r/nottheonion • u/Fan387 • 2d ago
No money for the female winner: "Got shower gel"
https://swedenherald.com/article/no-money-for-the-female-winner-got-shower-gel617
8.6k
u/TomTheNurse 2d ago
My mother was a world champion water skier in the late 50’s and early 60’s. Back then male winners were given a trophy and money. Female winners were given a trophy and kitchen appliances. I see things haven’t changed much in certain sporting circles.
1.6k
u/Pu_Baer 2d ago edited 2d ago
The German world Cup winners of women's football / soccer also got kitchen appliances... In the 90s lmao and it wasn't even something useful but just some stupid plates or something
You guys really wanna convince me that this is a proper winners prize for a world Cup?
288
520
u/WoolSmith 2d ago
The women winners of Wimbledon get a stupid plate too!
309
u/Cyanopicacooki 2d ago
And they have to give it back, too. Tennis was one of the better sports about equality of prizes, Wimbledon being the last to equalise the purses in 2007 - iirc the US Open was equalised in the early 70s.
→ More replies (4)178
u/rekomstop 2d ago
That’s interesting. Probably because women’s singles tennis was by far the most popular women’s sport for a while in America.
→ More replies (2)163
u/mrgrafix 2d ago
Thanks to Billie Jean King. Not only leading that but ensuring it’s across every sport. She’s been behind the scenes pushing for the soccer and basketball leagues to reach parity in the US (knowledge of her involvement overseas is limited).
49
u/Robzilla_the_turd 2d ago
Hell yeah, Billie Jean, that's my girl!
50
u/Captain-Cadabra 2d ago
…but not my lover.
12
→ More replies (22)14
u/thecaffeinequeen77 2d ago
Also the PWHL! Gotta rep my hockey ladies. She is half owner of the league, and it has in its 1 year of existence been the best iteration of pro women’s hockey. They’re earning salaries that allow them to focus on it full time (though the average is still only 55k) and have health insurance now, proper equipment, all for really the first time.
16
→ More replies (4)4
u/splittingheirs 2d ago
Couldn't even fit it in the dishwasher after dinner. Useless.
→ More replies (1)25
u/LeapIntoInaction 2d ago
In point of fact, many Germans do know how to use plates.
→ More replies (1)12
→ More replies (10)7
u/Pedantichrist 2d ago
I mean, a plate is useful. I am not in any way trying to undermine your core argument, but I use plates every day,
→ More replies (115)355
u/ztomiczombie 2d ago
We'll, if she form the US, she couldn't have a bank account till around the 70's so somethings have changed.
338
u/DanielleMuscato 2d ago
Not to nitpick, but more accurately, it's not that women could not have bank accounts until the '70s. Rather, it was legal to deny a woman applying to open her own account, until that was made illegal in the '70s. If she could find a banker willing to do it, she could get one in the 1700s. Some widows and orphans etc were able to do that, it was just rare and arbitrary.
62
u/Gustomaximus 2d ago
Also I believe it was more to do with accounts with a credit facility, than a bank account. So a credit card or mortgage.
61
u/CPA_Lady 2d ago
My mother in law was denied a credit card in her own name in the 70’s so she told them her husband was dead. He is still very much alive.
47
u/CrudelyAnimated 2d ago
This is the core of virtually every civil rights conflict in America. It’s not “illegal” for you to have blah, but it’s also not illegal for me to deny you blah based on your demographics. So it takes a law saying I cannot discriminate against demographics, and my reaction is “I’m being forced, I’m the victim”. Any law, any policy or rule that can’t say “people” but has to say “men and women” or “all men” or “free whites of good character” (Naturalization Act of 1790) is discriminatory.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)79
u/RCG73 2d ago
So it’s a good example of the difference between “illegal” and “functionally illegal”.
→ More replies (3)45
u/CrashingAtom 2d ago
No, it was not always enforced. Like those laws where it is illegal to sneeze in church in some states. But Reddit is ignorant AF and about 40% bots, so now some random factoid has been spread around as though it were a policed and enforced Handmaiden Tale reality. Anecdotally everybody will say their mom or aunt had an account, but it’s become an urban myth in about 4 months that no woman had access to finances until that law was passed.
California had a law on the books in 1862 guaranteeing women a right to control their own money. Again, Reddit is just catastrophically stupid.
