I agree with Jeff on the money issue, I've never felt the women should have as big a prize fund as the men. Not because they are women, but because there aren't as many of them in the tournament. In a morally correct world, yes, the BPAA should explain where all the money has gone, and why the money has become an issue for them. But this isn't a morally correct world unfortunately, and it IS the BPAA's tournament (well, now that the PBA bought it, it is theirs, but technically it is still the BPAA's), and they can do what they like. That leaves the PWBA with either rolling over and taking it, or doing something about it. The BPAA should have set aside time on TV for the women. They say the PWBA can't get funding, how are they supposed to be able to do so if they can't get exposure...I mean, this isn't rocket science.

No matter what excuses are given, the bottom line is going to be that the BPAA is going to lose face. I've already heard talk that some members aren't going to re-sign. That's an economics lesson even they will be able to understand, and the sad thing is it could have all been avoided.

I understand the position the lady professionals are taking, but I also watched the last swing they bowled. It appears as if they are having a problem convincing the public that they are professionals. I for one did not enjoy seeing participants just give up! No that I am saying that this happened but this is the way it appeared to some fans. But my big complaint was why for the first 4 or 5 tournaments the bowlers appeared to stand in the same spot and play the same line! I maybe alone in my assumptions, but it looked like a case of self murder. With only 3 or 4 pros able to hit the shot. To me this is not competitive as much as selective. It looked as if it was a commercial for those who went to sebring for lessons. In any case the quality of the show took a nose dive. I hear so much talk these days about overpaying athletes. I would like to know just how entertaining the PWBA feel the shows were. With this said I do believe there should be some way to include the PWBA in the US open!! I was under the impression that the job of all of these alphabet organization was to expand the sport of bowling. If this is true then maybe someone will suggest that all parties sit down and negotiate terms for PWBA participation. I think they all should remember the quote about the toes you step on way up!!

It seems that the organizations are not atempting to deal with the sport as a whole. Bowling is really in trouble. You cannot make comparisons to golf or tennis because their stars are all well known. I don't follow golf at all but I know of Annika Storestam and Karrie Webb. And most people know that Martina Hingis, Monica Seles and the Williams sisters are tennis pros. Bowling has an image problem, and because of this the BPAA, PBA and PWBA should realize that in unity there is strength. They need to work together and come to a common ground. When ABC Television dropped bowling, the handwriting was on the wall. The CBS year was a sham. The organizations need to utilze their resources. I'm not going to take any sides in the boycott. I just feel that these organizations really need each other. The PBA has to realize that just because they have a little more money they really don't have it made in the overall scheme of things.

Exactly; Blondsquad, Without the entries and sponsor money how can the BPAA (which is supported by membership dues) possibly come up with that kind of money. The PWBA need to check there own agenda in keeping pace with the PBA, instead of expecting someone else to do it for them. Attempting to encrease membership would probably be a good start

I am informed on this subject, I do work for the BPAA, and having traveled with the PWBA for five years I feel that I am qualified to address the issue. It is really a shame the top women bowlers might miss the biggest pay day of the year and hopefully the television issue will be resolved in the coming weeks. The prize fund issue will not be resolved since the PWBA management doesn't have the extra money or a business plan other than "begging for dollars" through a political action group. You can look at the PWBA tournament prize funds, number of entries, and corporate partners (or lack of) that the PWBA has this year and you can see that they are not very healthy. In fact the only thing that keeps them from being sold is finding someone with the money to step up to the plate.

Angel, In you editorial you mention the $187,500 that BPAA will save by not supporting the mens prize fund. The BPAA lost the marketing rights to the mens US OPEN when it was licensed to the PBA so there isn't an extra $187,500 just laying around.

The proprietors know that approximately 50 per cent of the bowlers are women and care about their customer base, but do you know how many of these women are in the 170 and above average catagory? How can you offer equal prize money when you have 240 men and only 150 women? Can you name one tournament that does that? In qualifying tournaments for the amateur spots the men out number the women at least 10 to 1. The past 3 years the women couldn't fill the 180 lady field and last year had 150 entries.

Timing regarding the television is a problem that we must share the blame and if the PWBA management will work with the BPAA it can be resolved. I truly believe that all of the women want to bowl and some will bowl regardless of the PWBA position. We will have a great event in Fountain Valley California and a deserving bowler will be crowned the 2001 US OPEN champion.

Thanks,

Rick Ramsey

Rick - your input is appreciated and I agree with it totally.

It is too bad about the TV issue. After all, that is where marketability comes from. I hope you are right and it will be resolved. I think maybe the PBA got a bit selfish on that one, but still maybe the BPAA should have insisted on the women being part of the TV show. It is reasonable to assume that the BPAA knew what the ramifications were going to be if the women's TV was taken away.

I do have one question though. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but I'm just a bit confused. The BPAA was going to get the $187,500 (that Angel says the PWBA should have given to them) from the marketing rights to the Open, however those licensing rights were transferred to the PBA. My question is what the BPAA received in return. I understand about confidentiality, however it would seem to me that the BPAA wouldn't just hand those rights over to the PBA unless they file they were getting something back. Is all they got in return the relief from having to market at all or was there a monetary payment as well?

Rick Ramsey,

I, too, am informed on this subject. I'm one of the PWBA members involved.

