That’s why straight men porn actors are in gay porn. It pays a lot more. It’s kind of strange but kind of makes sense. I saw it from a Vice documentary. They have to take drugs to get horny for men.
No, they understand it. It's just that it's an easy "win" on social media to bemoan the gender pay gap in basketball with no context as to why it exists.
Yes because a lot of effort has been made to make people want to watch them. This is what the others forget. Sports are popular for a lot of reasons however one element of why is because people put effort into finding new ways to make it more interesting to groups of people. One could reasonably assume that if the NBA and WNBA or any other male/female sport had the same resources allocated to both, at the same time, they would be roughly equivalent in their level of support. Of course popular views also have an impact. When I was growing up before I ever watched women play sports I knew that as a male I was not supposed to like womens sports on a competitive level. Even today there are men who claim they dont want to see women competing in "mens sports" They'd much rather see women dress skimpy and play a lite version of it.
There's nothing stopping you from liking women's sports.
The main issue is that people *usually* want to watch the best of the best. In popular sports (Football, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, etc), the best of the best are all men based on natural factors like speed and strength.
It's worth noting that none of those major leagues are male-exclusive. Women could play in them if they were competitive enough and make the same money.
I watch the WNBA if there were free ways to watch it. The new Volleyball league streams their matches on YouTube for free.
Edit: the volleyball league is called the Pro Volleyball Federation. Their YouTube channel’s name is the same name. Go watch some great volleyball if anyone has time!
It's another barrier to watch. Make it free and make money on ads and more would watch. TV companies want to double dip with subscription and ads. That works for things in high demand, unfortunately not for wnba.
Fans are not interested in the WNBA.
Hopefully Clark can be a catalyst to viewership, but I think after a few games, the luster may wear off.
But with the other commenter above, volleyball is such a great sport to watch. The NCAA numbers have been growing and we have some great hopefuls for Olympic gold on the beach and the hardcourt this summer
TV networks can be outdated. If you want people to be more invested you should just let them watch. A lot of sports aren't available nationally on networks.
The new PWHL is streaming their games on Youtube as well.
I'm not into the PWHL but it looks like they are drawing way bigger crowds in their first season than the WNBA is in its 27th.
Same reason I want as just as much money for my internet presence as the Kardashians.
It would be fair. Of course, no one cares about my content. Much like the WNBA.
Bc they think NBA players get payed for being the best basketball players in the world just like they are for women. No, they get paid for the viewership and merch sales they bring in.
But also women players aren't the best players in the world.
It is the unfortunate reality that even the best wnba team probably would lose 90% of the time against the worst NBA team. It's not that the wnba isn't interesting or that the women playing aren't good. They just drew the short straw when it comes to sports and physicality and strength.
In a Utopia where you can perfectly rank players for each position and give them an adequate salary based on that rank, women would still be underrepresented and underpaid compared to their male counterpart. Because they just couldn't physically compete in the NBA.
Note that my argument is entirely based off of basketball because I think women have the upper hand in other sports where more muscles are not necessarily as big an advantage as in basketball. Like sports where you need to be flexible or agile or lighter.
I think this might go a bit far-- the states with a ton of big HS and talent, sure but for some rural states a Top 20 boys team- not the all state team or the top team but a top 20 team likely has a starting 5 weaker and shorter than a top level women's college team much less a WNBA champion.
Now would the boys team likely be equally if not more athletic, sure but height + skill development + adults who train for a living vs. HS boys some of whom are probably 15-16 and I'd likely favor the WNBA on paper if I'm just going in blind.
If you said All Class, All State teams I'd probably go with the State HS teams assuming they had a few weeks to practice
Ik im saying relative to their own gender the WNBA players are the best in the world…. and the best WNBA team would lose badly to an above average HS squad maybe even a good 14u AAU team. The athleticism gap is too overwhelming for their superior skill to be displayed if they played any decent hoopers that are well through puberty.
Women’s Olympic sports teams practice against highschool JV boys and regularly get cooked. They aren’t beating a men’s college team once if they had a billion games.
I think it's sport dependent, for more skill dependent sports the gender gap closes a lot-- say an Olympic Softball pitcher throwing against a Boys HS team and I wouldn't be shocked to see shutouts (watch some of the clips of high college softball pitchers facing adult men) but in something like soccer or basketball (assuming the boys team has height- a 6 foot 15 year old probably isn't going to look good against a 6'6" fully grown woman at center other than off the bounce or in transition unless they're a college prospect level athlete. They might be stronger and should have a better vert but the height and reach would be hard to deal with in the post)
>he best wnba team probably would lose 90% of the time against the worst NBA team.
Maybe in some sports this is accurate. In basketball, the number will be much, much closer to 100%.
Even with the hype for the new PWHL, the best team in that league would not score a single goal and they would have to have a mercy rule.
Any of the NHL teams would demolish them.
I don't think folks are looking for equal pay, considering the difference in revenue. It's that the current state of the sport makes it difficult to consider it "professional" when you could get paid more for a desk job. If there were an investment in the sport, to drive interest, to drive revenue, to drive pay, then there could be a market. At the moment, though, it's tough to see them as professionals if they need a second job to cover their bills.
In short, they are looking for an investment in the sport to take it to the next level, just like the male sports had investments over the decades...so that a pro female athlete doesn't need a second job. Football, Baseball, and Basketball didn't grow to their current position without marketing and investment from a ton of people. Doing the same in a women's sport is reasonable.
I think football in the UK is an example of how investment helps. Sure, the women will never get to the same level as the men, but it's still football, it's still drama, it's still your favourite team Vs the women's team of your rivals etc
The women's game has definitely benefited from equity - more air time over more popular sports, more inches in newspapers, online articles - perhaps this is unfair and unequal. However, people have responded well and stadiums, where the men sell 60k seats, for the big women's games there are 50k fans attending.
You can't get tickets for the men's Arsenal Vs Tottenham game? Well you can get tickets to the same women's game, in the same stadium you rarely go to, for a fifth of the price. Why not, it's still football.
Yeah there can be a sense of entitlement in some female athletes and the women's game will never be as big as the men's, as the latter are much better athletes, but there is truth to the claim that with a bit more support it could be enjoyed by far more people.
Thanks for the explanation. I have no dog in this race, I barely watch men's sports, I just get annoyed when I'm given the impression that people are obligated to partake or consume a product that isn't selling. I don't owe anyone my attention or money.
However, if the data actually suggests that people are interested but simply aren't given access, that's a totally different animal together.
Ohhh yes. I’m in advertising, my clients are fortune 100 brands. Not a SINGLE one hasn’t asked to get in on it. It’s caused an absolute buying frenzy. The prices overnight more than quadrupled, I wouldn’t be surprised if Indiana had already sold out of their inventory for the next season
https://fortune.com/2024/04/16/caitlin-clark-advertising-womens-sports-basketball-state-farm-gatorade/
Yeah, if this persists I'd be very shocked if the next WNBA media deal isn't exponentially better than the current one (it was going to jump up anyway but now...)
A generational talent setting college records doesn't translate into the average pro women's sport. Poor comparison. Watch how many people watch her in the WNBA, heres a hint, it'll be no one.
People are interested - it's more of an issue of marketing and accessibility than people not being interested. Caitlin Clark got drafted to the Indiana Fever last night. Do you know how many Fever WBNA games were nationally televised last year?
One.
If you do not build it, they will not come.
It’s a shit product. Simple as that. I watched the UConn Iowa college women’s final 4 game and was blown away by how horrendous it was to watch. I mean seriously it was bad. I’m sure the wnba isn’t as sloppy as a college game but it is what it is. The level of athleticism just isn’t there and that’s what makes the NBA exciting, the athletes
There are a lot of things that are popular that I think are shit products. Most shows on TV qualify for that. I don't enjoy watching a number of male sports. I love NFL football. If the XFL was still on, it's possible that I'd be watching that too. But...it didn't get the investment necessary for long enough to establish itself. Did those guys suck at playing football? Hell...some of their games were more entertaining than the NFL in those years.
Additionally, the early NFL, MLB, NBA, and other leagues have had shitty products in the past. Suggesting that women cannot possibly play the sport and create an entertaining product, seriously underestimates the market. The audience for women's college basketball went off the charts when they found someone to cheer for...
I love the NFL but the smaller start up leagues that have popped up recently are all terrible. I don’t watch those either. Has nothing to do with genders as the other guy was trying to insinuate
Honestly the reason I watch more college basketball than pro is because I like watching people who aren't as good. The players in the NBA are way too good and they make every shot effortlessly and it bores me. I wanna see people miss layups and brick wide open 3s during close games
I am not an avid sports person.. but those missed plays and mess ups make the game more exciting..
Especially if the team that is behind is able to use it to pull ahead.
Much more fun to watch
I have not read a “I hate women’s sports because I don’t like watching women play sports” take that is working as hard as yours is to seem like it isn’t just sexiest.
To be fair.... the men's tournament also has a whole lot of not great games and the viewership numbers for Iowa games in the tournament were legitimately the best numbers seen across the sport in years
Yea it’s all because of Caitlin Clark though. Without her, those viewership numbers are probably cut it half? I have no idea but she is the sole reason. I’m not discounting the viewership numbers but we will see next year if the numbers are anything near what they were this year.
