Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.
November 18, 2017
November 17, 2017
November 16, 2017
November 15, 2017
  • echidna_sg

    I don’t disagree with the article, but i’m also pretty sure not too many male pros are retiring comfortably. Someone like cadel is an absolute freak athlete, total outlier physically… but even his earning potential is average in comparison to a top 50 afl player and a mere pittance compared to a top 50 golfer or tennis player, never mind team sports like baseball, football (soccer). The nba took the lead in using profits from their league to establish the wnba, but it struggles too. The only women’s sports I can think of with equality of pay are tennis and golf… and in both cases there are arguments of inequality in terms of effort required.

    • Dave

      It simply boils down to the fact that cycling, once a second-rate sport, is now a third-rate sport. If the money’s not coming in, the pay will not be high. Simple fact.

    • I’m not sure about the situation internationally (e.g. football, rugby), but I’ve read articles in the U.S. about high-level pro athletes–professional American football players, usually–who retire broke. Situation is even worse for collegiate athletes who don’t quite make it to the pro level, but sacrificed most of their time and energy (when do they have time to actually get the education that is, arguably, their pay?) to entertain Americans in NCAA football or basketball. Not to mention the prospects after a serious injury.

      • Dave

        College athletes are not full-time athletes, they do get in their education. Not only do they have to be legit students, but they also have to maintain respectable grades and progress through their course at more or less the normal rate, or they can’t take the field.

        Attempts to try and sneak a non-student into a team can see the college banned for years.

      • Nancy

        Some of these football players are not very smart, came from very poor area and spend all their money or their family/friends do it for them or their manager stole from them. And during college or high school, they don’t go to their class since the priority is football. The big football school had class for them and they make sure they pass their test, so thry could continue to play football.

        When you need to spend 200 000$ to attend a decent ranked college, it is a bit annoying that some dude had scolarship because he is a good in football. And the college football, the players are student and not pro athletes; and can’t get sponsorship.

  • Rowena

    Return on investment is important, sport is a business and it should be treated a such. To implement a minimum wage for women’s cycling in the next couple of years that amount would need to be extremely low and not necessarily productive to the growth of the sport. However I think women’s cycling has a lot of support and I don’t think its going to falter again anytime soon, its certainly on the up which can only mean that a minimum wage can and will be possible in the future.

    • Jessi Braverman

      The UCI has proposed plans to establish a minimum wage for top-tier teams beginning in 2018. You can read what they had to say about why this is not a current priority here: https://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/03/womens-worldtour-two-tiered-system-amongst-changes-proposed-by-uci-womens-working-group/

      • Dave

        Just three years to come up with an answer for where the money will come from? My heart hopes that women’s cycling can become profitable for enough of the peleton to make it viable by that point, but my head says it’s probably going to go the same way as every other significant reform the UCI proposes.

        Presumably there will still be the option for UCI-registered women’s teams to stay in the current situation of operating under the same rules as men’s Continental teams (i.e. not professionalised) instead of upgrading to the new professionalised division of women’s racing where the rules would mirror those of Pro Continental teams or WorldTeams.

  • jules

    this is a bit of a diversion but a while ago I joined in on a little property deal, thinking “i’ve got a bit of cash saved up, let’s see what I can do.” i was naive and needless to say, didn’t make money. when I think of pro cyclists who are not the elite few, I sometimes compare them to myself as a property investor. there are people with romantic ideals, tenacity, integrity, motivation. then there are people who just don’t pay others money owed. it’s a remarkably effective tactic in getting rich.

  • Riggah

    Let’s be honest, sports fans want to see the fastest, strongest, most enduring, the highest & longest jumpers and throwers, hardest hitters, the most skillful and the biggest risk-takers. So we’re talking about men’s sport for which fans will pay big, BIG money to watch. Claiming that they are as dedicated and hard working as the men does not entitle women to equal prize money or even a living wage any more than I’m entitled to be paid a living wage to be a gas lamplighter. Professional sport is a business that pays on results, public demand and marketability. If it’s about the money then get a better paying job and race as amateurs. That’s what most of us have to do.

    • Jessi Braverman

      Have you ever watched a women’s race? We don’t blame you if not – women’s racing is hard to watch because of lack of television coverage. This is part of the problem and something the UCI is working to address as soon as next year. If/when you do watch, you’ll note that the speed of the two races are not much different and that women’s racing is often more exciting because the whole “send a few riders up the road, carefully chase back before the final, action begins only on the final climb/build-up to sprint” formula that we often see in men’s race doesn’t exist in women’s racing for a variety of reasons. Women’s racing is full of speed, skill, stiff competition and animation.