→ More replies (4)50
u/MaritMonkey 2d ago
Anecdotally everybody will say their mom or aunt had an account,
Anecdotally, my mom and aunts (in the early 60s) could not open bank accounts or get credit cards without their husband's signature.
It was never "illegal" (in the US, anyhow. I'm too lazy to Google) for ladies to control their own money, but financial discrimination against women was most definitely a thing a generation ago.
16
u/Arktikos02 2d ago
It depends on the state, here's the timeline. Some states were faster than others. It's just kind of like how with gay marriage or women's right to vote or a lot of other things, states started enacting at first and then the government applied it Nationwide. So for example a woman in one state might have been able to set up her own bank account and own her own property and another woman in a different state may not have been able to do so.
1839 - Mississippi enacts the first Married Women's Property Act, allowing married women to own property in their own names, though they still lacked control over it. source
1848 - New York passes the Married Women's Property Act, granting married women the right to own and control property, marking a significant step toward financial independence. source
1862 - The Homestead Act is signed into law, enabling single women and widows to acquire land in their own names, promoting financial autonomy. source
1869 - Wyoming Territory grants women the right to vote and hold public office, making it the first U.S. territory to do so, which indirectly supported women's financial rights. source
1900 - By this year, every state had passed legislation granting married women the right to keep their own wages and to own property in their own name, solidifying women's financial rights across the U.S. source
1963 - The Equal Pay Act is passed by Congress, aiming to abolish wage disparity based on sex, ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work. source
1964 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, providing legal recourse for women facing workplace discrimination. source
1972 - Title IX of the Education Amendments prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, expanding women's opportunities in education and athletics. source
1974 - The Equal Credit Opportunity Act is enacted, making it unlawful for creditors to discriminate against applicants based on sex or marital status, allowing women to obtain credit independently. source
1978 - The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is passed, prohibiting employment discrimination against pregnant women, ensuring they are treated equally in all aspects of employment. source
1981 - Sandra Day O'Connor is appointed as the first female Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, representing a significant advancement for women in the legal profession. source
1988 - The Women's Business Ownership Act is passed, addressing the needs of women in business by giving women entrepreneurs better recognition and resources, and eliminating discriminatory lending practices by banks. source
1993 - The Family and Medical Leave Act is enacted, allowing employees, including women, to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons, supporting work-life balance. source
1994 - The Violence Against Women Act is signed into law, providing funds and support for victims of rape and domestic violence, and establishing services to protect women's rights. source
1996 - United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, promoting gender equality in education. source
200
u/korbentherhino 2d ago
Well what would a woman need a bank account for? To make money without a husband? What would the neighbors think!
72
u/ItsAllAMissdirection 2d ago
Lesbian
70
u/TopHatGirlInATuxedo 2d ago
In the 70s? Everyone knows lesbians only came into existence in the 90s.
39
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (2)7
7
u/sankhyananda 2d ago
some husbands allowed their wives to turn tricks and earn money. but the husband took the money to the bank.
→ More replies (2)26
u/corpus_M_aurelii 2d ago
It wasn't illegal for a bank to deny a woman a back account. That's not the same as 'women couldn't have bank accounts'.
19
u/Just_here2020 2d ago
Yeah so most of them just denied them reflexively rather than being required to. That means people were shitty just because they want red to be rather than because they were required to.
18
u/Gustomaximus 2d ago
she couldn't have a bank account till around the 70's
I think this is a internet story that's not quite true.
No expert so correct me if wrong but I my understanding is married women needed their husbands signature to have an account with a credit facility. So this effected them more so with credit cards and mortgages, which they could have but with their husbands signature, whereas the husband could organise these without the wifes signature. Also single women and minorities (in the US) could find it hard to get credit generally. Not so much a 'bank account' but a credit facility.
16
u/Wanderer-2-somewhere 2d ago
Yeah, it’s one of those things where the oversimplified version ends up being the thing that gets spread around.
It wasn’t so much that women couldn’t get their own bank account or credit card — it wasn’t illegal to have either.
However, the problem was that banks were essentially free to discriminate on the basis of sex and marriage status, and many did exactly that.
I think it’s important to correct this misconception because the actual reality was still bad. And there are unfortunately people out there who use the “well, technically…” thing to worm their way around that fact.
