Would it be sexist to have more male than female prize money at road races?

Yes it would be sexist

Yes It Would Be wrote:

Yes it would be sexist

No more sexist than the women-only races that exist. Some of these races offer prize money that is only available to women.

Not necessarily.

The males and females are not competing against each, they are in two different categories. If the paid participants for males is 60%, which means funding is coming from 60% males and the number of competitors males need to beat to win is greater, I see no reason why males should not get 60% of the prize money.

However, if 60% of the paid participants are females, the females are competing against a greater number to win and contributing more to the funding they should get 60% of the prize money..

Prize money at very small local money comes from the race. But at a lot decent size races prize money and appearance fees come from race sponsors.

Does anyone know if the majors spend equal money in appearance fees on the men and women. I would think it could vary by race but since appearance fees aren't made public I would guess the answer is no

How it Really Works wrote:

Prize money at very small local money comes from the race. But at a lot decent size races prize money and appearance fees come from race sponsors.

no

Don't know about very small races, but for average sized races if all that money comes from outside sponsors than the participation fees are way too high.

When I look are the number of participants and the fees they pay, that looks like an amount that shouldn't be dismissed so readily as not significant.

Yeah, if it was a larger race with a sponsor, no way would the sponsor go for uneven prize money. They would be crucified in the press and the whole reason for sponsorship -- brand recognition -- would be defeated. If the sponsor was something consumers buy, then you would be offending your own customers. Very bad idea.

Gender Blind wrote:

I think gender battles are gimmicky and aren't a solution.

Not sure about the rest of the stuff you wrote, but yes to that part. You see that stuff at Falmouth? A countdown clock? 5:38 because the women had a 10:00 head start and the average difference in time between men and women is 4:28???? Who bloody fan can keep track of that stuff? I mean, if we're going to handicap races why don't we let the pros to it - bring Las Vegas and lets have some real prop bets....

Yes It Would Be wrote:

Yes it would be sexist

Thank you for your intelligent post and use of arguments to back up your opinion.

I agree that putting more prize money in one gender would be perceived as sexist. But is it really? If the guys are just flat out better shouldn't it be ok to put more money out for them. No one cares that professional mens athletes make way more than female counterparts in almost every other sport.

RDs do it all the time. They tweak the time bonus money structure.

Is it sexist that the WNBA players make less than the NBA players?

If they really don't want to be sexist, they should start everyone at the same time and get rid of separate male and female categories.

I doubt appearance fees are equal. If you go to the track I would guess it Bolt would draw a larger appearance fee than all the female athletes combined. 90% of people would see this and not care because they would realize Bolt is what the people want to see.

But I bet a lot of those same people would lose their $hit if the prize money at the same meet was different between the male and female races.

According to Third Wave Feminism ALL men are sexist, so why bother trying anymore.

Should there be prize money at a half marathon with 762 participants and an $85 early bird registration fee and $100 race day fee??

a Dvck wrote:

If they really don't want to be sexist, they should start everyone at the same time and get rid of separate male and female categories.

Yes, this.

I've long speculated about putting on a foot race--call it the Human Race--with prize money to the first, second, third, etc., humans to (legally) cross the finish line.

No sex, age, nationality, or weight categories; and it's a foot race, so no division for various vehicles. If you finish first (without doping, cutting the course, whatever), you get the prize.

It would be interesting to have a set amount for 1st for each gender, but base 2nd, 3rd, and whatever else on the time back from the winner. Since the men's fields tend to be more competitive, 2nd and 3rd men will be closer in time to 1st than on the women's side.

Not sure exactly how to do it...maybe have a starting amount for each place and subtract from it for each second that passes between that place and the winner.

Could bite you in the ass, though, if a bunch of slow women show up and they are close to each other...

A man and a woman run the same slow time, but only the woman gets money.

Having 2 separate prize lists is sexist

If women happened to be faster than men at running, no way would this happed

Doclove wrote:

Having 2 separate prize lists is sexist

You don't really believe that.