      Furthermore – these women have been very clear that it’s not about the money. If it was, none of them would be racing. The point they make is that they race for their love of the sport. Our point is that they shouldn’t have to.

      • Riggah

        If the women’s speed is “not much different” then why have separate women’s racing at all? Do away with gender segregation and make races open to men and women, then the women can compete for the same prize money as the men. It’s the only true ‘equality’.

        • Rodrigo Diaz

          The WTA would differ with your assessment…

          • Dave

            Exactly, the WTA know that the only way they can get equal prizemoney is by abstracting a cross-subsidy from the men’s side of the sport.

            Try naming the biggest women’s tennis event that stands on its own without being attached to a men’s event. Any luck?

            Ever wondered why the evening sessions at the Australian Open have a women’s match in prime time followed by a men’s match late at night with none going the other way around? It’s all for TV ratings, they know well that they won’t make money if the men play in prime time and everyone switches off at the end, so they put Screamovic v Grunterova on first so people at least have it on while they are waiting for Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal to come on later. This tactic backfired this year thanks to the success of the Big Bash League in prime time, so it will need a different approach next year.

            • Rodrigo Diaz

              The WTA pays an equal purse to men and women, you have no evidence of cross-subsidy. And when Federer was too good for everyone else (mid 2000’s), the women’s game had a better draw. Across a major, many women’s games have better draws than their mens. People will watch “screamovic V Grunterova) over even top 10 men like Raonic. And heck, I’m Canadian.

              There are only a handful of gender-segregated tennis tournaments (which is precisely the point). But the “Premier”, 5 events. At least one of them is separated men/women in Canada – one in Toronto, one in Montreal. They switch every year. Equal payout. All the majors are shared.

              Maybe the next one would be the end-of-year tournaments? (Tour Finals) Those are segregated. The latest Men’s (Barclay’s) paid US$6 million. The Women’s paid US$6.5 million. Of course, you could argue that the W’s have to be paid more to play in Singapore, but that’s a different argument.

              I hope you can get over your presumption. The marketing for the different genders has been different, but effecting in bringing better payout to the Women’s game. And making it profitable.

              • Dave

                You’re talking out your arse.

                The Women’s Tennis Association certainly does not pay equal prize purses to male and female tennis players lol.

                • Rodrigo Diaz

                  Because you say so? For the same time you took to write an insult, you could have done your own search and learn something.


                  BTN Paribas Singapore (Women) US$7 million. (I think that includes the often unclaimed “undefeated” bonus)
                  Barclays ATP World Tour Finals US$6.

                  Do a search if you don’t believe these figures. And of course, these varies with tournaments. But many have equal pay. And at the very least, reasonably close.

        • Dave

          The speed might look “not much different” to the casual channel surfer who’s only ever seen a bike race through the lens of a TV camera, but to make that claim to a fan of the sport is insulting.

          The difference in speed was readily noticeable when I manned a crossing point on a corner for both races at the People’s Choice Classic in Adelaide this year, despite the race counting as a full stage of the Santos Women’s Tour but just an exhibition crit for the men – an exhibition crit so unimportant that many of the teams went out for training rides focused towards the TDU proper on the morning of the crit!

          The difference in cornering speed was most identifiable by the fact that the service vehicles had no trouble keeping up with the women, but in the men’s race they cooked their tyres trying to keep up through the twisty bit of what was formerly the Australian Grand Prix circuit.

          • Carley McKay

            Hi Dave, I was one of the female cyclist in the People’s Choice Race that you are referring to. Just to state the facts, the average speed of the women’s race was actually 44 km/h and the average speed of the men’s race was 48 km/hr. Women only have testosterone levels that are about 5-10% of that of males. In addition the majority of women in that race would be working 3 to 5 days a week to support their own cycling ambitions and paying their own expenses to be there. Where as all the men in the men’s race would be receiving a healthy salary and full support from their team. Considering this, I think we are doing pretty well actually.

            Riggah your comments really disappoint me. I chose to be an athlete, but I didn’t get to choose my gender. However it would be nice to be able to have the same opportunities to pursue my aspirations as my male counterparts. That’s what equality is.