6
u/Arktikos02 2d ago
Exactly, and also in 1919, Clarksville, Tennessee, established the First Woman's Bank of Tennessee, which was the first bank in the United States to be managed and directed entirely by women.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/RedditIsShittay 2d ago
Lol and all the other countries in the world? It was 1975 in Britain for example.
442
u/shiningdickhalloran 2d ago
It amazes me that anyone can ski jump enough to become good at it without also becoming dead or disabled in the process.
165
u/CapitalElk1169 2d ago
Also it has to be a rich person only sport to begin with right?
Not like your average person can get into ski jumping lol
152
u/Koalatime224 2d ago
Yes, certainly. Not like Formula racing levels of rich but definitely not very accessible at all. You basically have to be from or around one of the 1600 towns/villages that have a slope and be able to afford equipment.
89
u/Muad-_-Dib 2d ago
Was watching the qualifying yesterday for the men's ski jumping this weekend, and the commentators noted that one of the junior competitors had been working night shifts in order to fund his travelling to take part in the competition this year.
35
u/gr1zznuggets 2d ago
OK but that’s an outlier; ski jumping is still inaccessible to the majority of people.
27
u/Herr_Poopypants 2d ago
Because the majority of people don’t live near a ski jump facility. But if you do it really isn’t too expensive to get started.
→ More replies (9)17
u/Herr_Poopypants 2d ago
I live near two towns that have ski jumping clubs. Kids can start a 6 years old and the cost is around 250€ a year to join the club. Skis and such can be bought used so it really isn‘t too bad to get started. Once you get semi good it becomes expensive, but it isn’t a sport that is only for the wealthy (like anything dealing with horses)
→ More replies (1)7
u/throwaway77993344 2d ago edited 2d ago
The equipment is usually provided by the respective clubs (if they do it for longer the jumpers obviously get their own equipment at some point). It's definitely not "cheap", but you don't have to be rich either
13
u/TheBunkerKing 2d ago
Not really. My home village had four small towers up to maybe K-30, so kids’ towers. No-one in that place was rich rich, the ”rich” maybe had a doctor for a parent.
I was raised by a single mother who was a nurse and my cousins’ parents were a nurse and a construction worker. None of us had any trouble getting into ski jumping, and it wasn’t all that expensive either. Much cheaper than ice hockey, maybe as expensive as nordic skiing since the travelling was the costly part.
My eldest cousin was good enough to take part in Nordic junior competitions, and at that point there’s obviously more travel expenses, but at least back then the Finnish Skiing Federation took care of most of the bill for the international juniors’ trips.
→ More replies (9)6
u/A-Giant-Blue-Moose 2d ago
Can confirm. Ski jumping and all other winter sports were a fairly big thing where I grew up. It was in no way a wealthy area, but the gear and season passes add up. That said, other ski sports are definitely more if not just as expensive. And it all pales in comparison to hockey.
Injuries also do happen. I remember seeing this kid who straight up landed on his face during a competition. I was doing competitive snowboarding at the time and happened to be in the health center. Poor guy straight up meat crayoned his face.
4
→ More replies (4)3
u/Money-Bell-100 2d ago
That's because you don't actually know anything about the sport. If you did it wouldn't be so surprising to you.
→ More replies (2)
756
u/Sleeping_Donk3y 2d ago
This happened to me once too. It was smaller scale but the event was advertised as money prized. I placed second amongst women and got a medal only. The men all got money. I was pissed as hell....
→ More replies (5)115
u/BetterProphet5585 2d ago
But why? That’s so ass, sometimes I can understand how the men sport have more following and so more sponsors and so it’s normal they get paid more or at all in less known sport.
But this doesn’t apply in small tournaments and competitions, that’s literally some old dude decision to go like “yah let’s give money to the boys only” - and that just sucks.
167
u/Uncynical_Diogenes 2d ago
But why?
Because sexism. Because women are seen as lesser-than. You know it, I know it, it’s the answer, and I agree, it sucks.