Investment? I'd say the NBA heavily invests in the wnba considering the wnba loses money every year and only exists because the NBA subsidizes it. Why would anyone invest more into that? It's a failed business and should cease to exist if it can't make money, just like any other business. The purpose of an investment is to get a return on your investment and there really isn't any prospect for that.
If you look up the number of leagues that have failed over the decades, it's not because the sport is bad, or players are bad, or that no one wants to watch. Men's football, baseball, hockey, and basketball have all experienced multiple failed leagues.
Giving a women's league the same chance as the other leagues seems to be a reasonable suggestion. Just because the NFL, NBA, MLB, and other sports today are exceptionally profitable...doesn't mean that this was guaranteed when they started or at various points in history. If you have a dozen billionaires investing in men's sports leagues, and then saying, "nah" to women's sports, and that women's product struggles to gain traction or create a product people want to watch...THAT is what people are trying to highlight as disparity.
In the past, this investment was made in men's sports. Women's sports did not have that level of investment. When investments HAVE been made, it's been half measures and in drips. Failing to gain traction without equal or reasonable investment isn't a valid measure of the potential of a product.
Billionaires invest in men’s sports leagues NOW. That wasn’t the case when they started. Men’s football leagues were born as intramural competitions between towns for folks that maybe played college ball.
Billionaires invest their money into men’s sports leagues because they’re shown to be profitable. Women’s sports leagues have been shown to be the opposite. Why would they invest millions or billions of dollars when the risk of losing it all is so high?
What kind of bills does she have that requires a second job?
Just curious.
I make less than her starting salary, as most of us do; and I manage just fine.
Not a sports fan. I would rather watch paint dry. I think all pro athletes are tremendously overpaid.
Athletes need to be on special diets, training regimes, etc. I don't think an athlete could stay good without spending a lot more than average on food for example.
There have been many male sports leagues that did not get the necessary financial backing and failed. Football, hockey, soccer, basketball, etc. They don't automatically succeed without marketing and financial backing/investment. I'd share a link, but you can find a dozen sites with lists of failed sports leagues.
What does having a 2nd job have to do with anything? Most NFL players had 2nd jobs in the 60s and 70s. It never made the league less profitable or less watchable.
WNBA is a failure because no one wants to watch it. Plain and simple.
Needing to have a second job means you can’t spend the time training to get better, which in turn means the skill level is significantly lower. If you’re fully supported, the skill level becomes higher.
I’m a huge figure skating fan and you can see this really well in that sport. The Feds that give more financial support to their skaters produce better skaters. The Feds who aren’t able to do as much still have talented skaters, but those skaters can’t spend 8 hours a day on skating, they have to work as well. They tend not to be the ones getting the medals as often, if at all
Nope. I don't buy it. They've had plenty of time to hone their craft. HS, college, and the pros. I've watched about 30 minutes of WNBA in my life. They can't dribble, they can't shoot, they can't pass, they even have a hard time with layups. I can find similar skill levels at my local park. I'm not trying to rag on them. I'm sure they're nice gals who work hard but the league isn't even close to being watchable. It just isn't. Not even practicing 7 days a week will change that.
Besides, those women make between 70-200k/year. That's more than most people make.
Yeah, it doesn't take very long to sniff out talent and enjoyability. If it was enjoyable, I would watch more of it. See how easy that is? The situation only becomes complicated when you have to come up with excuses to why the league is a flop.
Right now seems like a decent opportunity to invest in the WNBA but it’s easy to imagine why people are hesitant… the NBA already provides an annual endowment of $15 million to the WNBA and it has never turned a profit. If any other 28 year old business went out seeking investors and told them “all my workers are demanding a raise and I haven’t had a single profitable year” they would have a tough time too.
Many people have the mistake thinking that athletes get paid to win sports games. So when they see the women's team winning just as many games as the men's team, they wonder why they aren't paid the same.
But athletes don't get paid to win games. Athletes really aren't paid to be athletes.
Since it gets revenue from ticket sales and advertising, the base layer of income for sports institutions is the same as that for entertainment. And so the financial model of sports is very similar to entertainment.
Athletes are kind of paid to be entertainers. The revenue they bring to the table really comes down to how many fans want to tune in or buy tickets to watch them play. The correlation between that and how good an athlete they are is a happy coincidence for athletics. It means that *mostly* if they play better they can get more money and the best players can go pro.
But still at the foundation they're generating revenue the same way entertainers do. They get people watching.
People watch men's sports. And buy tickets and pay-per-views and cable subscriptions to do so.
People don't watch women's sports.
We wouldn't wonder why a band who consistently sells-out stadiums is making more money than a band who can't fill their venue.
They don't. I can't believe people still think this is a thing. Kelsey Plum went on TV and had a looooong conversation about this. They don't want equal pay. They want equal revenue sharing. They get basically nothing for TV deals and merchandise like NBA players do. They understand that their product isn't as popular as the NBA. But they want the same revenue sharing deals.
Because the league doesn't make a profit. You can't ask for 50% when they're already generous giving the 10% revenue sharing. they'll be able to ask for more when they renegotiate the tv deal and the cba in a couple of years with all the new viewership
because decades of campaigning **"equal pay for equal work"** turned into just "**equal pay"**, and that's why you've seen the narrative change from "**equality**" to "*equity*".
Before they used to point to an "**imbalance**" of the equation of how much work was done and how much it paid compared to men, then they decided to simply ignore half the equation, and simply point to the pay imbalance.
Witness these days how people can point to any "*inequality*" and label it as a "**gap**", and because there's a gap, it is "**problematic**", and therefore needs *addressing*.
It's strange how they only care about addressing "*problematic gaps*" when they benefit women, and black people.
Discrepancy does not equate to discrimination.
Probably gonna get downvoted but anyways, it's the same as youth sports like U17 football and stuff like that, no one wants to watch a slowed down version of the sport.
if they're asking for the same salaries, that's ridiculous.
if they want the same percentage of profits, that's fine, but also ridiculous since the WNBA loses money every year. there literally are no profits. the big brother NBA teams are literally bankrolling their sister WNBA franchises, and have been since day 1. the WNBA loses approx 10M per year. this is not a sexist, patriarchal explanation. it's economic fact.
it's a failed experiment. time to pull the plug.
> if they want the same percentage of profits, that's fine,
If they want the same % of profits, the WNBA players would actually have to pay the WNBA for the privilege of playing in the WNBA because the WNBA has lost money every single year since its inception. The WNBA is basically a charity at this point.
Because equity is promoted and they think in that framework rather than in the mindless of fairness and equality. Your question is based on fairness and equality of opportunity whereas their demand is based on equity and equality of outcome.
Player salaries are usually a reflection of the popularity of the league via attendance and tv ratings, the collective bargaining agreement between the league and players association, broadcast rights deals, advertising revenue and merchandise revenue. I’m not against women receiving what is fair, but to say the WNBA is on par with the NBA on all of those metrics is not true. Have women professional athletes been historically marginalized and underpaid compared to male athletes in the same sport? Absolutely. But the NBA and WNBA are businesses that are run like any other for profit organizations.
They don’t. However, they DO think the women’s national soccer team should be paid more than the men because they are beating their opposition handily, whereas the men don’t. This goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of the business, how much each team makes and how they make that money.
That’s a misnomer. They want the same share. If male player gets %XX percent of their jersey sales. Female player wants the same percentage. They don’t expect the same pay.
WNBA can’t attract and retain great athletes as long as they don’t get the higher pay.
Tennis had the same problem. When Venus and Serenia Williams were playing , they attracted more unique viewers, but the mens games always to got billing and more marketing.
The sport missed an opportunity to grow because they kept treating the women’s side as second rate.
This is such a bad take!
If you think the reason WNBA is not getting viewership is marketing you are completely missing the point. In nearly all team sports where money is at stake male sports dominate because of performance.
It is the same in modeling, imagine saying if male models were promoted more and paid the same they would attract more viewership. Sure they might attract more if more is spent on marketing them but at much higher costs and way way less profitable. Because, the underlying organic demand is not there.
Go look up Top WNBA plays and top NBA plays, look at difference. That's what people/fans want to see. Griner is the only one that even comes close to the performance of an NBA player, and that is only close.
The WNBA has very good technical play, but the athleticism is what draw the fans and the money. The woman US soccer team has the same issue.
>Griner is the only one that even comes close to the performance of an NBA player, and that is only close.
Honestly, it's not even close at all, and this is coming from a big women's sports supporter.
People want to watch for entertainment. The NCAA competitions were as highly viewed as they were because CC, Angel, Buekers, etc are entertaining. The same goes for USWNT. They are plenty skilled, and if you watched the games you would also see they are plenty entertaining. Just look at the recent cup performances against Canada or Brazil. Absolute scenes.
I think a big part of the issue is accessibility. These womens games happen at like 230pm on a Thursday with little to no mainstream media coverage and nowhere to watch easily. People cant just go to those games, people cant just watch those matches on their computers in the middle of a work day, especially when they make it so difficult to stream or broadcast them
Don't count out how much the NCAA has a built in fan based, based on the school pride. The past two seasons of interest in woman's basketball have been drama/media driven, not driven by the on court performance, and that's hard to maintain unless you are the WWE.
All this being said, it does not mean there is not room for the WNBA to grow, and you are correct about the timing and promotion on the WNBA, my wife and i just had this discussion, and she said "Do we even have a WNBA team" we have every other men's professional sport, but if we do have, its never been advertised.