      • Mr. Anon

        Hmm. Do we really have to bust men’s racing to promote women’s racing? While your remark re men is fairly temperate, I’ve seen some pretty contemptuous comments about men’s racing coming from women, riders and writers, over the last few years, as if this is somehow going to convince people that it’s worthwhile to follow women’s cycling. Not interested in a gender war.

        • Dave

          Agree completely, trash talking men’s racing should probably wait until women’s racing is able to stand on its own two feet without needing to hitch a ride on the public profile of men’s racing or suck from the teat of financial cross-subsidies.

          Increasing the difficulty of elite women’s races to the point they are equal with men’s U23 races might be a good point to start.

        • Jessi Braverman

          My intention wasn’t to “bust men’s racing” by pointing out that women’s racing is often more exciting because it’s less predictable. I work as digital content manager for ORICA-GreenEDGE/ORICA-AIS for three years before moving into this role, so I watched my fair share of both races (men’s mostly on live stream, women’s more often on site because live stream options are lacking). There are certainly things I like better about watching a men’s race just as there are things I like better about watching a women’s race – and this is one of them. I love the often unpredictable nature of women’s racing. With men’s racing, I love the application of team tactics that doesn’t always exist in the same way in women’s races – and not much beats watching the thing of beauty that is a completely dialed lead-out train

          • JSPA

            I watch men’s cycling a lot–and it’s not busting on men’s cycling to say that the tactics in women’s cycling are commonly quite different. Men’s cycling often involves an early break slowly getting reeled in (or not) and then a few attacks (if it’s Cancellara a couple of years ago, maybe as far out as 50K, but usually not much that’s going to stick until the 20K mark) or if the break is caught early, people jumping to form a second break. And then there’s all the subtleties of who has to work (or wants to work, or agrees to work, or doesn’t have to work, based on team tactics). I like all of it. Men’s cycling has got some of the Zen qualities of baseball, along with the sheer beauty of guys pounding along at what’s really quite an incredible pace, despite the seeming calm. However, women’s racing is quite often filled with mad attacks from a few km in, and you can get 50K or more of nonstop, “you don’t have to be an aficionado to understand the tactics” excitement. The percentage of race minutes that are hooting, edge of your seat, crazy great fun actually are higher for the women’s races. In contrast, women’s and men’s cross is pretty similar, ditto women and men’s track cycling–just as far as the basic fan experience. I don’t think it’s necessarily a gender thing, so much as a shorter race day / longer race day dynamic, or maybe a short season / long season dynamic, or a full season / sparse season dynamic. But for whatever reason, the women are really primed to go for it, like mad. And they do.

      • isil

        Lol, even junior men crush the women’s races when it comes to avg. speed.

        If women’s cycling reached the same level as men’s cycling (by that i mean number of pro athletes, discrepancy of power between the top 200 riders), i’d bet the racing style would be basically the same as the men’s.
        Put some of the top male riders in a 120km race together with some continental teams, only 6 riders per team, and you’d get a race just like the average women’s race today.

        • JSPA

          Well, heck, men’s racing isn’t as fast as it could be on non-regulation bikes. Or, for that matter, on motorcycles. Or on rockets. Some of the women could ride for mid-pack results with the men. Most couldn’t, unless they doped to a male level of testosterone (which isn’t healthy, nor legal).

          Having a female vs male body (including a female vs male level of testosterone with which to build muscle) is a minor but real gear constraint. Thus the different class of racing. If you’re a neutered male, and you choose not to supplement your T beyond female-equivalent levels, I’m all for you racing with the gals, FWIW.

          I agree with you that it’s quite possible that if you had a pool of male riders who rode a sparse calendar, and you put them in races structured like the women’s races, that you’d get men’s races that look more like women’s races. Some of the smaller men’s races are really, really exciting—there have been some great Tro-Bro-Leon moments, for sure (and that’s one of the smaller races that occasionally has a decent video feed). I’m guessing that your local cat 3 race may be even more exciting. But that’s hardly an argument against having a well-paid top level for each gender, to encourage more participants in the lowre ranks, for each gender.

    • CD

      So what you are saying boys are strong, like King Kong, girls are weak, chuck them in the creek?

    • jules

      you can’t generalise about what sports fans want to see. watching the fastest is certainly a drawcard, but not the only one. the fact is, (elite) women’s racing does feature the fastest women. now you can say “but the men are a bit faster”. but then a lot of people will say “cycling is just slow, i prefer to watch motorcycle racing”. there’s no right or wrong – it’s personal taste. for me, I enjoy watching domestic bike racing too.

      but you’re right on one thing – inevitably fans will choose what they are interested in. it’s just not fair or accurate to write women’s racing off on that basis.