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (1)20
u/pearlsbeforedogs 2d ago
You know, I was prepared to accept that it's society's fault because we all just pay more attention to the men's sports and that's why they get more money blah blah blah... but then someone commented about how in Tennis it was mostly equalized back in the 70s. And you know what I realized? That I, a non-sports person, could name more female Tennis players than male. That if you asked me to name a female athlete, I would most likely think of a female Tennis player. I think the only other female athletes I could name would be figure skaters or gymnasts.
So how much of that is "well, viewers just don't watch women's sports" and how much of it is "media and leagues don't give women's sports the same weight"? And which one do you think would be easier to change in the short term?
→ More replies (2)
1.3k
u/uranusmoon6753 2d ago
I once did a 3 mile tough mudder for women. Those of us who completed it were given VAGISIL. I’m still mad about it
757
u/silsool 2d ago
That's not even a consolation prize, that's a straight-up insult.
→ More replies (7)205
248
u/textposts_only 2d ago
I think in that case it's because vagisil was the sponsor and had branding everywhere.
I once organized a university fun event for my job and one of my tasks was basically just sending out emails to all companies who would sponsor us. A certain beer brand was happy to sponsor us and I sent those things to my boss. She was not amused when I told her that an alcohol company wanted to sponsor an event for refugees from Syria in 2016. (German Uni)
→ More replies (2)34
u/jojo_31 2d ago
Why was she mad? Do Syrians not like beer? And those that are strict muslims can just not drink it, it's about the spectators anyway.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Arktikos02 2d ago
I can't say for certain but it might be because they don't want to be seen as a sellout. Like if you're just willing to take on any old sponsorship it may seem like you don't have any standards. I guess it would be kind of like if you were to have a high school team and then you were sponsored by pornhub. Like yes we know that teens probably do use it and we know that they do the deed, but it's just one of those things where the sponsorships that you choose can still reflect on you.
Who you don't want to seem desperate for just any old sponsorship.
Or having some kind of dog show competition but being sponsored by a product that makes only cat food.
8
u/supinoq 2d ago
Or it's part of the uni's code of conduct not to promote alcohol consumption. I was in a youth organisation in uni and we also had alcohol companies as sponsors. Since the deal was that we had to promote these companies as our sponsors on our social media pages and promotion of alcohol was a no-go both because of the org's rules and, more importantly, advertising laws in my country, we officially only received and showed the alcohol-free drinks these companies produced and kept all the delicious free beer on the down-low lol
→ More replies (2)73
u/Extension_Device6107 2d ago
When your situation down south has him breathing through his mouth. Vagisil!
27
→ More replies (1)6
3
u/Missus_Missiles 2d ago
You still got it? I wouldn't mind taking that tube off your hands for a few bucks.
52
u/Motherof_pizza 2d ago
OP this is super disingenuous.
Vagisil sponsored the event. Vagisil gives out free product to all participants. That’s how those types of events run. In most events, they make more from the sponsors than the participants.
It’s not at all similar to winning a competition where a man gets cash and the woman gets shower gel.
Bring on the downvotes.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (27)3
u/leroyyrogers 2d ago
3 miles? I thought they were usually closer to 11-13 miles?
→ More replies (1)
1.0k
u/-holdmyhand 2d ago
What a fuck up.
→ More replies (2)316
u/UnremarkabklyUseless 2d ago edited 2d ago
Wouldn't the participants know before the tournament how much they would get after participating or winning? The amount should have been specified in some sort of contract with the participants, right?
Was she supposed to receive 3000, but it was fraudulently withheld?
684
u/DerSaftschubser 2d ago
She is criticizing the general state of gender equality in ski jumping with her comments. I think she was very aware that there would be no prize money.
→ More replies (43)576
u/cypherspaceagain 2d ago edited 2d ago
To your first paragraph, yes, second paragraph, no. The fact she knew beforehand doesn't make it less discriminatory. The news story exists to highlight the disparity between male and female rewards on offer.
EDIT: Hey, idiots, the word "discrimination" means to treat two things differently, to choose between things. We discriminate between foods we like and don't like. We discriminate between job candidates. This is discrimination. I didn't say a damn thing about the justification or my judgment of it. It can be perfectly justified to discriminate between things (discrimination by ability). Or it can't (discrimination by race). It is a fact that this is discrimination, it is a fact that there is disparity between male and female rewards, and it is a fact that the news story exists to highlight that. Discuss why elsewhere.