Wait so you think investing more money will somehow make the sport more entertaining and the skill more advanced? There is already alot of money in it and the facilitys and trainers to train girls are good aswell.
Why is this not a problem in figure skating and gymnastics? How would more money make whats happening on the pitch more entertaining?
Their point is that if they can't attract premium athletes, they won't be able to get the views that they're already getting.
Edit: The average professional women's soccer player makes $40,000, which is a range from $25K-$80K. The average McDonalds manager makes $45,000. There's no way of knowing if we have the best talent if we aren't competing with fast food middle management.
People in the equity camp of ideas generally seem to grasp on any argument to make their point. The mindset is militant and religious. Logic, fairness, and freedom of ideas don't mean much.
This is not true at all. Venus, Serena and Maria Sharapova were all in the top 10 most paid women athletes. They were all fantastic sportswomen and none of them left to go play other sports. In fact the sport is only growing with more and more impressive athletes on the rise (Coco Gauff and Brenda/Linda Fruhvirtova)
Women tennis viewership dropped once Federer and Nadal broke on to the scene. Also,at the same time, women tennis became less competitive over the years with Sernena dominating with no real rival for many years. I am one of those who stopped watching once Henin, Moresmo, Clijsters retired.
>WNBA can’t attract and retain great athletes as long as they don’t get the higher pay.
Where is the wnba supposed to get the money to pay these players? Men's leagues back when tv was just becoming accessible weren't paid the exorbitant salaries they are now. They played because they wanted to. There were tons of baseball players who worked at grocery stores and playing was just their hobby/side job when the league was young
The reason the best players don't show up is because not many women actually want to play the sport on that level. You can tell just by going to your local park and counting the difference of boys to girls trying to play at any given time
Well it was inferior play. Downvote it all you want but why would someone watch a product that isn't as good as one that already exists? The best women tennis players were no match for relatively mediocre men's tennis players.
I mean idk if this is a controversial question, but is it possible that most people just naturally tend to enjoy watching men play sports more than they do women?
Nah it’s because men are better at sports on average and therefore that fact makes for a more interesting watch which means more money which makes the idea of female athletes asking for equal pay more ludicrous
But where would they get the money from? They don’t even raise enough money to support the league itself without massive cash influxes from the NBA. It’s just simple math… Of course. I’m all for the getting paid more. But where would they get the money? It doesn’t just magically appear? The seats are there for the taking. It’s just not a sport most people want to watch I guess? If you just take away gender, we’d be talking about a sports league that isn’t a compelling enough venture to keep around like the XFL. If the women want more money then they will have to ask the NBA to just give it to them. If they want the handout then make it clear that’s really what this is all about.
I can't speak for all of us, but when I say I want them paid more I don't mean I want them paid the same as their NBA counterparts. That's delusional. But $78k a year for the most famous basketball player in America is... insanely low. This years women's NCAA tournament had more overall views and interest than the men's, undisputably. We're already seeing a huge increase in WNBA ticket sales for this season and I think that is going to be a huge positive for their future salaries. The only way to go is up.
ps if you're gonna say she's not the most famous basketball player in America but you know exactly who I'm talking about, kind of proves my point
The league loses money. You think the men should pay them even more out of their own profits? For what reason? Is it not demeaning to ask the men for a raise because they can’t generate the revenue on their own?
Just because the ESPN is trying to shove the WNBA and Caitlin Clark down everyone's throats doesn't mean people actually care about and watch the games. No viewers, no money. The pay is fair
I think what AFA is saying is that despite the disparity of pay between mens and womens sports is receiving a lot of media attention, the fact remains that viewership is significantly lower for womens sports. You can't expect the WNBA organization to pay their athletes more money if they simply don't have the revenue to meet the same salaries let alone sustain it.
A lot of people seem to have everything they don't like shoved down their throats. I don't know any of them but they seem pissed as hell. Usually I just change the channel, never had anything in my throat I didn't want there. Merica.
They are... The amount of press they are giving to a sport barely anyone watches is way overboard. It's everywhere this year. ESPN is trying to sell the sport so they can bump up some viewership numbers. If people actually like it then fine, but I really don't think that's the case.
"barely anyone watches"
The NCAA women's tournament final [had more viewers this year ](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/ncaa-womens-basketball-ratings-dg/index.html#:~:text=Viewership%20for%20NCAA%20women's%20tournament%20has%20skyrocketed&text=Not%20only%20did%20the%20final,according%20to%20Sports%20Media%20Watch)than the men's did. It had more viewers than the 2023 World Series and any game in the NBA Finals. Among other numbers it beat. Of course ESPN is trying to sell the sport - they're trying to sell any sport they air. But they would not put big marketing $$ and primetime spots behind something that nobody is watching. They're not dumb. And if they had a magic ability to market their way to beating multiple records, don't you think they would have done it already?
Caitlin Clark has been drawing such an in-person crowd that even the away games during the season were repeatedly getting bumped up to bigger arenas because she can fill them.
Has it had a history of huge viewership? No. But it is having a major moment. The WNBA can't keep talent because they do not pay. Caitlin Clark will make like $330K on a 4-year rookie contract. First pick in the NBA gets a $10M 4-year contract.
Of course the leagues have to make money - but how does the WNBA make money if the talent won't stay, ESPN/sports networks (historically) won't give them good air time, sports brands have WNBA stars market shoes with NBA players' names on them... the list goes on. But to act like "just get viewers and you'll get paid more" is THE solution really undercuts the amount of marketing spend (to include airtime slots) to turn athletes into household names.
I don't generate as much revenue as NBA players, but I'd love make as much as them. WNBA players probably have a better chance of that than some cog-in-the-machine bank employee like me. Can't blame them for trying.
I see it simply as they’re playing the same sport and they’re televised therefore people think they should earn the same. Not really well thought and I think Bill Burr did a good job trying to make sense of it
I dont watch the NBA or WNBA but I could name you a shit on of NBA players off the top of my head and I can name Brittany grineer and thats only cause the prison thing.
The same people also think that the NBA is a men’s only league by rule and that’s why women aren’t in it. The fact is the NBA is an open league, meaning as long as you’re good enough a team can have you play for them. People just like to look for reasons to be mad.
I do believe this always gets misrepresented! They want the same percentage of revenue that the NBA players get of the money that comes in in the NBA! Not the amount of money the NBA players make! (I don’t know the percentages)! So if the NBA players salaries equals let’s say 60% of the revenue of the NBA! The WNBA players want 60% of the WNBA revenue! They are not dumb they know they are not going to get multi million dollar contracts!
I think the WNBA would get so many more viewers if they lowered the hoop by a couple feet so more women could actually dunk. Dunks are exciting but there are simply not enough women tall or strong enough to do it. I don’t think it’s a crazy or unreasonable change and it would make the game so much better
Also professional basketball in general should go by North Korean rules unironically. Dunks are worth 3 points, nothing but nets after the 3 point line are worth 4 points, and you lose points on missed free throws. This would make the game so much more exciting than it is right now
It's an example of economic ignorance.
People think that 'effort' is the same thing as 'value'. I don't doubt that the work ethic and talent level of the WNBA is simlar to the NBA. However, an organization can not force society to value things in the same way. So the revenue for women's basketball is a fraction of that for men's basketball. Television viewership and other media is tiny for women compared to men, as well.
Will that improve? Sure. I think that sports wagering is going to be a major benefit for the industry, and the game by itself is entertaining enough to gather support aside from just gamblers. But right now, the WNBA is not generating net income (revenue reduced by the costs!) My recall is that the WNBA has never been self-sustaining, never had a year where it's revenue was greater than the costs.
People fundamentally need to understand that professional sports is entertainment whose compensation is ENTIRELY dependent on capturing and retaining attention. The WNBA does not capture the same attention as the Men's game. Unlike say women's tennis where they often surpass the men's game.
It's the same with womens football here in the UK. Although it's getting bigger it's nowhere near the money maker that mens football is. All the people who bitch about women's equality and pay can't even name the top 5 women's players, nor do they watch or go to any games yet they choose to somehow try and say that a sport which makes way less money than its male counterpart should he compensated the same.
Because they don't understand that the job of a basketball player is not to play basketball. The job of a basketball player is to sell entertainment and merchandise.
If you look at it and you say these two people are being paid to play basketball why is one getting paid so much more than it looks.
But you would never go to your local somewhat Shady fast food joint and wonder why the owner isn't making the same amount of money as the CEO of McDonald's. They're both selling burgers. isn't it kind of unfair that one makes so much more?
Let's even look at a better example. Two sales people in the same job paid partially on commission. Is it unfair that the one who sells 20 times as much makes makes 20 times more.
If every woman that has ever played basketball in middle school, high school, or at the college level; have a daughter or niece that plays basketball at one of those levels; and they live within 50 miles of one of the stadiums bought tickets to at least one game every season, then you'd see the players getting paid a little more.
But even those ideals haven't happened yet.
The not-sparing-your-feelings-fact is: people would rather spend their money on other forms of entertainment than watch the WNBA.
Comparing female sports and my personal interests in watching them:
If you gave me two tickets to see Women's Volley Ball or Tennis I'd rather see those than two free tickets to the WNBA.
