a Cycling brand wants to sponsor racers, it's because of the hope that the racers will bring the spotlight on their brand. Women like Rachel Atherton and Tracy Hannah are great examples of this and are also great examples of women who are real pros, putting in the effort and bringing results that payoff for their sponsors. 
That said, the general cycling public notices Rachel and Tracy, but once you get down a couple notches on the rankings the public isn't really noticing. And so, sponsors don't see the return on their investment. It sucks for the women struggling to get 7th or 10th or even 5th place in world cup races because they're probably not seeing the same kind of support that similarly placing men would get. But that has a lot to do with the fact that the fans of cycling know the men who are getting 10th place, 15th place and even 20th place. Those guys show up to world cup races, and they sell bikes, they sell clothes, they sell sports drinks.
Until the general public starts responding to the achievements of women athletes, sponsors have no real reason to support them unless they see it as good for their image in a more general sense. Sure, it's good to have "some" women on the Trek or Specialized racing teams because it would be marketing suicide to sponsor nobody. But it's probably wasted money to them to have a bunch of women. From a purely financial standpoint.

In summary: Stop the debate about whether men or women are better athletes, or if one tries harder than the other, or if one "deserves" more than the other. The reality is that the general public will drive this until the end of time.


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

Interesting and related article from pinkbike:

Endless Biking: Where Have All the Ladies Gone? - Pinkbike


----------



## jm2e (Mar 26, 2012)

Manon addresses it well.
Interview: Manon Carpenter - 2014 DH World Champion - Pinkbike


----------



## mtbikergirl17 (Feb 27, 2011)

Andrea138 said:


> Are you ufcking kidding me? You're saying that a pro woman doesn't train and race as hard as a pro man? That's total bullsh*t. I have a pro license, and there's no difference in my dedication and effort in training, racing, or sacrifice. Women may be genetically limited in speed compared to men, but they sure as hell aren't limited in effort or competitiveness at the elite level.
> I can see the argument to not make a women's payout as deep as the men's, because yes, there are not as many that show up. They're still elite athletes who are equally as dedicated as the men, and you claiming that any lady on a bike can show up without any training, tool around, and still walk away a winner, is 100% wrong.


THANK YOU for this reply. I train my ass off to do well at races and just because only a handful of other women show up doesn't mean that I'm not working just as hard as the competitors at the front of the men's field.

I completely agree that the payouts shouldn't go as deep if there are significantly less women showing up. But when I stand on top of the podium and get less of a payout for a win than the men it feels like a slap in the face.


----------



## gabrielle (Jan 2, 2005)

Great article, kinsler - loved the accompanying photos.

This quote sums up the problem for me (related to the whole "What will encourage more women to ride" thread, too):

_Perhaps more at the heart of the issue however was this comment, 'the lack of women racing is a perpetuating feedback loop.' Less women racing means less support and competition for the women who are showing up, which eventually leads to even less women in attendance._

g.


----------



## deanna (Jan 15, 2004)

Sonya Looney brought up this exact issue on her FB page, and a male poster's replies was pretty funny (and right-on): "_It's not acceptable - for any reason! And to say fewer women show up to events warrants a significantly lower monetary award is absurd. This would mean that if you are a black man who wins then your payout will be dramatically less than the women's- because not very many black men participate in cycling events - at least by the metrics._"


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

There is not a black class, or a white class, or a Latino class, or an Asian class. Men and women. Terrible analogy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> There is not a black class, or a white class, or a Latino class, or an Asian class. Men and women. Terrible analogy.


Agree 100%


----------