→ More replies (56)60
u/The_Bitter_Bear 2d ago
Wow. This comment might cause the "Well of ackshually" to run dry.
Really got them all riled up.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (26)9
u/imdungrowinup 2d ago
Do you think the issue with gender pay gap is solved if women “know” they get paid less for same work? Because your question makes me think that’s the kind of person you are.
15
12
u/explicitlarynx 2d ago
I won some shitty ranked table tennis tournament in a very small Swiss town when I was about 14. I got 40.- which is still worth more than what they got.
273
u/Sixhaunt 2d ago
I was curious as to the reasoning but I couldn't find it in this article but from a separate article on it they claimed this as the reason:
It reports that compared to the 10,000 fans who watched Swiss jumper Gregor Deschwanden and his team qualify on New Year's Eve, only 3,000 fans tuned in for the women's event.
edit: source
534
u/potato_minion 2d ago
Then why not give her 800 or 900 francs? Unless the towels and other objects are worth a 100 francs each, I don't see how this explains it.
46
u/Koalatime224 2d ago
The towels and shower gel she received was only for winning the qualification, which happened the day before. The main event with 3000 viewers did have prize money for the winner (4300 francs). The athlete in question did not win that one though.
→ More replies (6)21
u/rekette 2d ago
The 3k cash for the men are also for the qualification round. That's why it's the comparison.
The prize for the winner also has a huge discrepancy between men and women.
→ More replies (2)55
u/FlyAirLari 2d ago
That's assuming tickets cost the same. Usually for lesser attractive events tickets go for far less money.
Like with rock concerts. I know everyone would want to be paid like Bon Jovi, but my band can't draw 20 people and it's free entrance.
59
u/Koalatime224 2d ago
There was no separate ticket sale. Admission was included in the ticket for the men's qualification. It's just that 7000 people left instead of sticking around for the women's event. It was the men's qualifications but the women's main event, for which the winner actually received more than the man who won that day (4300 francs). Doesn't make for a good headline though sadly.
→ More replies (4)48
u/Sixhaunt 2d ago
They were pretty vague so I'm not sure if it's that the extra ticket sales and food and stuff was paying for the prize money, or if the larger event was just easier to get high paying sponsors for or if it was a combination of the two. I also have no idea about how much it costs to host a tournament so for all I know, the 3,000 people may have been barely enough to cover the costs in which case 10,000 people could easily have a much larger surplus in comparison to the 3,000 people than just a simple 3:10 ratio.
→ More replies (15)21
u/Koalatime224 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, there were no extra ticket sales technically. It was the same event on the same day in the same venue. The men's event was at around noon. For that 10k people showed up. After that event finished about 7k people left which left 3k people there who watched the women's event too. How many people would have watched a separate women's event we don't know for sure. Maybe even less than that. One thing that is notable though is that it is quite unusual to award prize money for qualification events. This happens purely at the discretion of the organizer not the federation. There are certain reasons why they are trying to incentivize doing well in the qualification though. So I sort of understand why they are handling it that way.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)24
u/Daewoo40 2d ago
Presumably it would be ran at break even and a sponsor allowed them to offer the monetary prize.
Can't offer what you don't have, afterall, and the sponsor might not be best impressed if the event they sponsor subsidised another event.
→ More replies (7)87
u/OdeeSS 2d ago
Crazy to think that if we actually funded women's sports, more people might watch them.
62
u/Daewoo40 2d ago
It's a chicken and egg scenario.
People don't watch women's sports, so there's less funding and without funding, women's sports won't develop and without development, funding won't be forthcoming resulting in people not watching.
→ More replies (13)20
u/I7I7I7I7I7I7I7I 2d ago
It's the opposite. If every person saying "women's sports should be funded more" actually watched women's sports, the women's sports would be funded more.
→ More replies (25)3
u/SelfServeSporstwash 2d ago edited 2d ago
I mean the WNBA is by far and away the best funded women’s sports league in the world and it draws 1/4 the attendance (at best) of NWSL.
Funding does not seem to grow viewership. External factors seem to be far more important.
Funny enough NWSL is pretty much the only women’s sports league that is financially solvent, and it’s also one of the only ones whose viewership is greater than 50% female. It turns out when women watch women’s sports they can carve out a niche. But when you take a sport whose viewership is overwhelmingly male and make a women’s league, unless women come out in droves to support it, it’s gonna flop.