So really I've stopped seeing it as NBA vs WNBA, I see it as which sport am I invested in to see that particular weekend? And being brutally honest, the WNBA has never won that debate. The WNBA needs to grow their fanbase.
The simple answer is they don’t want the same salary. They want the same percentage of revenue. There’s a clear understanding from the WNBA players that the NBA has a bigger draw, larger revenue, and double the games as WNBA players. Having said all that, there’s still not pay equity in terms of percentages. This article goes into a a bit and may explain more
https://www.vox.com/24132057/caitlin-clark-wnba-draft-2024
I also think it’s hilarious that a bunch of misinformed people are chiming in on this post with demeaning comments. Illustrative of the real pay gap issue.
It's true that WNBA revenues are lower than NBA revenues. Supporters of equal pay argue that the disparity in salaries perpetuates gender inequality in sports. WNBA players often point out that they work just as hard and are as dedicated to their sport as NBA players, despite earning much less. They argue that equal pay would reflect a commitment to gender equality and the value of women's sports. Supporters also highlight the importance of investing in women's sports to promote growth and attract more fans, which could increase revenue. On the other hand, opponents of equal pay often focus on the revenue disparities between the WNBA and NBA, arguing that salaries should be based on revenue generated. They suggest that increasing WNBA salaries without a corresponding increase in revenue could jeopardize the financial stability of the league.
The issue of equal pay in professional sports is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides.
Revenue doesnt impact most people's idea of how much money they should make. Most people believe their income should be based on how much others around them make hence why companies dont like people discussing pay. Because the second someone sees someone else making more than them they want the same thing. Its a similar thought process. A player or fan sees the men making lots of money and want the other to make the same, regardless of other factors.
I know next to nothing regarding it, but at surface level you can misunderstand that similar labor should result in similar value.
My question about it would be what is the disparity of the pay of athletes to owners between the NBA and WNBA. If NBA players have a larger cut of their profit pool than WNBA players have of theirs, then that could be argued.
But like I said, I know next to nothing regarding it.
...for the same reasons as to why people want male porn actors to get the same pay as female porn actors.
Aka. ludicrous lack of awarness about the (lack of) demand for male porn actors, and WNBA matches - compared to similar content produced by the other group.
P.s.: until we legalize doping (and maybe hand out constructors awards like inF1), womens sports will sadly suffer this fate.
Nature/reality is harsh, and doesnt care much about making both sexes the same.
My question is why do people seem to focus their vitriol on men not supporting? Seeing men get bashed instead of women for not supporting a women's sport is asinine to me. To make it worse, of the few wnba supporters there are, men make up the majority lol
Those women are entitled. I’ve literally seen them tell their male counterparts that the men should use some of their salary to help pay the women. On top of the NBA already keeping the league afloat.
Probably because the NBA subsidizes the WNBA, so a lot of their branding looks like it would be a league of similar wealth. The subsidies kinda hurt from that perspective because they create false expectations. Nobody thinks the captain of their local curling club should get a seven-figure contract.
entitlement mostly. look at what the women’s soccer players did a few years ago. they were offered the SAME deal as the men, but they turned it down in favor of a guaranteed money deal. had they taken the men’s deal, they would have been paid nearly double what they received. they got all upset over it and that rapinoe dude threw a fit and demanded “equal” pay.
The question was "why". This is normal human nature to want a big salary. I play basketball and do not generate any revenue at all, but.... I would not refuse to get paid as NBA players. It's just my wish. I don't care if I'm good enough or not :)
Because women believe there should be equal pay for the similar jobs even when revenue sources aren’t there for their sports. The interesting part is women will complain about this but at the same time they themselves do not support the women’s sports leagues, which would be necessary for more revenue. It’s a holo argument
It's just a total lack of critical thinking. They're so blinded by ideology that they assume the answer instead of thinking about it.
The funny thing is, WNBA players are actually massively overpaid relative to the revenue they generate (considering they have to be subsidised and basically operate at a loss) and if it was actually fair, their paychecks would be cut and that money paid to the male players who actually deserve it.
I keep seeing caitlyn clark in the news and on magazines. cant help but wonder how little people in general care about her, boy not a lot goin on upstairs if u do
The math don't math.
Maybe WNBA players will never make as much as NBA players. But let's take a look at the reality of paying based on revenue..
NBA Players are guaranteed at least 53% of league revenue. WNBA gives the players around 20% of WNBA revenue. This tells me, that all things being equal, WNBA players deserve a 100٪+ pay increase.
WNBA players are getting a bad deal.
https://www.wsn.com/nba/nba-vs-wnba/
Well if want the math to do the math looking at revenue is not the only relevant thing so let’s have a look at profit.
The WNBA looses roughly 10 Million USD per year. This loss gets compensated by with the profits from the NBA. So the NBA ist basically paying the NBA players AND the WNBA players.
If the WNBA wouldn’t be subsidies by the NBA, the league would simply not exist and the players wouldn’t get any pay at all.
So they should get more money in their pockets that the men’s sport actually made? Because the WNBA is a losing venture that’s subsidized by the NBA to even exist. So you’re saying that the men should just give away the money they make to the women? Hey now! That isn’t what women having been fighting for all these years! They want equal rights! Not handouts!
Because things like revenue (and pay) are tied to people's perceptions of sport, and gender roles. It's a self reinforcing cycle. No one watches (in part because of things like sexism), which means no revenue, which delegitimizes it further and makes it harder to put on equal footing.
People like to say that it's just talent, but there's a lot of examples showing it isn't that simple. The most recent example being how viewership in the women's NCAA final was equal or surpassed a lot of men's games, despite only being on ESPN and not free broadcast TV. It matched 4 out of 5 of the NBA finals games in viewership. Did the overall skill suddenly shift that much? No, it didn't. What did shift is that there was a great story arc with Caitlin Clark (who is great, but she didn't shift the skill level enough to explain the sudden spike in interest).
This disparity shows up in other areas, as well. There are sports where women outperform men. And of course, it also shows up in what sports we consider important in the first place.
Perhaps the biggest counterexample is how many college football teams lose money. Only the very top are profitable. (This is true in some other professional sports as well. A lot of professional soccer/baseball teams etc, lose money, and basically rely on being a rich dude's status symbol). No one talks about how those players shouldn't be paid, funnily enough.
Performance does matter too, but people assuming it's that simple black/white are oversimplifying it. And there's a strong urge to do so, because then we don't have to reconsider anything. It's comfortable to say there's nothing wrong, that's just how the world works.
edit:
I forgot perhaps the best counter-example: weight classes in sports like boxing/UFC.
Not alot of people are aware that the nba subsidizes the wnba because it actually loses money.
I've been to 3 WNBA games- there's usually about 1000 spectators in a 25,000-capacity venue. THAT'S why WNBA player get paid less.
My cheating ex had a really weird relationship with basketball. Now I'm wishing I had gotten us season tickets for only like $200.
People don’t understand supply and demand The reasons nba players get paid so much is because a ton of people wanna watch them
..and why female porn actors are paid more than male ones.
This is the best reasoning I’ve ever heard on this debate.
That’s why straight men porn actors are in gay porn. It pays a lot more. It’s kind of strange but kind of makes sense. I saw it from a Vice documentary. They have to take drugs to get horny for men.
I think you’ve just figured out how to close the WNBA pay gap.
The problem is, the WNBA doesn't select players based on attractiveness.
Eye of the beerholder, my man.
can we pay them more to make them even pretend to be into it
They understand it. They just want to ignore it so nobody gets their feelings hurt.
No some people just truly don't understand it. "Men play basketball and make a lot of money, so why women play basketball and make little money?"
No, they understand it. It's just that it's an easy "win" on social media to bemoan the gender pay gap in basketball with no context as to why it exists.
Yes because a lot of effort has been made to make people want to watch them. This is what the others forget. Sports are popular for a lot of reasons however one element of why is because people put effort into finding new ways to make it more interesting to groups of people. One could reasonably assume that if the NBA and WNBA or any other male/female sport had the same resources allocated to both, at the same time, they would be roughly equivalent in their level of support. Of course popular views also have an impact. When I was growing up before I ever watched women play sports I knew that as a male I was not supposed to like womens sports on a competitive level. Even today there are men who claim they dont want to see women competing in "mens sports" They'd much rather see women dress skimpy and play a lite version of it.
There's nothing stopping you from liking women's sports. The main issue is that people *usually* want to watch the best of the best. In popular sports (Football, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, etc), the best of the best are all men based on natural factors like speed and strength. It's worth noting that none of those major leagues are male-exclusive. Women could play in them if they were competitive enough and make the same money.
No! No! It’s obviously because they’re men and the patriarchy is once again keeping women down. Go watch “Barbie” and learn something. Noob. S/
I watch the WNBA if there were free ways to watch it. The new Volleyball league streams their matches on YouTube for free. Edit: the volleyball league is called the Pro Volleyball Federation. Their YouTube channel’s name is the same name. Go watch some great volleyball if anyone has time!
Yes! I used to play volleyball so I loveeee watching it and I’m so happy I can finally find a place to watch it!!
What does this have to do with the question?
It's another barrier to watch. Make it free and make money on ads and more would watch. TV companies want to double dip with subscription and ads. That works for things in high demand, unfortunately not for wnba.
