Bill Burr had a good take on this one. Basically, how many of the people complaining about the pay disparity in women’s basketball actually watch women’s basketball? If you want them to get paid more, you need to watch their sport so they will bring in higher ticket sales and ad revenues. His take is a lot women are complaining about this pay disparity and few of them actually even watch the WNBA, so it’s kind of hypocritical since they’re not doing the very thing that would help increase their salaries.
Closest thing to a sport that I watch is pro wrestling, and I greatly enjoy women’s wrestling, so…
Except WNBA players don’t get revenue shares like NBA players do. That’s what they’re asking for.
I don’t know what the finances of the WNBA are but people should be paid by their talent and expertise. Someone preforming at a high enough level to make it into the WNBA is exceptionally rare and their salary should reflect that. Else, soon enough there won’t be any WNBA players.
Hey that’s about what most engineers graduating from college get. And they won’t be able to do sponsorships and ad deals. I would say $76k is a much more appropriate salary to start with than what the men make in basketball. That is just crazy
She has north of 3m in sponsorship deals right now, and we can only assume that number will go up in the WNBA
It may go down in the WNBA. Caitlin Clark isn’t the first player who was expected to make the WNBA popular (Maya Moore, Brittany Griner, etc). It’s far too early to tell if she will have any impact on WNBA viewership.
The issue is that NIL money is also a way for boosters to pay players to stay instead of the shadowy back door deals that used to happen. Now NIL just allows boosters to pay players through a legitimate channel.
A lot of NIL money during the off-season is booster money, yes. That’s money that basically will only go to athletes signed with a particular school.
But there’s also a lot of NIL money for actual big budget TV/print advertising from national corporations for ads produced by major ad agencies. That’s money that follows the athlete.
Not all of it will follow the athlete to the pros (and not every athlete goes pro), especially since the WNBA seems to have lower viewership than NCAA women’s basketball. But if anyone is gonna be making good money on sponsorships in the WNBA, it’ll be Caitlin Clark.
76k is barely enough to get by in a lot of urban areas … this is a shameful compensation for one of the best players.
I barely make 20k and would do a lot of things to nearly 4x my yearly income
The problem is that the NBA pays way too fucking much
I always push back when I hear people say athletes get paid too much. The money’s on the table. It either goes to the owners, who likely inherent the team or are independently billionaires, or the players. The players are lucky to get 5 years to make as much money as possible, they deserve it way more than the owners.
Women’s basketball has soared in popularity in recent years, with this year’s March Madness tournament dwarfing its men’s counterpart. There are plenty of reasons for this, but one of them is that the game is just fun to watch.
This should result in more media money, which should result in higher salaries. We’ll see. Football really does suck a lot of the oxygen out of the room, financially speaking.
Another part of the discussion is that popularity is sort of meeting in the middle, since as women’s basketball rises, men’s college basketball has been gutted by (among other things) stars leaving after one year, as well as court-forced rule changes (completely reasonable, IMHO, because players should get agency) that have everyone else playing musical chairs as they switch schools to pursue their financial and athletic dreams rather than buckle down to get a degree, which is often nerfed anyway.
College athletics in general, and “revenue sports” in particular, try to meet the letter of the “Student Athlete” rules without giving a single shit about graduating players who have the same level of mastery and accountability as even a garden variety liberal arts major. It’s not really a new thing, either. I muddled my way through an English degree, learning study skills as I went, and while I’m under no delusions that meeting the minimum standards was as hard as it would have been in an engineering program, there weren’t exactly any athletes in my classes on Elizabethan Drama or the History of the English Language, either.
There are plenty of reasons for this, but one of them is that the game is just fun to watch.
I encourage everyone who takes the “it’s just fun to watch” rhetoric to heart to look at NASCAR. There was a period where it was “cool” to watch NASCAR, once that hype faded and only the people who actually cared about the sport were left, they started having massive declines in spectators.
I expect women’s basketball to have the same result. It’ll be fun to watch for a year or two to please the feminists, but after that people will realize they don’t actually care and focus more on other things.
…and millions in sponsorship deals
According to the article, it sounds like those go to the team and owners, not the players. WNBA players don’t even get a dime when someone buys their jersey.
Imma need to see a source for that claim.
Sure if she’s doing a team endorsement deal as a part of her contact that goes to the WNBA, but if Vuori or State farm or whoever just sign Caitlin Clark to a deal to appear as Caitlin Clark the WNBA doesn’t just take a cut of that.
The issue is that men make orders of magnitude more just for being men. No reason to handwave that disparity away.
Technically they make orders of magnitude more because the money they bring in is orders of magnitude more
Yeah, I saw an argument about considering not only what they’re paying the athletes but also what those athletes are bringing in as far as advertisments, ticket sales, merch, etc. I can’t find the video but I remember it clearly because it hadn’t occurred to me before then. I’ll look for it to make sure I’m not making any part of it up, but the numbers were ridiculous as far as how much money was being made from male leagues compared to female leagues.
One argument that I have heard is that most women don’t have the height to make dunks, so they have to focus on shooting. That’s arguably a more pure form of the sport.
Something similar happens in pinball leagues. Tilting is generally an accepted practice, though this is often to the surprise of people who don’t know a lot about pinball. If the table is setup to let you do it, you can do it in a tournament. However, most women don’t have the upper body strength to shove a pinball table around, and many women’s leagues do ban tilting. Bumps are allowed, but not moving the table. Again, arguably, this is a more pure form.
It doesn’t though. That’s the problem. As a % of league profit, the pays don’t match. Women don’t get much on sales of apparel either.
Profit or revenue? Idk latest numbers but iirc the wnba lost 12 million in 2019 alone. The total value of the wnba is 1 billion dollars. For context, Steve Ballmer bought the clippers for 2 billion.
The entire wnba has a value that is half the value of the number 2 team in the LA market. Baller bought the team in 2014 btw, so it’s half the value from 10 years ago. I think the most recent sale was when an investment group paid 3 billion for majority share of the hornets about a year ago. By that measure the wnba is worth, maybe a quarter, of one of the least valuable franchises in the nba.
Plus these are rookie scale contracts. That’s pretty standard part of union collective bargaining. The union wants available funds to go to veteran players. You can’t really make a strong argument for those funds being too low when the league has never turned a profit in 25 years.
They do have a union. They just have zero leverage because the wnba isn’t profitable. They go on strike, lose an entire year and the owners save money. I’m not going to call the wnba a charity case for the NBA because it does have value in promoting the sport itself. That value is too abstract to put into a cba negotiation though.
We all need a union. Maybe we should set up a union that we can be born into. That way we get a better start than the non-union babies.
Lol. I can just imagine all of the owners only hiring women who aren’t a part of a union after that.
Not saying it shouldn’t happen, but there will be no shortage of women willing to sell out their fellow women for a chance to make money playing basketball.
Capitalism, ho!
The nba has been around for 50 years longer. The WNBA is a subsidiary of the NBA. There was never really a market for women’s basketball. There barely is now, after 25 years of the WNBA existing. The NBA runs at a 1.6 billion dollar profit while the WNBA runs at a 22 million dollar loss.
Making a profit is, traditionally, a part of a professional sports league.