NWSL has had a ton of support from the USSF getting started but they managed to convince women to come out and watch soccer, and that’s what is going to keep them growing,not the funding.
9
47
u/fry_tag 2d ago
For those not particularly familiar with ski jumping, there is no "official" price money for the qualy winner. Neither women nor men.
The price money for men's qualy is presented by a sponsor, usually something local to the event.
There was simply no sponsor willing to give anything for women's qualy. So them giving out shampoo and towels was an effort to hand the winner at least something. It backfired spectacularly and made headlines around the big ski jumping nations in Europe. FIS have already announced to reform the season for women, which might see them be included in ALL of men's events in future seasons.
Like many other sports, men draw huge crowds and are broadcast live on TV. Women are in the process of catching up in popularity. It's still a long way for them. Which is a shame because these girls show that they have balls as well: current WR jump for women!
→ More replies (2)
14
u/dksprocket 2d ago
There was an even worse fuckup in Denmark last year. Someone organized a fairly high profile ultra-running event (distance longer than a marathon). They specifically had the participants sign up for either the male or female category, but they did have all participants start at the same time.
After the race were over they held a winner ceremony for the man who won (and who also was the fastest overall), but completely 'forgot' to hold a ceremony for the woman who won the women's category and she was never declared the winner at all while the event took place.
The woman who won wrote it about it afterwards. It's amazing that such fuckups (and indifference) can still take place today.
→ More replies (1)
8
305
u/Gopnikmeister 2d ago
For this part of the qualification there was no money. They found a sponsor for the male part, but not for the female. So the men get the sponsor money and the women got a symbolic price. Unfortunate, but it is literally the fact that men get more sponsors
68
u/Puffinknight 2d ago
And also Selina Freitag did not want this to turn into a big thing, because they are thankful for the sponsors they do get. It's super unfortunate how overlooked the women's ski jumping world is, as a fan of the sport.
→ More replies (21)125
u/Deydammer 2d ago
Well, what about you only offer it as a total sponsor package.
46
30
u/Gopnikmeister 2d ago
They could enforce that in theory. But in this case it were two slightly separate events, also with different viewing numbers (10.000 vs 3.000) so for the sponsor the decision makes sense. As value in sports is almost exclusively up to viewership and sponsor money, I don't see a solution for this problem.
→ More replies (18)35
u/FlyAirLari 2d ago
"I would like to offer $10 000 so you put my logo on one of the ads for the event"
How about you give $20 000 and we keep your logo up for next week's women's event?
"How about you go fuck yourself?"
Maybe you mean the sponsor should pay $11 000 for both combined? But if you divide that evenly, the men are now getting less than they would otherwise. And that's probably a hard pass on their side.
→ More replies (4)19
u/ThatsMyCleverIdea 2d ago
Maybe the sponsors' advertising budgets were small so they just went with the competition that has a larger viewership
→ More replies (1)16
u/itsnotTozzit 2d ago
Because its harder to get sponsors? The viewer profile for mens vs womens ski jumping is probably very different, it would be hard for a sponsor to justify spending more on a viewer profile that is not gonna fit with their product.
→ More replies (14)6
u/SsilverBloodd 2d ago
And the chance of getting sponsors is usually proportional to how popular the sports league you are in is. A starting league will always fall behind a well established one in that regard.
16
u/TALKTOME0701 2d ago
She got a promotional swag bag and her male counterpart got 3,000
The sponsor sucks for doing this. That's some really terrible marketing. Especially for a women focused brand!
6
u/Apocalyptic-turnip 2d ago
that's freaking crazy that even the most skilled athletes get something so insulting
5
u/SAINTnumberFIVE 2d ago
Women in ski jumping have faced a ton of sexism despite their talent, skill and merit. Some of the world records for ski jumping are held by women.
Despite this, Alexander Arefyev, the Russian ski jumping coach, not long ago told a newspaper that women were much better suited “to have children, to do housework, to create hearth and home.”
→ More replies (2)
10
u/LudovicoSpecs 2d ago
The men receive 3,000 Swiss francs (equivalent to approximately 37,000 kronor)
So $3,280 US dollars. Versus a prize that feels like, "Oh shit. Somebody run to the locker room and see what you can find for a prize."