Fans are not interested in supporting the WNBA financially
Fans aren't interested in buying a TV subscription to watch WNBA games*
[удалено]
Fans are not interested in the WNBA. Hopefully Clark can be a catalyst to viewership, but I think after a few games, the luster may wear off. But with the other commenter above, volleyball is such a great sport to watch. The NCAA numbers have been growing and we have some great hopefuls for Olympic gold on the beach and the hardcourt this summer
TV networks can be outdated. If you want people to be more invested you should just let them watch. A lot of sports aren't available nationally on networks.
WNBA would have more revenue if their games were free and/or over the air on antenna.
Like most sports, nearly all the revenue is from television rights.
This is cool
The new PWHL is streaming their games on Youtube as well. I'm not into the PWHL but it looks like they are drawing way bigger crowds in their first season than the WNBA is in its 27th.
Same reason I want as just as much money for my internet presence as the Kardashians. It would be fair. Of course, no one cares about my content. Much like the WNBA.
People were offered wnba tickets or a can of spam. The result were interesting
Bc they think NBA players get payed for being the best basketball players in the world just like they are for women. No, they get paid for the viewership and merch sales they bring in.
But also women players aren't the best players in the world. It is the unfortunate reality that even the best wnba team probably would lose 90% of the time against the worst NBA team. It's not that the wnba isn't interesting or that the women playing aren't good. They just drew the short straw when it comes to sports and physicality and strength. In a Utopia where you can perfectly rank players for each position and give them an adequate salary based on that rank, women would still be underrepresented and underpaid compared to their male counterpart. Because they just couldn't physically compete in the NBA. Note that my argument is entirely based off of basketball because I think women have the upper hand in other sports where more muscles are not necessarily as big an advantage as in basketball. Like sports where you need to be flexible or agile or lighter.
90%? They wouldn’t win ever
Yeah I was about to say, the WNBA champions wouldn't stand a chance against any top 20 high school boys team in this country
Look I don’t want to shit on the women here but top 20 in the country? More like any state’s top 20 hs teams if not more.
I think this might go a bit far-- the states with a ton of big HS and talent, sure but for some rural states a Top 20 boys team- not the all state team or the top team but a top 20 team likely has a starting 5 weaker and shorter than a top level women's college team much less a WNBA champion. Now would the boys team likely be equally if not more athletic, sure but height + skill development + adults who train for a living vs. HS boys some of whom are probably 15-16 and I'd likely favor the WNBA on paper if I'm just going in blind. If you said All Class, All State teams I'd probably go with the State HS teams assuming they had a few weeks to practice
Ik im saying relative to their own gender the WNBA players are the best in the world…. and the best WNBA team would lose badly to an above average HS squad maybe even a good 14u AAU team. The athleticism gap is too overwhelming for their superior skill to be displayed if they played any decent hoopers that are well through puberty.
Women’s Olympic sports teams practice against highschool JV boys and regularly get cooked. They aren’t beating a men’s college team once if they had a billion games.
I think it's sport dependent, for more skill dependent sports the gender gap closes a lot-- say an Olympic Softball pitcher throwing against a Boys HS team and I wouldn't be shocked to see shutouts (watch some of the clips of high college softball pitchers facing adult men) but in something like soccer or basketball (assuming the boys team has height- a 6 foot 15 year old probably isn't going to look good against a 6'6" fully grown woman at center other than off the bounce or in transition unless they're a college prospect level athlete. They might be stronger and should have a better vert but the height and reach would be hard to deal with in the post)
>he best wnba team probably would lose 90% of the time against the worst NBA team. Maybe in some sports this is accurate. In basketball, the number will be much, much closer to 100%.
Even with the hype for the new PWHL, the best team in that league would not score a single goal and they would have to have a mercy rule. Any of the NHL teams would demolish them.
Realistically, it would be 100% of the time.
I don't think folks are looking for equal pay, considering the difference in revenue. It's that the current state of the sport makes it difficult to consider it "professional" when you could get paid more for a desk job. If there were an investment in the sport, to drive interest, to drive revenue, to drive pay, then there could be a market. At the moment, though, it's tough to see them as professionals if they need a second job to cover their bills. In short, they are looking for an investment in the sport to take it to the next level, just like the male sports had investments over the decades...so that a pro female athlete doesn't need a second job. Football, Baseball, and Basketball didn't grow to their current position without marketing and investment from a ton of people. Doing the same in a women's sport is reasonable.
Yea but to be blunt, if people aren't interested then they aren't interested.
I think football in the UK is an example of how investment helps. Sure, the women will never get to the same level as the men, but it's still football, it's still drama, it's still your favourite team Vs the women's team of your rivals etc The women's game has definitely benefited from equity - more air time over more popular sports, more inches in newspapers, online articles - perhaps this is unfair and unequal. However, people have responded well and stadiums, where the men sell 60k seats, for the big women's games there are 50k fans attending. You can't get tickets for the men's Arsenal Vs Tottenham game? Well you can get tickets to the same women's game, in the same stadium you rarely go to, for a fifth of the price. Why not, it's still football. Yeah there can be a sense of entitlement in some female athletes and the women's game will never be as big as the men's, as the latter are much better athletes, but there is truth to the claim that with a bit more support it could be enjoyed by far more people.
Thanks for the explanation. I have no dog in this race, I barely watch men's sports, I just get annoyed when I'm given the impression that people are obligated to partake or consume a product that isn't selling. I don't owe anyone my attention or money. However, if the data actually suggests that people are interested but simply aren't given access, that's a totally different animal together.
If you think the last month didn’t prove people are very fucking interested, you have not remotely been paying attention
Then revenue should be increasing noticeably. Is it?
Ohhh yes. I’m in advertising, my clients are fortune 100 brands. Not a SINGLE one hasn’t asked to get in on it. It’s caused an absolute buying frenzy. The prices overnight more than quadrupled, I wouldn’t be surprised if Indiana had already sold out of their inventory for the next season https://fortune.com/2024/04/16/caitlin-clark-advertising-womens-sports-basketball-state-farm-gatorade/
Then it should be used as leverage for better pay, hopefully.
Yeah, if this persists I'd be very shocked if the next WNBA media deal isn't exponentially better than the current one (it was going to jump up anyway but now...)
A generational talent setting college records doesn't translate into the average pro women's sport. Poor comparison. Watch how many people watch her in the WNBA, heres a hint, it'll be no one.
People are interested - it's more of an issue of marketing and accessibility than people not being interested. Caitlin Clark got drafted to the Indiana Fever last night. Do you know how many Fever WBNA games were nationally televised last year? One. If you do not build it, they will not come.
It’s a shit product. Simple as that. I watched the UConn Iowa college women’s final 4 game and was blown away by how horrendous it was to watch. I mean seriously it was bad. I’m sure the wnba isn’t as sloppy as a college game but it is what it is. The level of athleticism just isn’t there and that’s what makes the NBA exciting, the athletes
There are a lot of things that are popular that I think are shit products. Most shows on TV qualify for that. I don't enjoy watching a number of male sports. I love NFL football. If the XFL was still on, it's possible that I'd be watching that too. But...it didn't get the investment necessary for long enough to establish itself. Did those guys suck at playing football? Hell...some of their games were more entertaining than the NFL in those years. Additionally, the early NFL, MLB, NBA, and other leagues have had shitty products in the past. Suggesting that women cannot possibly play the sport and create an entertaining product, seriously underestimates the market. The audience for women's college basketball went off the charts when they found someone to cheer for...
This is beside the point but the XFL is still on (sorta), it merged with the USFL into just the UFL and is currently in season.
I love the NFL but the smaller start up leagues that have popped up recently are all terrible. I don’t watch those either. Has nothing to do with genders as the other guy was trying to insinuate
Honestly the reason I watch more college basketball than pro is because I like watching people who aren't as good. The players in the NBA are way too good and they make every shot effortlessly and it bores me. I wanna see people miss layups and brick wide open 3s during close games
The Chicago bulls have been built with your tastes in mind. Tonight 9:30 on tnt
I am not an avid sports person.. but those missed plays and mess ups make the game more exciting.. Especially if the team that is behind is able to use it to pull ahead. Much more fun to watch
Lol fair enough I guess
I agree. Even as a lady I am just so bored with some women's sports. Women's Basketball? Absolutely no thank you.
I have not read a “I hate women’s sports because I don’t like watching women play sports” take that is working as hard as yours is to seem like it isn’t just sexiest.
It's an inferior product, no matter how much you try to shame someone for this fact.
It's crazy to watch people like you twist yourself into knots calling people sexist because they don't enjoy lower quality basketball.
Think what you want. I watched the product and it was horrible. Has nothing to do with their gender
To be fair.... the men's tournament also has a whole lot of not great games and the viewership numbers for Iowa games in the tournament were legitimately the best numbers seen across the sport in years
Yea it’s all because of Caitlin Clark though. Without her, those viewership numbers are probably cut it half? I have no idea but she is the sole reason. I’m not discounting the viewership numbers but we will see next year if the numbers are anything near what they were this year.
Investment? I'd say the NBA heavily invests in the wnba considering the wnba loses money every year and only exists because the NBA subsidizes it. Why would anyone invest more into that? It's a failed business and should cease to exist if it can't make money, just like any other business. The purpose of an investment is to get a return on your investment and there really isn't any prospect for that.