You made the comment as many others have that the women don't fill their field. This tournament prize fund is NOT based on entries. If it were, we could not argue the aspects of it. The point of our argument is that we are bowling "with" (in the same center and at the same times) the men. This is absolute discrimination. BPAA is showing that there concerns are for the men and women get whatever is left over. Every tournament I've been to that had men and women bowling together, treated us as equals. They offered no "extras" to men or women.

You say the BPAA doesn't have $187,500 laying around from what they are saving on the men's side, but aren't they still taking all the sponsor money they've received? Or is that all going to the men as well?

We offered BPAA several "other" options so the money factor would not be such an issue. PWBA, as well as anyone else, is aware that we don't have the money to support a $350,000 prize fund.
1 - We asked BPAA to still advertise as an equal $187,500 prize fund and offer the additional $162,500 as added bonus based on position for the men. They said that was an option and obviously decided not to go that direction.
2 - We asked BPAA to let us add some of our own money to the $187,500 on the women's side to increase the prize money. They said no, if we added money, it would need to go to their bottom line.
3 - We asked BPAA to seperate the tournaments and let us hold it at one of our already scheduled venues with TV time secured. They said no, they would lose approximately $50,000 in sponsor money if they did and that would have to come out of our prize fund.

PWBA asked BPAA not to accept PBA's offer as a matter of principle. BPAA responded that, although they were sorry about the inequity, this was a financial deal they had to accept. So, they are aware of and chose to ignore the inequity.

The U.S. Open is BPAA's event not PBA's or PWBA's to pay for or manage.
Why are they allowing women to be treated unfairly?
Would they have allowed the men to be treated this way?
Why are they expecting PWBA and PBA to pay for TV time?
In one year's time have they forgotten that this is a televised event and all of the obligations that go along with that?

I'm truly upset about missing the U.S. Open. It was a tournament that I was looking forward to bowling. I wish that all parties involved could realize how this can hurt bowling in general. We are standing together at this time in an effort to improve bowling for women in years to come. Will it be the "right" decision? We won't know until some time in the future. We are just doing what we feel is the best we can do. Right or wrong, all we really want is not to be different because we're women. We, just as everyone else, don't deserve that.

to diva

i asked jack kelly that question of switching the men's 187000 to the women and his reply was that that money didn't actually exist. It would have come partly from TV advertising had the bpaa retained control of broadcast rights. no broadcast rights, no money. the women's money will presumably come from a general fund and create a deficit as would a portion of the men's money. therefore, the BPAA won't increase the deficit by shifting the earmarked and now nonexistent men's fund

Dear out2bowl,

Please allow me to correct a few of your comments;

1. The PWBA was told that the BPAA would guarantee $187,500 on a full field of 240 bowlers. The same size field as this years mens field. What has changed---The PBA is responsible for funding the cost of the mens portion of the tournament and the BPAA will pay $187,500 in prize money for the women regardless of the number of entries. This was said prior to the Terre Haute vote.

2. AMF did a wonderful thing when they stepped up and sponsored the event for 3 years when both tours were struggling. What has changed---The PBA has new owners who have committed financially to revive the PBA and the PWBA struggles more than ever. If the PBA is successful the lady pros will benefit from their success.

3. Bowling in the same Bowling Center gives the lady pros a chance to showcase their talents and improve the product. It also gave bowling a unique situation that no other sport has. I think it is safe to say that this is the last year of a joint event and you can probably expect a smaller prize fund in 2002 for the women.

4. The PBA has the right to market the mens portion of the event and get the revenue generated. The BPAA does have some marketing rights for local and regional sponsors which could help offset the financial committment to the womens portion of the event. How much money do you think the BPAA should invest (lose) on the Womens US OPEN?

Addressing your points 1,2,and 3;

What sport do you know that would advertise equal prize money and offer a bonus for either the men or women? Do earnings mean anything in Bowler of the Year races? I'm not sure why anyone would ever consider this option.

Your second comment about added prize money is again a little of base and in fact I asked John Sommer, during a conference call,last week if he was prepared to apply the "begging for dollars" money to the prize fund and he would not commit to do so. Who will get that money?

Please read the article written by Matt Fiorito that was printed in the BJ cyber report. He did an excellent job and I think he understands the facts. Matt has always given the women equal space and I think he has taken the emotions out of the issue and wrote a truthful article.

I am also amazed that someone would think that the ladies haven't received equal treatment at the tournament sites the past 3 years. If anything they have received more than the men. I often get accused of being biased for the ladies which doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the position we find ourselves in today because the PWBA went public with an issue that could have been easily resolved. How can we turn this negative into a positive for the game?

Since you are an informed PWBA bowler what do you think about the reduced prize funds, long travel between tournaments, and less manufacturer support on the PWBA Tour? I would also be glad to discuss this issue with you on the phone. I have no hidden political agenda.

Thanks for taking an honest look at the big picture.

Rick Ramsey

If the BPAA lost rights to the US Open, I guess it isnt the BPAA US Open anymore. It's the PBA US Open.

If the money didnt actually exsist, why did they promote it as such?

I too emailed Jack Kelly, and got pretty much the same spin I read in the press releases.

Did the BPAA consciously sit down and say, "OK, let's sell out the women completely and not care what they or the public thinks."? Of course not. However, this is what ultimately has happened.

The idea that the $187,500 never actually existed is a new one to me though. I was wondering what would come next....