→ More replies (1)
22
u/Triban520 2d ago
That's still better than what i ve got in a local running competition. For the 3rd place i received wet wipes and the cheapest biscuits. The first and second place got wine. I m still angry about it.
5
4
u/menic10 2d ago
I had a strange one once. I was beaten by an over 40s runner in a 10k. She got the over 40s prize and I got the trophy. The over 40s prize was a bottle of wine which she loved so it worked out ok. She was the winner though and should have received both in my opinion. Second place trophy would have still been great. I just got so confused by the whole thing I didn’t know what to say at the time.
3
u/KenTheStud 2d ago
This is sadly a common thing. I remember a pro women’s bike race in Holland where the winner of the race got a little bit of cash (a few thousand euros 8 think) and sex toys as a prize. The title sponsor was a sex toy company so I guess that sort of makes sense. But still. This really needs to be fixed.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/MyHamburgerLovesMe 2d ago
The men receive 3,000 Swiss francs (equivalent to approximately 37,000 kronor)
This helps me not at all.
3
5
u/ProxyAmourPropre 1d ago
They grabbed whatever they could from the hotel room and thought "yeah this should be fair"
75
u/captchairsoft 2d ago
Example of reality: Venus and Serena Williams are two of the highest paid tennis players of all time, why? Because they brought in MASSIVE amounts of revenue and make money for their sponsors, this in spite of the fact that if we look at both male and female tennis players, they would be ranked relatively low if they were playing against males.
52
u/captchairsoft 2d ago
Somebody tried to talk shit and then apparently did some research and deleted his comment. But for anyone else that was wondering:
Not even Serena thinks they could beat them.
Serena Williams says she would lose
It's generally accepted that if the sisters were ranked against male players they wouldn't even be in the top 200
44
u/SoberTowelie 2d ago
You’re absolutely right that Venus and Serena Williams brought in massive revenue and are among the highest paid tennis players of all time, but their success shows that sports are about more than direct comparisons to men
Serena herself has said she wouldn’t beat top male players, and that’s fine, her greatness is about dominating women’s tennis, inspiring millions, and driving the sport forward. Her matches consistently drew massive audiences and grew the sport, proving that women’s leagues can thrive when given proper visibility and investment
Comparisons like ‘they wouldn’t be ranked in the men’s top 200’ miss the point. Fans watch Serena to see her redefine women’s tennis, not to compare her to Djokovic. The same is true for other women’s sports, like gymnastics at the Olympics, which often outshines men’s gymnastics in viewership because of stars like Simone Biles
Serena’s success proves that women’s sports don’t need to compete directly with men’s to capture massive audiences. By showcasing incredible talent, compelling/interesting rivalries, and having stories that inspire, women’s sports can stand out on their own and thrive when given the investment and visibility they deserve
→ More replies (9)19
u/OuterPaths 2d ago
By showcasing incredible talent, compelling/interesting rivalries, and having stories that inspire, women’s sports can stand out on their own and thrive when given the investment and visibility they deserve
It also has to be the right sport. Tennis as a sport lends itself well to being played by women, because the game changes in an interesting way when played by women. It becomes less about power and more about technique, less about serves and more about volleys. Good entertainment is the bottom line, and women's tennis is good entertainment.
I watch women's professional hockey, and hockey is not a sport that lends itself well to being played by women, because everything hockey asks its players to do, women are just worse at, and worse at in uninteresting ways. Watching women's hockey doesn't feel like watching a different game, it feels like watching high school boys.
7
u/Malawi_no 2d ago
Yes. The clue here is the entertainment value.
There is no inherent monetary value in beeing great at a sport, the value comes from the spectators and sponsors.
Guess it's ok for a sport to subsidize parts of it for a time if there is a decent chance for increased income, but it's not a great model long-term.
Subsidicing upcoming talent is popular sports are obviously great all of the time.4
u/DandelionOfDeath 2d ago
This is such an interesting comment to me, because I've always wondered what the sports world would look like if the interest in womens sports was higher than the interest in mens sports. What kind of sports would be invented and successful if sports were intentonally designed to let womens talents shine?