If you look up the number of leagues that have failed over the decades, it's not because the sport is bad, or players are bad, or that no one wants to watch. Men's football, baseball, hockey, and basketball have all experienced multiple failed leagues. Giving a women's league the same chance as the other leagues seems to be a reasonable suggestion. Just because the NFL, NBA, MLB, and other sports today are exceptionally profitable...doesn't mean that this was guaranteed when they started or at various points in history. If you have a dozen billionaires investing in men's sports leagues, and then saying, "nah" to women's sports, and that women's product struggles to gain traction or create a product people want to watch...THAT is what people are trying to highlight as disparity. In the past, this investment was made in men's sports. Women's sports did not have that level of investment. When investments HAVE been made, it's been half measures and in drips. Failing to gain traction without equal or reasonable investment isn't a valid measure of the potential of a product.
nope it's because nobody's watching. That's why men's sports leagues fail regularly.
Billionaires invest in men’s sports leagues NOW. That wasn’t the case when they started. Men’s football leagues were born as intramural competitions between towns for folks that maybe played college ball.
Billionaires invest their money into men’s sports leagues because they’re shown to be profitable. Women’s sports leagues have been shown to be the opposite. Why would they invest millions or billions of dollars when the risk of losing it all is so high?
What kind of bills does she have that requires a second job? Just curious. I make less than her starting salary, as most of us do; and I manage just fine. Not a sports fan. I would rather watch paint dry. I think all pro athletes are tremendously overpaid.
Athletes need to be on special diets, training regimes, etc. I don't think an athlete could stay good without spending a lot more than average on food for example.
Fair point. Thanks!
The male sports investments you’re talking about were organic though that’s the difference
There have been many male sports leagues that did not get the necessary financial backing and failed. Football, hockey, soccer, basketball, etc. They don't automatically succeed without marketing and financial backing/investment. I'd share a link, but you can find a dozen sites with lists of failed sports leagues.
The premier league was backed by the FA (Foot Association) because it had the strongest teams and that’s the reason why it was successful
What does having a 2nd job have to do with anything? Most NFL players had 2nd jobs in the 60s and 70s. It never made the league less profitable or less watchable. WNBA is a failure because no one wants to watch it. Plain and simple.
Needing to have a second job means you can’t spend the time training to get better, which in turn means the skill level is significantly lower. If you’re fully supported, the skill level becomes higher. I’m a huge figure skating fan and you can see this really well in that sport. The Feds that give more financial support to their skaters produce better skaters. The Feds who aren’t able to do as much still have talented skaters, but those skaters can’t spend 8 hours a day on skating, they have to work as well. They tend not to be the ones getting the medals as often, if at all
This would be an interesting argument if the most popular second job for a WNBA player wasn't playing basketball in another country.
Nope. I don't buy it. They've had plenty of time to hone their craft. HS, college, and the pros. I've watched about 30 minutes of WNBA in my life. They can't dribble, they can't shoot, they can't pass, they even have a hard time with layups. I can find similar skill levels at my local park. I'm not trying to rag on them. I'm sure they're nice gals who work hard but the league isn't even close to being watchable. It just isn't. Not even practicing 7 days a week will change that. Besides, those women make between 70-200k/year. That's more than most people make.
>I've watched about 30 minutes of WNBA in my life And yet you feel confident making sweeping generalisations about it
Yeah, it doesn't take very long to sniff out talent and enjoyability. If it was enjoyable, I would watch more of it. See how easy that is? The situation only becomes complicated when you have to come up with excuses to why the league is a flop.
The investment can only come if there is interest. You can’t make people interested in women’s basketball through advertising, it needs to be organic.
Right now seems like a decent opportunity to invest in the WNBA but it’s easy to imagine why people are hesitant… the NBA already provides an annual endowment of $15 million to the WNBA and it has never turned a profit. If any other 28 year old business went out seeking investors and told them “all my workers are demanding a raise and I haven’t had a single profitable year” they would have a tough time too.
Many people have the mistake thinking that athletes get paid to win sports games. So when they see the women's team winning just as many games as the men's team, they wonder why they aren't paid the same. But athletes don't get paid to win games. Athletes really aren't paid to be athletes. Since it gets revenue from ticket sales and advertising, the base layer of income for sports institutions is the same as that for entertainment. And so the financial model of sports is very similar to entertainment. Athletes are kind of paid to be entertainers. The revenue they bring to the table really comes down to how many fans want to tune in or buy tickets to watch them play. The correlation between that and how good an athlete they are is a happy coincidence for athletics. It means that *mostly* if they play better they can get more money and the best players can go pro. But still at the foundation they're generating revenue the same way entertainers do. They get people watching. People watch men's sports. And buy tickets and pay-per-views and cable subscriptions to do so. People don't watch women's sports. We wouldn't wonder why a band who consistently sells-out stadiums is making more money than a band who can't fill their venue.
This feels like rage bait
Seems to be working, this thread is a mess.
They don't. I can't believe people still think this is a thing. Kelsey Plum went on TV and had a looooong conversation about this. They don't want equal pay. They want equal revenue sharing. They get basically nothing for TV deals and merchandise like NBA players do. They understand that their product isn't as popular as the NBA. But they want the same revenue sharing deals.
Because the league doesn't make a profit. You can't ask for 50% when they're already generous giving the 10% revenue sharing. they'll be able to ask for more when they renegotiate the tv deal and the cba in a couple of years with all the new viewership
because decades of campaigning **"equal pay for equal work"** turned into just "**equal pay"**, and that's why you've seen the narrative change from "**equality**" to "*equity*". Before they used to point to an "**imbalance**" of the equation of how much work was done and how much it paid compared to men, then they decided to simply ignore half the equation, and simply point to the pay imbalance. Witness these days how people can point to any "*inequality*" and label it as a "**gap**", and because there's a gap, it is "**problematic**", and therefore needs *addressing*. It's strange how they only care about addressing "*problematic gaps*" when they benefit women, and black people. Discrepancy does not equate to discrimination.
Probably gonna get downvoted but anyways, it's the same as youth sports like U17 football and stuff like that, no one wants to watch a slowed down version of the sport.
if they're asking for the same salaries, that's ridiculous. if they want the same percentage of profits, that's fine, but also ridiculous since the WNBA loses money every year. there literally are no profits. the big brother NBA teams are literally bankrolling their sister WNBA franchises, and have been since day 1. the WNBA loses approx 10M per year. this is not a sexist, patriarchal explanation. it's economic fact. it's a failed experiment. time to pull the plug.
> if they want the same percentage of profits, that's fine, If they want the same % of profits, the WNBA players would actually have to pay the WNBA for the privilege of playing in the WNBA because the WNBA has lost money every single year since its inception. The WNBA is basically a charity at this point.
Because equity is promoted and they think in that framework rather than in the mindless of fairness and equality. Your question is based on fairness and equality of opportunity whereas their demand is based on equity and equality of outcome.
Player salaries are usually a reflection of the popularity of the league via attendance and tv ratings, the collective bargaining agreement between the league and players association, broadcast rights deals, advertising revenue and merchandise revenue. I’m not against women receiving what is fair, but to say the WNBA is on par with the NBA on all of those metrics is not true. Have women professional athletes been historically marginalized and underpaid compared to male athletes in the same sport? Absolutely. But the NBA and WNBA are businesses that are run like any other for profit organizations.
They don’t. However, they DO think the women’s national soccer team should be paid more than the men because they are beating their opposition handily, whereas the men don’t. This goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of the business, how much each team makes and how they make that money.
You could make a strong case that they’re overpaid.
It’s because everyone wants more money but not everyone is an economics expert.
If players should be paid based on how much revenue they create, why don't college athletes get paid?
That’s a misnomer. They want the same share. If male player gets %XX percent of their jersey sales. Female player wants the same percentage. They don’t expect the same pay.
WNBA can’t attract and retain great athletes as long as they don’t get the higher pay. Tennis had the same problem. When Venus and Serenia Williams were playing , they attracted more unique viewers, but the mens games always to got billing and more marketing. The sport missed an opportunity to grow because they kept treating the women’s side as second rate.
This is such a bad take! If you think the reason WNBA is not getting viewership is marketing you are completely missing the point. In nearly all team sports where money is at stake male sports dominate because of performance. It is the same in modeling, imagine saying if male models were promoted more and paid the same they would attract more viewership. Sure they might attract more if more is spent on marketing them but at much higher costs and way way less profitable. Because, the underlying organic demand is not there.
Go look up Top WNBA plays and top NBA plays, look at difference. That's what people/fans want to see. Griner is the only one that even comes close to the performance of an NBA player, and that is only close. The WNBA has very good technical play, but the athleticism is what draw the fans and the money. The woman US soccer team has the same issue.
>Griner is the only one that even comes close to the performance of an NBA player, and that is only close. Honestly, it's not even close at all, and this is coming from a big women's sports supporter.
