difference in FPO payouts on the NT

[NOStheBOSS]

I agree with ShopTom if we're talking age-protected divisions. Anyone playing MP40 or MP50 that wants to play for the big bucks can step into MPO if they so desire, and a good number of them can be competitive for it if they did. IMO, the only time age-protected divisions should be getting a significant chunk of added money is if it's a Masters-only event to begin with.

Disagree with regard to FPO. They should get the exact same share, proportionally, of added money as MPO. The highest rated woman in the world will rank near the bottom of every MPO field she might enter, unless we're talking local C-tier events where there's rarely any added cash to divvy up anyway. There's no rationalization for saying "you want to make money, play MPO" to any woman.

Why is it Mixed Pro Open and not Men's Pro Open then? This is not a sport where athletes directly compete and collide against each other. They compete against the course. The best disc golf players should compete and be paid in MPO, no matter the age or gender.

 

[ThrowBot]

If you want top money play Mixed Pro Open. Any division with restrictions should receive significantly less money.

This logic goes out the window next year. For 2020, they have added a ratings restriction to MPO. (For NT events, as well as DGPT and pro Majors.)

So at these top-level events, there will no longer be any truly unrestricted, "open" division.

The question becomes: how do you divvy up added cash between the various restricted divisions?

 

[zjones9]

This has to be a joke...Should the WNBA be compensated the same as NBA players? If any FPO player wants to compete to be the best, they can do that by playing MPO.

 

[JC17393]

This has to be a joke...Should the WNBA be compensated the same as NBA players? If any FPO player wants to compete to be the best, they can do that by playing MPO.

No one, NO ONE, is arguing that women should be compensated the same as the men (and if they are, they're being foolish).

FPO should get an equal share, proportionally, of the added cash as MPO. And they do. In fact, it appears when it comes to the NT bonus money, they're getting a larger share than one would expect if it was proportionally divided. As for why...the money's allocated before any of the proportions are known, so it appears to be down to guesswork.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

No one, NO ONE, is arguing that women should be compensated the same as the men (and if they are, they're being foolish).

FPO should get an equal share, proportionally, of the added cash as MPO. And they do. In fact, it appears when it comes to the NT bonus money, they're getting a larger share than one would expect if it was proportionally divided. As for why...the money's allocated before any of the proportions are known, so it appears to be down to guesswork.

many people in this thread are arguing that the NT EOS payouts should be the same for men and women

 

[VictorB]

many people in this thread are arguing that the NT EOS payouts should be the same for men and women

The NT Points Series payout should be the same. The PDGA already pays out fewer places for the FPO NT points race. For FPO players, the commitment to go on the national tour, and perform well against the field, is the same as the men.

As for single event earnings, there's a gap to bridge between the field sizes. Find and solve the root causes of that problem and payouts in single events will level out.

 

[ejvogie]

Fewer competitors = fewer places paid out

#realmath

 

[DG_player]

This has to be a joke...Should the WNBA be compensated the same as NBA players? If any FPO player wants to compete to be the best, they can do that by playing MPO.

NBA/WNBA, or PGA/LPGA, etc. aren't great comparisons, they're totally separate leagues with their own finances. There are big sports that do pay equally. The grand slam payouts for tennis are equal between men and women and have been that way for a long time. Obviously womens tennis is a probably a larger draw related to men's tennis than FPO is relative to MPO, but the organizers still had to make a conscience decision at some point to make payouts equal.

It's one payout for the entire year, would it be too much to step up and make it equal, solely for the purpose of promoting the womens game? If you were going to pick one payout to do it, this would be the one since it's the culmination of 5 events and may drive up FPO participation in all of those events.

 

[keepitfun]

I find it comical that so many people want their money to go to a small protected division and is basically a handout that only 3 people in the world are capable of receiving.......I would think there are better ways of promoting the women's game other than dumping the money into the hands of a couple players, a few of which are rude and intimidating to other women......seriously though, well intentioned argument but ineffective use of resource allocation

 

[DavidSauls]

It might help to consider the purpose of those payouts. Which I don't know.

Is it to elevate the status of the NT events? To encourage players to play in more of them? To make touring more financially viable for top players? To increase spectator/media interest because they're playing for something extra at the end of the year? A vague notion that players should get more money for winning the points series? Something else?

Knowing why there's this bonus payout might shed light on how it's distributed.

(It might also be helpful to know where that money comes from---Is it raised at NT events, budgeted from pro memberships, or just from the general funds of the PDGA).

