, The site for the fans, by the fans....
Sponsored Links


Sponsored Links

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#8696 - 08/03/01 05:43 PM PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
Angel Offline

Registered: 02/02/01
Posts: 401
A/S/L: F/So Cal
Following extensive negotiations with the Bowling Proprietors' Association of America ("BPAA") on the prize structure of and broadcast time allocations for the 2001 BPAA U.S. Open, the touring players of the Professional Women's Bowling Association ("PWBA") have voted to not participate in the event, scheduled to be held December 1-9 at Fountain Bowl in Fountain Valley, California.

Bowling's U.S. Open, which is conducted by the BPAA, has been staged as a co-ed event the past three years, with an equal distribution of the prize fund contributed by then-presenting sponsor AMF Bowling Inc. and with equal television for women and men. AMF Bowling's involvement with the U.S. Open ended with the 2000 Bowling's U.S. Open.

Earlier this year, the PWBA was informed by the BPAA that it was entering into a licensing agreement with the Professional Bowlers Association for the U.S. Open that would guarantee the men a purse of $350,000 and all 90 minutes of television coverage allocated for the event, while the women's share for participating at the same venue and with the same competitive format would come to $187,500 or less with no television coverage. The U.S. Open is considered the most prestigious national championship for amateur and professional female and male bowlers in the country, and all competitors regardless of gender should be treated equally in terms of television exposure, prize funds and on-site amenities. Despite numerous attempts over the past several weeks to sway BPAA officials to this position, the inequity remains and the 2001 U.S. Open will be conducted within the above-stated parameters.

Read the complete story at:


How do you feel regarding the issues presented?
Angel Zobel-Rodriguez

#10100 - 1 second ago Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links Online   content

Registered: Fri Aug 27 2004
Posts: 10100
A/S/L: Mountain View, CA
#8697 - 08/03/01 10:51 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
usr bin geek Offline

Registered: 02/02/01
Posts: 315
A/S/L: 37/m/Burlington, VT
Speaking as a proprietor and BPAA member I am shocked and outraged by the BPAA's and PBA's attitude and lack of support of the PWBA.

At every opportunity the bowling industry should act unified and supportive of each other instead of creating situations like this that lead to disunion. Furthermore, for it to have even been considered that the women should bowl in such an unequal tournament is an insult to all women everywhere.

Think about it in these terms, if the Men were all white and the Women were all African Americans I believe the BPAA/PBA would not even have considered making the same offer to the African Americans. Not only because it would be blatant discrimination but also racism. All bowlers need to be just as outraged as if that's what was done. It's 2001 and there are should be no excuses for sexism just as there are no excuses for racism.

Steve Mermelstein
Owner, Milton Bowling Center, Milton, VT

P.S. I will not be renewing my BPAA membership because of this unless the BPAA/PBA should make proper amends to the PWBA and its members.
All the best,
Steve Mermelstein

Since your questions may also be of benefit to others please post them to the board.

Follow me on Twitter
My Wishlist

#8698 - 08/04/01 12:25 AM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
sebring843 Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 1
Its unfair that there is no TV for the women yet, but the PBA is putting up that money so if the PWBA wants to do that, then fine. Every year the women always have less entries than the men and have had the same number of cash spots. That's not fair either. They could fill those spots with more men but do not.

The new PBA guys can't take care of everybody.

#8699 - 08/04/01 12:46 AM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
bowlndiva Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 03/03/01
Posts: 2
From the timeline I've seen, the PWBA has gone from being assured TV time to being left out in the cold with too little time to DO anything about it.

I'm assuming that the there would be no incentive money for the ladies if they don't actually BOWL on TV, right?

Which also begs the question, in the dual-pro families are the men bowling or joining the boycott?

#8700 - 08/04/01 11:59 AM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
The Fish Bowl Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 71
A/S/L: My owner's desk
This all sounds like a lot of unnecessary whining. The women tour should more aggressively seek sponsors and pay their own way instead of relying on the BPAA or PBA to make up for their shortcomings. On the other hand, they shouldn't have been excluded from TV.

Fishy hasn't had a night out in a long time. Please donate using PAYPAL! ;-)

#8701 - 08/04/01 12:32 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
George Freeman Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 70
A/S/L: Florida
This was an error in judgement on the part of the BPAA. As far as the purse goes, I don't have a problem with that. Let's face it, there are more men's entries than women's entries, so by the laws of physics, the money should be less for the women. However, to deny the women TV exposure is ridiculous. Basically what the BPAA is saying is that the women aren't important, and that nobody would want to see them bowling for a major title. I for one would definately want to see equal time on TV for the ladies.