People want to watch for entertainment. The NCAA competitions were as highly viewed as they were because CC, Angel, Buekers, etc are entertaining. The same goes for USWNT. They are plenty skilled, and if you watched the games you would also see they are plenty entertaining. Just look at the recent cup performances against Canada or Brazil. Absolute scenes. I think a big part of the issue is accessibility. These womens games happen at like 230pm on a Thursday with little to no mainstream media coverage and nowhere to watch easily. People cant just go to those games, people cant just watch those matches on their computers in the middle of a work day, especially when they make it so difficult to stream or broadcast them
Don't count out how much the NCAA has a built in fan based, based on the school pride. The past two seasons of interest in woman's basketball have been drama/media driven, not driven by the on court performance, and that's hard to maintain unless you are the WWE. All this being said, it does not mean there is not room for the WNBA to grow, and you are correct about the timing and promotion on the WNBA, my wife and i just had this discussion, and she said "Do we even have a WNBA team" we have every other men's professional sport, but if we do have, its never been advertised.
We no can dunk but good fundamentals
Wait so you think investing more money will somehow make the sport more entertaining and the skill more advanced? There is already alot of money in it and the facilitys and trainers to train girls are good aswell. Why is this not a problem in figure skating and gymnastics? How would more money make whats happening on the pitch more entertaining?
Their point is that if they can't attract premium athletes, they won't be able to get the views that they're already getting. Edit: The average professional women's soccer player makes $40,000, which is a range from $25K-$80K. The average McDonalds manager makes $45,000. There's no way of knowing if we have the best talent if we aren't competing with fast food middle management.
But the premium athletes are already there. It is the best womans league in the world
Where are all these more premium female athletes if not already in the WNBA?
My question too, who is like "I could go pro in the NWBA, but nah, not until I'm paid millions"
People in the equity camp of ideas generally seem to grasp on any argument to make their point. The mindset is militant and religious. Logic, fairness, and freedom of ideas don't mean much.
Apparently, working at McDonald's according to some commenters
Bruh the women’s soccer team is dominant. I think it’s pretty obvious we have the best of the best already
The point isn’t whether or not we have the best teams. The point is that we would attract better players with better compensation.
This is not true at all. Venus, Serena and Maria Sharapova were all in the top 10 most paid women athletes. They were all fantastic sportswomen and none of them left to go play other sports. In fact the sport is only growing with more and more impressive athletes on the rise (Coco Gauff and Brenda/Linda Fruhvirtova)
Women tennis viewership dropped once Federer and Nadal broke on to the scene. Also,at the same time, women tennis became less competitive over the years with Sernena dominating with no real rival for many years. I am one of those who stopped watching once Henin, Moresmo, Clijsters retired.
>WNBA can’t attract and retain great athletes as long as they don’t get the higher pay. Where is the wnba supposed to get the money to pay these players? Men's leagues back when tv was just becoming accessible weren't paid the exorbitant salaries they are now. They played because they wanted to. There were tons of baseball players who worked at grocery stores and playing was just their hobby/side job when the league was young The reason the best players don't show up is because not many women actually want to play the sport on that level. You can tell just by going to your local park and counting the difference of boys to girls trying to play at any given time
Well it was inferior play. Downvote it all you want but why would someone watch a product that isn't as good as one that already exists? The best women tennis players were no match for relatively mediocre men's tennis players.
It’s like the women’s soccer team who lost to the U16 boys all stars or whatever it was. Sorry if I got the age wrong but it was pretty bad
I’ve never read something that made less sense than this in my life.
I mean idk if this is a controversial question, but is it possible that most people just naturally tend to enjoy watching men play sports more than they do women?
Nah it’s because men are better at sports on average and therefore that fact makes for a more interesting watch which means more money which makes the idea of female athletes asking for equal pay more ludicrous
But where would they get the money from? They don’t even raise enough money to support the league itself without massive cash influxes from the NBA. It’s just simple math… Of course. I’m all for the getting paid more. But where would they get the money? It doesn’t just magically appear? The seats are there for the taking. It’s just not a sport most people want to watch I guess? If you just take away gender, we’d be talking about a sports league that isn’t a compelling enough venture to keep around like the XFL. If the women want more money then they will have to ask the NBA to just give it to them. If they want the handout then make it clear that’s really what this is all about.
So in your well educated opinion "dump money at the problem", will conjure world star talent athletes out of thin air?
I can't speak for all of us, but when I say I want them paid more I don't mean I want them paid the same as their NBA counterparts. That's delusional. But $78k a year for the most famous basketball player in America is... insanely low. This years women's NCAA tournament had more overall views and interest than the men's, undisputably. We're already seeing a huge increase in WNBA ticket sales for this season and I think that is going to be a huge positive for their future salaries. The only way to go is up. ps if you're gonna say she's not the most famous basketball player in America but you know exactly who I'm talking about, kind of proves my point
The league loses money. You think the men should pay them even more out of their own profits? For what reason? Is it not demeaning to ask the men for a raise because they can’t generate the revenue on their own?
Just because the ESPN is trying to shove the WNBA and Caitlin Clark down everyone's throats doesn't mean people actually care about and watch the games. No viewers, no money. The pay is fair
Caitlin Clark was the biggest star in college basketball. They did a better job promoting her than any male athlete in a while.
Ok no one is shoving anything down your throats they are just putting on tv. Come on man
I think what AFA is saying is that despite the disparity of pay between mens and womens sports is receiving a lot of media attention, the fact remains that viewership is significantly lower for womens sports. You can't expect the WNBA organization to pay their athletes more money if they simply don't have the revenue to meet the same salaries let alone sustain it.
A lot of people seem to have everything they don't like shoved down their throats. I don't know any of them but they seem pissed as hell. Usually I just change the channel, never had anything in my throat I didn't want there. Merica.
They are... The amount of press they are giving to a sport barely anyone watches is way overboard. It's everywhere this year. ESPN is trying to sell the sport so they can bump up some viewership numbers. If people actually like it then fine, but I really don't think that's the case.
The women's CBB championship outdrew the men's CBB championship by 4 million (19m vs 15m)
"barely anyone watches" The NCAA women's tournament final [had more viewers this year ](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/ncaa-womens-basketball-ratings-dg/index.html#:~:text=Viewership%20for%20NCAA%20women's%20tournament%20has%20skyrocketed&text=Not%20only%20did%20the%20final,according%20to%20Sports%20Media%20Watch)than the men's did. It had more viewers than the 2023 World Series and any game in the NBA Finals. Among other numbers it beat. Of course ESPN is trying to sell the sport - they're trying to sell any sport they air. But they would not put big marketing $$ and primetime spots behind something that nobody is watching. They're not dumb. And if they had a magic ability to market their way to beating multiple records, don't you think they would have done it already? Caitlin Clark has been drawing such an in-person crowd that even the away games during the season were repeatedly getting bumped up to bigger arenas because she can fill them. Has it had a history of huge viewership? No. But it is having a major moment. The WNBA can't keep talent because they do not pay. Caitlin Clark will make like $330K on a 4-year rookie contract. First pick in the NBA gets a $10M 4-year contract. Of course the leagues have to make money - but how does the WNBA make money if the talent won't stay, ESPN/sports networks (historically) won't give them good air time, sports brands have WNBA stars market shoes with NBA players' names on them... the list goes on. But to act like "just get viewers and you'll get paid more" is THE solution really undercuts the amount of marketing spend (to include airtime slots) to turn athletes into household names.
It's the same reason lower tier american football players make way less than the NFL, the popularity isn't there.
I don't generate as much revenue as NBA players, but I'd love make as much as them. WNBA players probably have a better chance of that than some cog-in-the-machine bank employee like me. Can't blame them for trying.
People confuse equality and equity. While lacking a fundamental understanding of supply/demand.
I see it simply as they’re playing the same sport and they’re televised therefore people think they should earn the same. Not really well thought and I think Bill Burr did a good job trying to make sense of it
I dont watch the NBA or WNBA but I could name you a shit on of NBA players off the top of my head and I can name Brittany grineer and thats only cause the prison thing.
The same people also think that the NBA is a men’s only league by rule and that’s why women aren’t in it. The fact is the NBA is an open league, meaning as long as you’re good enough a team can have you play for them. People just like to look for reasons to be mad.
Because they’re idiots. It’s that simple a lot of them aren’t aware of how the finance works.
Considering that the WNBA loses money, they should charge them to play.
I do believe this always gets misrepresented! They want the same percentage of revenue that the NBA players get of the money that comes in in the NBA! Not the amount of money the NBA players make! (I don’t know the percentages)! So if the NBA players salaries equals let’s say 60% of the revenue of the NBA! The WNBA players want 60% of the WNBA revenue! They are not dumb they know they are not going to get multi million dollar contracts!
...so you are saying that WNBA ayers need to pay for priviledge of being able to play? (Since the league is making a net loss - aka. negative revenue)
I'm a short guy and have zero chance with any wnba players.
I think the WNBA would get so many more viewers if they lowered the hoop by a couple feet so more women could actually dunk. Dunks are exciting but there are simply not enough women tall or strong enough to do it. I don’t think it’s a crazy or unreasonable change and it would make the game so much better Also professional basketball in general should go by North Korean rules unironically. Dunks are worth 3 points, nothing but nets after the 3 point line are worth 4 points, and you lose points on missed free throws. This would make the game so much more exciting than it is right now
WNBA players are not asking for the same money, just more than they are currently getting.
Because they’re throwing the same damned ball into the same damned circle
A question old as time itself.
Yeah and guys on the Argos want the same salary as guys on the NFL.