 

[DavidSauls]

The picture attached to the OP isn't about the year-end bonuses, though---it's about the total purses.

It compares the players by average finish---what if it compared them by accumulated number of opponents bested?

 

[JTacoma03]

Yeah - people please clarify specifically what you're talking about.

"How to divvy up the tournament purse/added cash"

is a completely different topic than

"Equal PDGA NT Points Series Bonus Payouts"

---

I do not think the former should be equalized, I think the system is pretty good as is, and most TD's juice FPO far more than other divisions.

I DO think the NT Points Series Bonuses should pay out the same "per place" (i.e. MPO #1 and FPO #1 should get the same bonus). Even if you continue to pay fewer places out to FPO for now, until participation grows, it's an overall trivial amount of money for the PDGA.

 

[jvphobic]

I DO think the NT Points Series Bonuses should pay out the same "per place" (i.e. MPO #1 and FPO #1 should get the same bonus). Even if you continue to pay fewer places out to FPO for now, until participation grows, it's an overall trivial amount of money for the PDGA.

100% agree with this. The DGPT had equal bonus structure at the top level of their finale payout. Then it changed as we got into the semi's and quarters. I would personally like to see that adjusted too, but it is more even than the PDGA payout bonuses.

My guess is that the PDGA makes that adjustment for next year. They won't like the look of inequality when compared to the DGPT.

 

[Chains Bailey]

Seems reasonable that the NT payouts are based on field size. Totally justifiable.

That said, would it be a nice gesture by the PDGA to make them (overall season NT payouts) identical for FPO and MPO? Yes! That would be really progressive and cool IMO.

Being "Progressive and cool" should never be a factor in deciding payout scales. It should all be proportional to participation.

It has always struck me as so very hypocritical that people will insist / suggest / demand unequal pay as long as males are the ones not benefitting from these inequities.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Being "Progressive and cool" should never be a factor in deciding payout scales. It should all be proportional to participation.

It has always struck me as so very hypocritical that people will insist / suggest / demand unequal pay as long as males are the ones not benefitting from these inequities.

I'm not all that interested in progressive and cool on its own sake. I am interested in paying players bonuses to offset job-related expenses that are likely roughly the same regardless of gender (difference in entry fee costs, perhaps?). I would think the PDGA would have a vested interest in keeping top FPO players on the road and incentivizing others to try out touring.

I am always amused when people think markets are pure and not manipulated from the start. Also, money added to the FPO bonus pool isn't taken out of the MPO pool. Both parties can get paid, and having players paid is good for the sport.

 

[jvphobic]

The issue here is that as far as I know there is no quantifiable formulas to determine to end of year bonuses given to the pro players. Maybe I am wrong and someone can point it out to me.

Instead it seems to be an arbitrary number where the MPO gets more cause they had more players over the course of the year. If they paid the MPO out deeper I could understand. But to not give them an equal bonus just seems silly and arbitrary.

 

[biscoe]

The issue here is that as far as I know there is no quantifiable formulas to determine to end of year bonuses given to the pro players. Maybe I am wrong and someone can point it out to me.

Instead it seems to be an arbitrary number where the MPO gets more cause they had more players over the course of the year. If they paid the MPO out deeper I could understand. But to not give them an equal bonus just seems silly and arbitrary.

I am pretty sure there is no formula applied either way. The bonus is announced at the beginning of the season and was exactly the same for 2018 and 2019. I lean towards the side of believing the MPO bonus should be larger based on the field sizes being way bigger but for it to just be a number that is thrown out rather than formulated somehow seems a bad look.

 

[ru4por]

I find it comical that so many people want their money to go to a small protected division and is basically a handout that only 3 people in the world are capable of receiving.......I would think there are better ways of promoting the women's game other than dumping the money into the hands of a couple players, a few of which are rude and intimidating to other women......seriously though, well intentioned argument but ineffective use of resource allocation

Considerably more than three women are capable of winning in the FPO ranks, I'm not sure if your comment was hyperbole or lack of knowledge.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your experiences with rude and intimidating players in the FPO field. The handful of top players I have met could not have been nicer.

 

[biscoe]

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your experiences with rude and intimidating players in the FPO field. The handful of top players I have met could not have been nicer.

I'm not naming names but my experience aligns with that of keepitfun.

 

[ru4por]

I'm not naming names but my experience aligns with that of keepitfun.

I can imagine that players have a vested interest in treating a spectator differently than a competitor. Then again, isn't it a potential advantage to treat an opponent with intimidation?