difference in FPO payouts on the NT

[perklc]

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?

Biscoe has mentioned this previously in other threads. I believe he's said that those players are rude to people besides fellow competitors.

 

[Casey 1988]

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.

Are you stating that MPO should be Male Player Open, the way Female Player Open is for females only in Disc Golf PDGA events?

 

[biscoe]

Biscoe has mentioned this previously in other threads. I believe he's said that those players are rude to people besides fellow competitors.

Please allow me to point out that the VAST majority of them are nothing but pleasant to be around. In actuality the percentage of those who are unpleasant probably mirrors the general public.

 

[DanJon]

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.

Paige Pierce was mean to me once when I was spotting at a tournament.

There, I said it.

 

[jenb]

Both Cat and Paige is in the top 10 Cash for 2019 of all players.. .not to bad to have two women in the top 10 cash, i don´t think that is TO common in sports

So you can make money in FPO. . the smaller fields makes it possible

Women only tournaments with significant added cash may be a factor there.

 

[teemkey]

Ragna Bygde was nice to me once when I was spotting for a tournament.

So, you know, sometimes you win.

 

[JTacoma03]

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

It's a 501c4 - whatever the members want can be a justifiable reason (within legal boundaries obviously) to decide anything.

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.

It's hypocritical to advocate against an unequal status quo in sports that has systemically limited economic advancement of women?

Or how about you wake up and realize it's not a zero-sum game...you don't lose anything, and someone who travels in a RV for 30-40 weeks a year trying to make it as a professional athlete, with no health insurance, can make a meager $3500 more. What a petty hill you're picking to die on.

 

[Chains Bailey]

I am always amused when people think markets are pure and not manipulated

I would be interested in how the PDGA and Pro tour markets are manipulated in any way.

They seem to be set proportional to participation. Agree with other posters, that the arbitrary numbers should be done away with and mirror participation.

I believe the male players who pioneered the way for current day touring players did not receive any handouts, as many suggest the female players should be afforded.

Why not allow the current female players to pave their own way? Are you saying women are not capable of creating and sustaining a life on the tour for themselves?

Take into account that today's current tours are HUGE in comparison to the early days of the Winnie Crew' and their sorts. Somehow the men were able to scratch out a life without handouts and being overly catered to by the disc golf community. In fact, I would argue that the efforts of the first players to take a their chances on touring life got the ball rolling, in many aspects, for the current tours of today.

 

[Chains Bailey]

It's hypocritical to advocate against an unequal status quo in sports that has systemically limited economic advancement of women?

Modern day sports are simply not unequal in any way. There is no systematic limits placed on women in sports at all.

Sports, regardless of gender, are equally likely to make you a star and millionaire as they are to drop you in a heart beat if you can not compete at the expected levels of your peers.

The business of sports is blind to gender and only considers the dollar signs.

Read my earlier post about touring players - their choice, their risk, their reward or failure. No one was crying a river for the male players in the early days that had to pack up their dreams and go back to their 9-5 grind.

If you are advocating to up the finances of ALL touring Pros, I could get on board. But as soon as it is presented as women are battling some imaginary evil that is holding them back - I am out. I do not support treating women as some disabled demographic that is in need of saving at every corner of life.

Honestly, it is quite disrespectful to the women who stand on their own two feet and have carved out a good life in this sport or any other aspect of life.

 

[wproct]

Paige Pierce was mean to me once when I was spotting at a tournament.

There, I said it.

I don't know, this would be totally out of character if true. She is as nice a person as I have encountered.

 

[Spinthrift]

While it's not an NT, it should be noted at the DGPT Championship the payout was the same for MPO and FPO, with field sizes of 32 and 16.

 

[perklc]

Then it probably should also be noted that it was only the same for the top 4 in the tournament and for the points payout (top 3 in season points).

 

[JTacoma03]

Modern day sports are simply not unequal in any way. There is no systematic limits placed on women in sports at all.

Sports, regardless of gender, are equally likely to make you a star and millionaire as they are to drop you in a heart beat if you can not compete at the expected levels of your peers.

The business of sports is blind to gender and only considers the dollar signs.

Read my earlier post about touring players - their choice, their risk, their reward or failure. No one was crying a river for the male players in the early days that had to pack up their dreams and go back to their 9-5 grind.

If you are advocating to up the finances of ALL touring Pros, I could get on board. But as soon as it is presented as women are battling some imaginary evil that is holding them back - I am out. I do not support treating women as some disabled demographic that is in need of saving at every corner of life.

Honestly, it is quite disrespectful to the women who stand on their own two feet and have carved out a good life in this sport or any other aspect of life.

Pure naive nonsense. Your attempt to tie preachy platitudes about sports to a buried-head interpretation of equality is barf-worthy aside from being incorrect.

Nobody is saying anyone is battling some imaginary evil. It's a very simple proposition - a tank of gas costs the same whether you're competing in MPO or FPO, whether you're 950 or 1050 rated. If you are the PDGA, and you want to incentivize growth of pro ranks, and you have already created a BONUS structure that rewards the player with the best overall combo of participation + placement at NT's all season long, why not equalize it?

Pros:
- It is a token gesture (only costs about $12k) that is first worth it's value in PR gains, and second make a public statement that they consider the profession equal across gender.

- It recognizes the fact that while the tournament purses are divvy'd up by participation ratios (correctly so in my opinion), that the players still compete to the same relative degree of effort and time.

- It recognizes that young boys and girls both should have athletes to look up to, and this rewards those players for taking the risk of being on the road for 40 weeks out of the year.


Cons:

- It makes dudes who make shallow arguments full of falsehoods mad on the internet.

- Name ANYTHING else bad that this move creates. I'll wait.