  • Lulu

    I think that its pretty disgusting that an athlete like Mariana Voss, who is arguably the best cyclist around, is paid so poorly. Hopefully Giant and Rabobank pay her substantially for the amount of coverage she generates and people she brings to their brands. Its a bit of a no-brainer for me – re the amount of potential revenue that can be generated by increasing the amount of stuff sold to women by these athletes. If pay isn’t going to be equivalent, to blokes, then at least winnings should be. Any events that see both the men and the women participate in (like TDU, Strade Bianche etc) should have an equal purse as a minimum, I believe that other sports have tackled this issue in the past, so cycling would not be the first. There are massive programs both in Aus and the UK (probably others to), that are trying to increase women’s participation in the sport. But if there is no journey for juniors they will choose other sports or none at all. These athletes should demand a salary and at the very least support from their National bodies – who SHOULD provide them with equivalent support that they provide the men (rather than having womens’ international program cut by cycling Australia – why not give equal money to both the men and women?)

    Kinda sucks being a chick!

    • Riggah

      Kinda sucks being a male tennis player! They have to play the best of five sets while the women only have to play the best of three for the same prize money. Furthermore, the women are less fatigued and have more time to recover so potentially win even more prize money in doubles competitions. So much for ‘equality’!

      • Riggs, the good cop.

        On average, women don’t get equal pay anywhere in the world in any context. That’s kinda the point of the article, Riggah.
        Do try and keep up.

        • Riggah

          “Anywhere in the world in any context”?
          That is nonsense.

    • Dave

      Where will the money come from?

      Using the money generated by men’s cycling to cross-subsidise women’s cycling (e.g. equal prizemoney, packaged TV deals, attaching women’s races to high-profile events like the Tour de France) is all well and good, except for the problem that the money doesn’t just appear from nowhere, it is taken away from being reinvested in the men’s side of the sport. If the men’s prize purses and promotional budgets are not keeping up with the rate of growth seen in other sports due to all the money being used to cross-subsidise women’s races, the overall profile of the sport will slip backwards because the profile of cycling as a sport is mostly dependent on the major men’s events like the Tour and Giro.

      Some level of cross-subsidy to support women’s sport is certainly necessary, but it needs to be balanced so as to not have a net effect of preventing investment in the segments of the sport which contribute the most to the sport’s overall profile.

      This is not sexism, it’s business. If you own a business and you want it to grow, you reinvest the majority of your profits in the areas that will generate the greatest return on that investment and use the smallest possible piece of the pie to cross-subsidise an unprofitable division. Do it well, and the total profits will grow to the point that the small piece of the pie becomes greater than the ‘equal’ piece available from the original smaller pie.

      • JSPA

        Well, it’s not like we’ve never seen jobs convert from “no minimum wage” to “minimum wage” before. Especially in fields where people have been willing to work for peanuts (out of love for the subject, or the perceived benefit to society) poverty wage jobs seem to turn into living wage jobs with relative parity. Basically, if talented people are willing to work for pennies, the going wage will be pennies–no matter how much demand there is for a (set) number of jobs to be filled. You can’t say “market forces,” because the demand isn’t linear. If people want to see women’s racing at all–and clearly, some people do–you need a certain minimum number of teams and riders (and races). However, you don’t actually then need an ever-increasing number of teams and riders. If women are a growth market in cycling–and they are…if women have disposable income that could go into better cycling gear–and they do…if women’s cycling happens to be a blast to watch–and it is…then there’s a darn good chance that demanding minimum salaries will lead to better purses, better coverage, and better support.

      • Lulu

        It would be nice if Cycling Australia at least treated men and women equally, which would at least give the ladies a chance to appear on the world stage, rather then second class citizens. And maybe don’t give vacuum cleaners as prizes!

  • Ritch

    It is probably sacrilege, but should cycling even be professional? The enjoyment is far more in the doing than the watching. Even enthusiasts confess to recording the TDF stages and skip through the long periods where not much is happening, so what hope for the rest of the public? Coverage helps and increasing womens’ races tv time will appeal at least to fans of cycling and help make the business case for sponsors, but it is such a niche market that its prospects of ever being a major sport are nil in my opinion. So a small number of people will be able to make a living for a few years by actually racing, but not many and really not for very long. That isn’t to say talented athletes shouldn’t want to race, there’s the personal achievement of being a champion in your sport and the adulation that goes along with it that appeals… it must do, because so many do it despite the lack of money.