Should dual pro couples have their male counterparts join in the boycott? Well, this is the primary source of income for some of these families, and for those under contract one of the stipulations might be that they bowl the major tournaments, so in that case I would say they should bowl. That may sound confusing (I dont think I'm explaining myself very well on that LOL), but it's just my opinion.
George Freeman

#8702 - 08/04/01 03:02 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
thehopeless_1 Offline
Junior Coach

Registered: 06/08/01
Posts: 41
I agree with freeman on this subject with the purse and the television time. They should allow the women more time on television and less money then the men until the women could get more entries.

#8703 - 08/04/01 05:19 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
AMFBOB Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 06/06/01
Posts: 3
I agree with Steve M., 100%!!! When will all these bowling organization's become united? Instead all they do is fight with each other and nothing gets accomplished. It reminds me of the local mens leagues in our area, still in the "Stone Ages", by not letting women in their bigtime "scratch" leagues! Proprietors should take a long hard look at what the BPAA is doing here by aligning with the PBA and cease paying BPAA dues if things stay the way they currently are. I'll be glad to donate to the PWBA fund, hopefully thousands of others will do the same. Maybe some sponsor will step up to the plate and the PWBA can hold the event at another venue this year.

#8704 - 08/06/01 05:09 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
bowlmeover300 Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 1
If more propieters have the guts to take a stand like Steve M. the BPAA will be forced to see how unfairley the Womens event has been treated and that there members care.

I think the prize fund difference is unforunate but the women never fill there end and the men have a waiting list to get in. The amount of money recieved back in the way of entries to the BPAA is significantly different. Although that is not how the prize funds were based on in the past. My understanding is the PBA added the money to the men's prize fund to bring it up to their new standards for a major and it still is a major for the men.

The real crime is the TV coverage. The women were sold down the river as not worthy of TV. The PBA has some real power behind it now and the BPAA didn't have the guts to stand up for them. What does this say about the new PBA that they wanted the women cut out of the TV show in the first place. Why did the BPAA let the PBA determine the format for the MEN'S BPAA US Open.
Shame on all of them.

As for the boycott all PWBA members touring or not that desire to keep membership in good standing will be unable to bowl because they intend to put a code of ethics violation in place for bowling in any tournament where men and women are not treated equally where prize funds are concerned. So not only can last years US Open Women's Winner not defend her title the field won't be of a major tournament strength.

How sad that our bowling organizations can't find the means to work fairly together. This could just take bowling down a couple of more notches and drive away mores fans, supporters, sponsors, ETC. This can't be good for the industry.

What about the proprietor who signed on for the men and women's US Open what is he getting. Proprietors who are willing to take on these types of events are few and far between.

HOW SAD!!!!!!!!!

#8705 - 08/06/01 06:01 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
blondsquad Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 08/06/01
Posts: 2
It is my understanding that both the men and the women were given equal opportunity to secure television coverage and that the BPAA agreed to assist in the funding of the women's television coverage (the men are paying their own expenses). However, no proposal was ever submitted by the PWBA even though its been indicated that a specific time period for the women's broadcast was available. Let's not villainize the proprietors. Make sure you have all the facts before you pass judgement on what I'm sure was a difficult and well-considered decision by the BPAA. It is unfortunate that the women's tour has not been able to secure the sponsorships and funding needed to run the tour to the degree that they would like, but they can't expect the BPAA or the proprietors or the manufacturers to bail them out. Would they prefer the men lower the prize fund for the PBA players and hold the industry back completely?

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  Angel, Community Manager 
Savings That Support
We need your help!
Rather than begging for donations we're asking you to do one simple thing to help keep these forums running smooth:
When shopping for anything on or eBay please use these links to go to the web sites.

This won't cost you a cent!
You'll still get the exact same low prices, deals and free or low cost shipping; it doesn't change anything for you at all! The items do not have to be bowling related; all purchases made through these links help us! and eBay will pay us a small commission for every sale and it's helping us cover the expenses. Recent Posts
This is a damned shame
by djp1080 - 10/17/20 08:32 PM
Undercover Boss Bowlero
by BOSStull - 10/12/20 07:16 PM
Who is itching to get back on the lanes
by BOSStull - 09/26/20 10:12 PM
The price of new bowling balls
by BOSStull - 09/26/20 09:39 PM
Quitting my League
by BOSStull - 09/26/20 09:32 PM
Terms Of Use
Use of this community signifies your agreement to the Community Standards and Conditions of Use.

About | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Site Map
Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. | Material Connection Disclosure

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 - usrbingeek LLC | Copyright Policy, BowlingFans, The Right Approach, Kegler's Connection, Tour411, BallBeat,,, and Bowling News You Can Use are trademarks of usrbingeek LLC. All other trademarks and tradenames are property of their respective owners.