 

[bwgort]

While it's not an NT, it should be noted at the DGPT Championship the payout was the same for MPO and FPO, with field sizes of 32 and 16.

I believe the payout was only the same for the Top 4. The rest of the payout was different. https://www.dgpt.com/uploads/6/5/1/8/65181337/2019_tc-tp_payout_dk-01.png

 

[zgmc]

Wow. It looks to me like they gave the FPO a bigger chuck of the purse. Half the competitors but more cash per person. Does the FPO generate more revenue?

 

[Hampstead]

Pay the ladies. Grow the sport.

 

[Chains Bailey]

Pure naive nonsense. Your attempt to tie preachy platitudes about sports to a buried-head interpretation of equality is barf-worthy aside from being incorrect.

I am correct and have not interpreted anything, just stated reality.

Nobody is saying anyone is battling some imaginary evil.

You are by advocating that women should get more than men due solely to their genitalia, as if their genitalia is some how holding them back. That they should get more than ANY other Pro of another gender, because of (Insert illogical reason here). Must be some reason they deserve more for equal work. Also, your original post started of with the imaginary evil that floats around and holds down women.

It's a very simple proposition - a tank of gas costs the same whether you're competing in MPO or FPO, whether you're 950 or 1050 rated.

This actually supports my premise, thank you for recognizing that it is irrelevant if you are male or female. Everyone pays the same to tour, no need to pretend there is a disabled class of players that deserve more for doing the exact same thing.

If you are the PDGA, and you want to incentivize growth of pro ranks, and you have already created a BONUS structure that rewards the player with the best overall combo of participation + placement at NT's all season long, why not equalize it?

Growth in the Pro ranks does not equate paying one group arbitrarily over another. No one is asking for any other protected division to be paid more, while being smaller and not generating the same interest, revenue and media numbers.

There is no reason to "equalize" something that is unequal. Your desire to do so adds no validity to the idea. Again - take gender out of it and you have no argument at all.

Hypothetical numbers:
Group A had 2500 participants / generated $10,000 revenue / 1,000,000 views on media
Group B had 500 participants / generated $5,000 revenue / 100,000 views on media

Why would Group B be considered the same as Group A in any measurable factor? And why would any entity, business or investor pay Group B equal to Group A looking at the numbers? No need to answer, there is no reason.

Pros:
- It is a token gesture (only costs about $12k) that is first worth it's value in PR gains, and second make a public statement that they consider the profession equal across gender.

It is a "token" gesture and is unneeded on any practical level. The FPO represent themselves outstandingly and do not need a hand out from anyone. You should really stop disrespecting these players, they are competitors and ask for no help from anyone.

- No FPO player asks another FPO player to spot them 3 strokes on the back nine.
- No FPO player who came in 3rd and won $1000 asks her competitor who came in 2nd and won $1500 to give her $500 from her $1500 after the event is over just "because". <This is basically your argument summed up.

They EARN it and you are minimalizing that to all but nothing.

"...consider the profession equal across gender." The profession is not equal across genders and there is no reason to pretend it is.

- It recognizes the fact that while the tournament purses are divvy'd up by participation ratios (correctly so in my opinion), that the players still compete to the same relative degree of effort and time.

If you agree that "purses are divvy'd up by participation ratios (correctly so in my opinion)" then that really ends your argument completely. The rest of your opinion is moot as the basis of my point is agreed upon by you yourself.

- It recognizes that young boys and girls both should have athletes to look up to, and this rewards those players for taking the risk of being on the road for 40 weeks out of the year.

Boys and Girls currently have athletes to look up to NOW. Why are you valuing the current FPO field, their efforts and amazing skills lower than what they have brought us all year? Again, any player who takes the risk to go on tour does so per their choice - no one was concerned or whining when the pioneers of this sport took the risk and went on tour only to have their dreams crushed and return to their 9-5 grinds.

You are not advocating for the risk of ALL pro tour players, you are selectively being biased and only considering the females, save the "40 weeks out of the year" for some other SJW narrative blinded person.

Cons:

- It makes dudes who make shallow arguments full of falsehoods mad on the internet.

You are projecting here. My logic is based on simple math and makes complete sense in any endeavor. Two separate Wall Street brokers - one produces $4Million and the other $10Million do not get the same bonuses.

- Name ANYTHING else bad that this move creates. I'll wait.

You will not have to wait long - it is simply unfair to favor one group over another with no basis for that favor. Add to that, one group produces more than the other on all measurable fronts and favoring the lesser producing group is biased beyond reason.

"Pure naïve and barf-worthy nonsense" has only been presented by yourself.

Your inability to separate yourself from the genders of the two groups blinds you to simple, logic, math and reason.
____________

Now that I have corrected you on your well intended but false presumptions, I can simplify things.

I do not care one way or another if the PDGA, DGPT or Lloyd Weema Inc. adds a billion dollars to the FPO payout for any event - any tour - anything.

BUT, to take the stance that doing so is FAIR - is completely incorrect.

I will offer an Olive-Branch' to you, since I am not the kind of person to agree to disagree when I am absolutely right. My response has been EQUAL to yours on the level of snarky' and I believe we can find a mutually satisfying place to end our debate.

Here is said Olive Branch' - I can agree that equalizing the FPO payout to MPO payout would be a nice gesture, not a lot of funds in the overall picture, be a good look PR wise and help some touring pros continue their dreams...….if you can simply agree that it would be an inequity and unfair.

Deal?

 

[Hampstead]

Who is this Chains character and why should I care?

 

[Chains Bailey]

Who is this Chains character and why should I care?

I know the guy and there is no reason to care at all.

 

[Hampstead]

I know the guy and there is no reason to care at all.

Consider me among the uncaring.