    If it turns out that some group has being making out like bandits while the riders are kept poor, then I’m all for sharing the loot among the talent, but if there isn’t any to share…

  • WHAT part of the 2012 Olympic Road Race TV Viewing Stats , did ” Sponsors ” FAIL to UNDERSTAND ? When MORE Viewers are watching the women’s Race , than the Men’s , there must be a GOOD REASON ! Ok , you can say that there was more people on the side of the road on Saturday ! MILLIONS ?? Who was counting , BUT , not Millions extra !

    When will ” Sponsors ” understand that it is the WOMEN that BUY the Household Products ? Certainly Men earn more money , although that ” Gap ” will close in the coming years !

    It has been reported that MORE Bikes are bought for Women , although not as many of the ” High End Models ” , BUT , if Ladies are treating themselves to Sportscars , then that will spill into the choices of Race Bike also .

    ” Sponsors ” that are NOT seeking to curry favour with the Female Market , are so shortsighted that they deserve the partners of Women cyclists , to spend their ” Disposable Income ” with ONLY the ” Sponsors ” that are supporting the Woman’s Race Circuit !

    Needed is a ” Ralph Nader ” type of ACTION PLAN !

    • IT issue

      Is THERE something WRONG with your CAP LOCK key?

  • sps12321

    I see it as a chicken/egg type of problem. If you get money then the quality of riding/riders goes up and races are more exciting, media gets interested and more money comes into the sport and goes to the riders. But until you get that money you wont get the media. Alternative is to start at media and get people interested and bring money in. Either you need to get people interested

  • Andy

    This goes deeper, right back to individuals. There’s not enough clan culture amongst the fans and individual riders to support the pay rates that other sports like AFL and golf attract. All the “rich” sports have revenue streams that come from all participants and fans. Club or affiliation fees, entrance fees, merchandising etc. Cycling has low formal participation therefore sponsorship dollars are hard to quantify/justify. Even Cycling Australia have struggled financially over the last few years, yet the sports never been more popular.

  • Chris Garrison

    I’m always entertained when people chuck out the argument that if you want TRUE equality, then why have separate races for men and women? This ignores very basic physiology. Anyone with any sense knows that while it’s perfectly possible for women to be stronger/faster/fitter than men, there will ever only be a percentage of women who can achieve that over men because: anatomy. So saying that women should have to fight it out amongst men is essentially putting a tax on something that is entirely outside of the control of either gender, and does a disservice to the amount of effort that’s required for women to reach the top levels of sport (just as much as men, btw).

    There will never be anatomical equality as long as women are the ones who give birth. The physiology required to do this means that there will always be an imbalance between the physical strength that each gender is capable of achieving.

    I should be used to it by now, but I just can’t wrap my head around any man who says to women that they don’t deserve equality because of whatever X factor (or XX, as the case may be) fits their argument. Those men are essentially saying to women that they are ‘less’. I would challenge any of them to say that to any women in their lives, and report back their findings.

    • Winky

      The physiology aspect is interesting. We could segment cycling based on physiological aptitude without reference to gender. I personally could never beat elite men, but it is because of physiological, psychological and other factors outside my control that are independent of my gender. There are of course separate races for me (masters, age group, Cat 4/5 etc etc.). I don’t claim that my Cat 4/5 races should get equal prizemoney to the the elite men (actually, I do, I don’t think there should ever be prizemoney for anyone in any sport – it should all be zero – but that’s another matter). I could claim that our races are every bit as exciting and entertaining to watch; I could argue that the shorter distances are irrelevant; that we are equally deserving – that it’s not our fault that we are less “gifted”. What’s different in my strawman argument to the “pay women equally” argument?

      The question I guess I ask is whether gender should be the prime segregating factor or should we choose something else? What is “special” about gender that those disadvantaged by it (in terms of cycling speed) should be compensated/subsidised?