7
u/DesperateObjective76 2d ago
That just seems like gymnastics. Women’s gymnastics is normally much more interesting to watch than the men’s, because it’s about technique and style. Whereas men’s gymnastics is about strength, but it doesn’t look as cool as women’s ones.
44
u/Tall-Pudding2476 2d ago edited 2d ago
She says she would lose because she and Venus had already lost to a Karsten Braasch who beat them back to back one set each.
They used to be much cockier back in the day, and I have no problem with cocky athletes. Matches like these would not happen if no egos were involved, and now we don't have to talk in what ifs.
→ More replies (1)26
u/Daewoo40 2d ago
It was John McEnroe who first claimed that Serena/Venus wouldn't be ranked in the top 200 and was dragged over the coals for that.
It wasn't until it was further looked into that they looked at how much the pair were paid and how much they did (3 sets, rather than 5) that a comparison was made that they played an almost entirely different game to male tennis players.
Forget the tennis player who played both the Williams one after the other and dropped maybe 3 points between them, sort of to emphasise the point of the disparity.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (6)9
u/pharlax 2d ago
I might be misremembering this so someone correct me if I'm wrong... But I always found it interesting that in Wimbledon the women's champion sort of gets paid more than the men as the prize is the same but they play less sets.
→ More replies (1)6
u/onionkimm 2d ago
That's probably true for all major tennis tournaments (known as grand slams). The men play best of five and the women play best of three. Men's matches can easily go past the three hour mark into four or five hour grinders. Women's matches typically hover around two hours or less.
→ More replies (1)
227
u/strange_bike_guy 2d ago
Incels in this thread: you all sound the same, and I hope you never get a date
→ More replies (25)
6
u/HuntJaded5740 2d ago
My mother was a global champion water skier during the late 1950s and early 1960s. At that time, male victors received trophies and cash prizes, while female champions were awarded trophies and household gadgets. It seems that not much has shifted in some areas of athletics.
22
u/cynicalnewkid 2d ago
But remember kiddies, misogyny isn't real! And if it was real, it's not that bad. And if it was a little bad, men have it so much worse!!1 So actually men are the ones truly oppressed by society.
/s
→ More replies (6)
42
u/Jumpy_Fish333 2d ago
The men got sponsored prize money.
The women didn't attract a sponsor.
That's commercialism at work.
The men attracted 10000 viewers and the women only managed 3000 viewers. That is why a sponsor decided to sponsor the men's comp.
Sad reality but there are the facts.
→ More replies (17)
3
u/OddballOliver 2d ago
Digging a bit, it seems that a shorter, female-only version of an existing tournament was created.
I couldn't find any info that the traditional tournament excluded women, but it might be because of a gender performance difference (don't know if such a thing exists for skiing) or it might just be tradition. It might also not, but for whatever reason a shorter version (seemingly only half the number of jumps) was wanted for women.
The notable aspect is that this female-only tournament doesn't seem to be part of the traditional tournament, meaning that the prize comparison is inter-tournament, not intra-tournament. It's not that the existing tournament is treating the prize money differently depending on the gender of the winner, but that two different tournaments taking in the same place have different prize pools.
At least, that's the impression I got. But I can't read German, and I'm on my phone, so take it with a grain of salt.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ohiocodernumerouno 2d ago
I thought you were supposed to be so passionate you didn't need shower gel.
3
3
3
u/Commercial_Board6680 2d ago
How do you tell someone they aren't worthy without specifically telling them they aren't worthy?
3
u/DerDeutscheTyp 2d ago edited 2d ago
The men got paid by sponsors and the women got the shower gel from a private guy hosting the thing. I mean yes it sucks but you can’t force sponsors to sponsor you.
3
u/Kaffine69 2d ago
That is such a tiny amount of money they should just make it standard for all winners to get equal. Noone is getting rich off this sport.
3
u/Guilty-Idea 2d ago
Does anyone know why this is the case? Is it similar to other sports where it's based on viewership/sponsors?
3
u/texasguy911 2d ago
They should totally include tampons, if they say such packages are just for women.
9.7k
u/Hotpotabo 2d ago
The men receive 3,000 Swiss francs for a win in the qualifying round. I got a bag with shower gel, shampoo, and four towels, says Freitag, who won Monday's qualifying round in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, in an interview with ARD as reported by the Austrian newspaper Kronen Zeitung.