The WNBA Thread

such an incredible impact. Interesting to see how she has captured the hearts and minds of so many fans. The good news is a lot of fans she brought in are sticking around. 30%+ dip is nothing to joke about, but that is still sooooo much higher than ever before. I just hope the athletes don't get too greedy during their next negotiation. The NBA has carried their losses for decades. Don't get too big for your britches suddenly. It will backfire.

 

What's also funny is I've seen these jokes on LinkedIn of all places and know that most of the negative comments come from people working at tech startups that are negative cash flow.

 

^ This. For people joking ironically, whatevs. But many people don't actually understand and think it is a valid justification to pay them peanuts since "the WNBA loses money." There are NBA teams that lose money also, should those players be paid peanuts? Would people joke about "paying them what they're worth" meaning they.should owe the league money? No. There's an inherent misogyny underlying these jokes.

Both NBA and WNBA teams see their largest value in the form of franchise valuation increases. WNBA franchise values have almost tripled in the past year alone, and are poised to keep exploding.

"According to Sportico, the teams are collectively worth $3.5 billion and on average, each franchise is worth $269 million, vastly more than the $96 million the average team was worth in 2024."

But they're paying Caitlin Clark $76k.

NBA players get about 50% of league revenues (basketball related income). So do NHL & NFL players. WNBA players get 9%. Pay them what they owe them.

 

I think there's a certain point where a business matures that those terms make sense. Are we there yet? Sounds like they are coming of age, but I'd be wanting a history of years of proof before overextending. misogyny? Meh, I don't think so.

 

I'm not accusing you of misogyny, but I am saying there is some present in that tweet and other people saying those things directly.

Years of proof? They are expanding and just got a $2.2 billion TV deal that goes 11 years into the future. That's 11 years of proof right there.

Overextending? They have future money locked in. Businesses are valued on a forward looking basis, not backwards. Tech companies lose money for years while paying their employees highly, because they are increasing their valuation and contributing to future profitability. Then when they're on the brink of exploding, they don't tell their poorly paid employees (if they had any), pay you what we owe you, hah, you should be paying us money then.

Most businesses operate that way, not just tech. Including the NBA. In the recent past, about half the NBA lost money, and some teams still do. Would we accept the argument - pay them more than $76k? Pay them what we owe them? Hah, they should pay their teams money! Of course not. It's a garbage argument designed to pay people less than their worth.

Again, NBA players get 50% of revenue. WNBA players get 9%. There's a middle ground there somewhere that needs to be reached. Unless you think that Caitlin Clark making $76k is fair and what she's worth.

 

Caitlyn Clark could crap a sponsorship for 76k is my guess



Yeah, I didn't know details on the TV deal. Kind of makes that a no brainer. They had their time to become profitable, and now with guaranteed revenue coming their way, I completely agree 9% doesn't cut it compared to any other established league.

 

i didn't know this, and that's pretty amazing. what's the argument for the lower share of revenue, btw? has it been articulated?

 

I don't think there's any good argument. One may exist, but I've looked and haven't found one. I think it's just the "WNBA loses money" argument and leverage in previous CBA's, where they could threaten to fold the league, and they strong-armed the players union. The reality is different now, where viewership and interest are exploding. The WNBA itself is not an incredible brand, but Caitlin Clark is. If she and the current players walked, and got financial backing to start their own league (Mark Walter or the equivalent could singlehandedly fund the entire new league and call it the WABA or something), they would retain most of the viewership and interest, and the old WNBA would be near worthless. In such a scenario, they could likely get the 50% of revenues that the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB get.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...how-much-nba-nfl-and-nhl-players-get-0abef80c

 

I'm just reading more about this, and some of it is wild. Apparently WNBA "league wide revenue" does not include everything that is included in NBA "basketball related income" and different parties get different shares of things and you end up with things like this:

“I don’t think I should get paid the same as LeBron,” Las Vegas Aces star Kelsey Plum said on The Residency Podcast in 2022. “But the percentage of revenue — like for example: They sell my jersey in Mandalay Bay, I don’t get a dime. So that’s the stuff we’re talking about.”

The league will be making $200 million/yr just from the TV deal and likely $400+ million overall, but the total amount paid to every single WNBA player is just $19.5 million.


https://sports.yahoo.com/wnba/artic...eigh-in-on-wnba-labor-showdown-151146341.html

https://archive.li/TklK6

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...eyre-not-paid-what-theyre-owed-are-they-right

 

So what you’re saying is that owners are using flimsy accounting to minimize WNBA player pay. I for one am absolutely shocked that billionaires would try to exploit employee labor.

 

it does seem complicated--like how much does the wnba gain by its affiliation with the nba, and how can that be quantified? this is going to factor into that franchise price that's being used as a principal argument in favor of substantially raising salaries.

either way, 9% seems pretty ridiculous, assuming BRI is calculated similarly. and things like what you make off sales of your jersey should be pretty simple and equitable.

 

I think the WNBA association with the NBA used to be a bigger part of the value, but that it's flip flopped recently. If Caitlin Clark and all current players walked, and started a new WABA league w financial backers - which group would be doing just fine vs which group would be hurting, the current players or the WNBA? To me, the answer is pretty clear.

 

i can't pretend to know. i just know that i work at a state university that is not the flagship, and while one can imagine that we could function independently (and could point to reasons why we could, in theory, be better off), when you start gaming it out, you usually conclude that sticking with the big fish is the smart play. just all the infrastructure you have to duplicate, re-negotiating all deals with the many external partners that keep things afloat, etc.

it would certainly be an interesting experiment, though.

 

The numbers show that the draw is Caitlin Clark. To me, it seems very clear that the women's league that would survive is the one with her (and all the other existing semi-stars), not the one without. There is plenty of other data on that, but KuzmoBall's chart from the other day shows it pretty clearly. You're right that I can't know for sure, but it seems pretty likely. Yes, there would have to be people who could do all that other stuff, but you can find those from many sports leagues, and it seems like there would be plenty of financial support for a Caitlin Clark-led league.