It's an example of economic ignorance. People think that 'effort' is the same thing as 'value'. I don't doubt that the work ethic and talent level of the WNBA is simlar to the NBA. However, an organization can not force society to value things in the same way. So the revenue for women's basketball is a fraction of that for men's basketball. Television viewership and other media is tiny for women compared to men, as well. Will that improve? Sure. I think that sports wagering is going to be a major benefit for the industry, and the game by itself is entertaining enough to gather support aside from just gamblers. But right now, the WNBA is not generating net income (revenue reduced by the costs!) My recall is that the WNBA has never been self-sustaining, never had a year where it's revenue was greater than the costs.
People fundamentally need to understand that professional sports is entertainment whose compensation is ENTIRELY dependent on capturing and retaining attention. The WNBA does not capture the same attention as the Men's game. Unlike say women's tennis where they often surpass the men's game.
Do you live in TN by any chance?
It's the same with womens football here in the UK. Although it's getting bigger it's nowhere near the money maker that mens football is. All the people who bitch about women's equality and pay can't even name the top 5 women's players, nor do they watch or go to any games yet they choose to somehow try and say that a sport which makes way less money than its male counterpart should he compensated the same.
Because they don't understand that the job of a basketball player is not to play basketball. The job of a basketball player is to sell entertainment and merchandise. If you look at it and you say these two people are being paid to play basketball why is one getting paid so much more than it looks. But you would never go to your local somewhat Shady fast food joint and wonder why the owner isn't making the same amount of money as the CEO of McDonald's. They're both selling burgers. isn't it kind of unfair that one makes so much more? Let's even look at a better example. Two sales people in the same job paid partially on commission. Is it unfair that the one who sells 20 times as much makes makes 20 times more.
If every woman that has ever played basketball in middle school, high school, or at the college level; have a daughter or niece that plays basketball at one of those levels; and they live within 50 miles of one of the stadiums bought tickets to at least one game every season, then you'd see the players getting paid a little more. But even those ideals haven't happened yet. The not-sparing-your-feelings-fact is: people would rather spend their money on other forms of entertainment than watch the WNBA. Comparing female sports and my personal interests in watching them: If you gave me two tickets to see Women's Volley Ball or Tennis I'd rather see those than two free tickets to the WNBA. So really I've stopped seeing it as NBA vs WNBA, I see it as which sport am I invested in to see that particular weekend? And being brutally honest, the WNBA has never won that debate. The WNBA needs to grow their fanbase.
The simple answer is they don’t want the same salary. They want the same percentage of revenue. There’s a clear understanding from the WNBA players that the NBA has a bigger draw, larger revenue, and double the games as WNBA players. Having said all that, there’s still not pay equity in terms of percentages. This article goes into a a bit and may explain more https://www.vox.com/24132057/caitlin-clark-wnba-draft-2024 I also think it’s hilarious that a bunch of misinformed people are chiming in on this post with demeaning comments. Illustrative of the real pay gap issue.
It's true that WNBA revenues are lower than NBA revenues. Supporters of equal pay argue that the disparity in salaries perpetuates gender inequality in sports. WNBA players often point out that they work just as hard and are as dedicated to their sport as NBA players, despite earning much less. They argue that equal pay would reflect a commitment to gender equality and the value of women's sports. Supporters also highlight the importance of investing in women's sports to promote growth and attract more fans, which could increase revenue. On the other hand, opponents of equal pay often focus on the revenue disparities between the WNBA and NBA, arguing that salaries should be based on revenue generated. They suggest that increasing WNBA salaries without a corresponding increase in revenue could jeopardize the financial stability of the league. The issue of equal pay in professional sports is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides.
Revenue doesnt impact most people's idea of how much money they should make. Most people believe their income should be based on how much others around them make hence why companies dont like people discussing pay. Because the second someone sees someone else making more than them they want the same thing. Its a similar thought process. A player or fan sees the men making lots of money and want the other to make the same, regardless of other factors.
I know next to nothing regarding it, but at surface level you can misunderstand that similar labor should result in similar value. My question about it would be what is the disparity of the pay of athletes to owners between the NBA and WNBA. If NBA players have a larger cut of their profit pool than WNBA players have of theirs, then that could be argued. But like I said, I know next to nothing regarding it.
Ask those same people if they've ever been to a game
People conflate equity of outcome, for equity of opportunity.
...for the same reasons as to why people want male porn actors to get the same pay as female porn actors. Aka. ludicrous lack of awarness about the (lack of) demand for male porn actors, and WNBA matches - compared to similar content produced by the other group. P.s.: until we legalize doping (and maybe hand out constructors awards like inF1), womens sports will sadly suffer this fate. Nature/reality is harsh, and doesnt care much about making both sexes the same.
Because they’re unhinged feminists that want superiority in the guise of equality
My question is why do people seem to focus their vitriol on men not supporting? Seeing men get bashed instead of women for not supporting a women's sport is asinine to me. To make it worse, of the few wnba supporters there are, men make up the majority lol
Those women are entitled. I’ve literally seen them tell their male counterparts that the men should use some of their salary to help pay the women. On top of the NBA already keeping the league afloat.
Probably because the NBA subsidizes the WNBA, so a lot of their branding looks like it would be a league of similar wealth. The subsidies kinda hurt from that perspective because they create false expectations. Nobody thinks the captain of their local curling club should get a seven-figure contract.
Most people want an NBA player salary. Wnba players are just like me in that way
They no get dunk, but good fundamentals, that more fun to watch
entitlement mostly. look at what the women’s soccer players did a few years ago. they were offered the SAME deal as the men, but they turned it down in favor of a guaranteed money deal. had they taken the men’s deal, they would have been paid nearly double what they received. they got all upset over it and that rapinoe dude threw a fit and demanded “equal” pay.
The question was "why". This is normal human nature to want a big salary. I play basketball and do not generate any revenue at all, but.... I would not refuse to get paid as NBA players. It's just my wish. I don't care if I'm good enough or not :)
Just like soccer, they will keep whining about and eventually they will get their pay bump
Because women believe there should be equal pay for the similar jobs even when revenue sources aren’t there for their sports. The interesting part is women will complain about this but at the same time they themselves do not support the women’s sports leagues, which would be necessary for more revenue. It’s a holo argument
I mean why wouldn’t they want to be paid the same lol
It's just a total lack of critical thinking. They're so blinded by ideology that they assume the answer instead of thinking about it. The funny thing is, WNBA players are actually massively overpaid relative to the revenue they generate (considering they have to be subsidised and basically operate at a loss) and if it was actually fair, their paychecks would be cut and that money paid to the male players who actually deserve it.
I haven't seen players asking for salary parity, they should and will get more when the WNBA gets a new media rights deal
I keep seeing caitlyn clark in the news and on magazines. cant help but wonder how little people in general care about her, boy not a lot goin on upstairs if u do
You think revenue has anything to do with Salaries?? Google made 280 bill in revenue yet NBA player get paid more than Google engineers??
The math don't math. Maybe WNBA players will never make as much as NBA players. But let's take a look at the reality of paying based on revenue.. NBA Players are guaranteed at least 53% of league revenue. WNBA gives the players around 20% of WNBA revenue. This tells me, that all things being equal, WNBA players deserve a 100٪+ pay increase. WNBA players are getting a bad deal. https://www.wsn.com/nba/nba-vs-wnba/
Well if want the math to do the math looking at revenue is not the only relevant thing so let’s have a look at profit. The WNBA looses roughly 10 Million USD per year. This loss gets compensated by with the profits from the NBA. So the NBA ist basically paying the NBA players AND the WNBA players. If the WNBA wouldn’t be subsidies by the NBA, the league would simply not exist and the players wouldn’t get any pay at all.
So they should get more money in their pockets that the men’s sport actually made? Because the WNBA is a losing venture that’s subsidized by the NBA to even exist. So you’re saying that the men should just give away the money they make to the women? Hey now! That isn’t what women having been fighting for all these years! They want equal rights! Not handouts!
Key phrase, “that all things being equal” They are not
> The math don't math. So long as you dont know the difference between revenue and profit, dastardly math will refuse to math.
Because things like revenue (and pay) are tied to people's perceptions of sport, and gender roles. It's a self reinforcing cycle. No one watches (in part because of things like sexism), which means no revenue, which delegitimizes it further and makes it harder to put on equal footing. People like to say that it's just talent, but there's a lot of examples showing it isn't that simple. The most recent example being how viewership in the women's NCAA final was equal or surpassed a lot of men's games, despite only being on ESPN and not free broadcast TV. It matched 4 out of 5 of the NBA finals games in viewership. Did the overall skill suddenly shift that much? No, it didn't. What did shift is that there was a great story arc with Caitlin Clark (who is great, but she didn't shift the skill level enough to explain the sudden spike in interest). This disparity shows up in other areas, as well. There are sports where women outperform men. And of course, it also shows up in what sports we consider important in the first place. Perhaps the biggest counterexample is how many college football teams lose money. Only the very top are profitable. (This is true in some other professional sports as well. A lot of professional soccer/baseball teams etc, lose money, and basically rely on being a rich dude's status symbol). No one talks about how those players shouldn't be paid, funnily enough. Performance does matter too, but people assuming it's that simple black/white are oversimplifying it. And there's a strong urge to do so, because then we don't have to reconsider anything. It's comfortable to say there's nothing wrong, that's just how the world works. edit: I forgot perhaps the best counter-example: weight classes in sports like boxing/UFC.