  • Tim

    I’ve come in to this late and read through the comments, many of which I find appalling. We are responding to an article about women being paid for their effort at a major event at an elite level. To suggest that they should not be paid when there is a chance to be is quite extraordinary and very limited in its line of argument.
    Most negative responses come from people who love certain sports (lets take football) but would only watch it if it is their team playing. So even if it is at the highest level it will have less relevance if their team is not involved. So remove that attitude from the argument and there is little else to motivate your negative response. The top few teams are the only one’s that make a profit anyway- should we let the loss making teams of the AFL go and play in the amatuers? They are all given cash from the organising body to make ends meet.
    As a financial sponsor of cycling teams and events in Australia of both genders I can say without reservation that I get much more response and personal satisfaction from being involved in womens events. They genuinely appreciate the contribution and involvement, whereas the blokes couldn’t care less, let alone support your brand and product.
    So have some respect for all cyclists and elite sportspeople.

    • Nath

      Well said Tim. The vitriol and misogyny evident in some posts provide some understanding as to why women’s cycling struggles to move forward. If a group who ostensibly love cycling are so negative it doesn’t bode well.
      I would love to see a clear, linear pro calendar that has mens and womens races on the same day/s with the same promoters, the same prizes and the same exposure. Sure, it would mean Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico can’t both be included, but it would grow pro cycling and create an option for long term investment by sponsors and fans alike. You could have a second tier as well with different races and create a proper league structure like football. Investors like predictability, and cycling has none.

  • Winky

    If cycling paid zero wages and prizemoney, there would still be races, losers and winners. That’s waht matters. Money comes in because it attracts our attention as consumers and we’re either prepared to pay to watch, or at least buy sponsors’ products. If top athletes can be entertaining enough to attract our money, good for them. But there is no entitlement to make a living riding bikes (or doing anything else for that matter). Work is paid because it is valuable. That’s all it comes down to. Distortion of that market is sometimes necessary for the greater good, but there is little “higher purpose” in pro sports. It’s mostly just a cesspool of cheating and corruption, actually.

    There was an article on here a while back where a cyclist was complaining that they weren’t famous enough in the coffee shop, and that another pro cyclist didn’t know their name. Boo hoo.

  • Derek Maher

    Good to read this article again.
    Okay the UCI are getting more involved in promoting the ladies with the media which is a good thing.
    Perhaps they and the national federations might think of changing their attitude towards the race venue,s and allow the ladies more miles per stage.Plus at least give them 3 grand tours lasting 14 days to start with.With longer stages allowing 150k average and more days more towns might get interested in backing the womens events and the media could well be drawn into the mix.Then the ladies might see some cash reward for their sport.
    The women are never going to get full backing if apart from one Tour in Italy UCI exception they are relegated to minor 3 and 5 day short stage UCI rules and one day events.
    The womens world tour is going to cost a lot for teams to compete around the world for the sake of mostly one day events.3 hours racing and 48 hours or more travelling and shipping teams equipment.
    Its not the womens fault their races are this way just they way they have been viewed by the male dominated sport officials as delicate and not real athletes and have to be protected from themselves.Well women are not delicate and endurance events suit them due to their metabolism so they are well able to handle extra stages and miles and its time the UCI and National Federations copped on.

  • anebt

    Womens cycling needs to emulate what worked with women’s tennis during the 60s-70s. 1) With the Grand Slam tournaments in Europe, the USA, and Austrailia, as well as great players from these countries (Evert, Smith-Court, Navratilova), tennis was an intercontinental sport enjoyed around the world.
    2) There were great personalities and rivalries during the decades of growth, especially the Evert/Navratilova and Graf/Navratilova eras, and 3) the patently unfair system of seeding. Seeding guranteed the viewing public that they would see the usual rivalties in the finals. I want to add a preference:
    4): Women in tennis always looked like women because they dressed like women. They were strong, fast, and powerful, but they dressed in the designer dresses or shirt with skirts and have done so to this day. By contrast, women’s cycling is not popular outside of Europe and thus has no international audience; 2) have cyclists grouped in unrecognizable teams with no individuality (and thus no unforgettable personalities are allowed to emerge), and 3) cannot develop rivalries dues to its team atmosphere, and 4) has women wearing men’s wear and looking like men.

  • Stella Lie

    I got to say that this has something to do the level of participation of women in cycling in general. You see there are more males cycling around the block for transport than female. Reason being would be lacking infrastructure as women generally risk averse, street harassment, and lack of role models. If we can’t get our girls cycle for fun and build images that women can be cyclist too, how can we get them to be interested in the pro races?


Pin It on Pinterest

November 18, 2017
November 17, 2017
November 16, 2017
November 15, 2017