OT Caitlin Clark's WNBA rookie contract breakdown released

[Texas Chuck]

[
The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense. I already pointed out what some of those costs were. The fans are not handing over ticket money to watch her take shots by herself on a dirt court. Stadiums, staff, planes, doctors, other players, insurance, ads, etc. All this stuff is necessary to produce the product that fans are actually buying Fever tickets to see.

I shouldn't bother because you guys really aren't open to the logic of this.

But those are sunk costs, right? The team/league is outlaying that money with or without Clark. But with Clark, just as one example her first pre-season game is in Dallas. The dynamic pricing has the cheapest tickets at like $210 with lower bowl tickets going for 4 figures. For a pre-season game.

Arena seats 7K. This is significant revenue. Prior to this they probably struggle to get a few hundred fans paying 1/10 of those prices for a preseason game. This will be sold out, they will sell tons of merch.

It's a huge money maker. But all the costs of putting on that game were the same without her. She is making the team/league money. It's beyond any rational dispute.

Again its just because its women that you guys refuse to see the obvious.

[CS707]

[
The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense. I already pointed out what some of those costs were. The fans are not handing over ticket money to watch her take shots by herself on a dirt court. Stadiums, staff, planes, doctors, other players, insurance, ads, etc. All this stuff is necessary to produce the product that fans are actually buying Fever tickets to see.

I shouldn't bother because you guys really aren't open to the logic of this.

But those are sunk costs, right? The team/league is outlaying that money with or without Clark. But with Clark, just as one example her first pre-season game is in Dallas. The dynamic pricing has the cheapest tickets at like $210 with lower bowl tickets going for 4 figures. For a pre-season game.

Arena seats 7K. This is significant revenue. Prior to this they probably struggle to get a few hundred fans paying 1/10 of those prices for a preseason game. This will be sold out, they will sell tons of merch.

It's a huge money maker. But all the costs of putting on that game were the same without her. She is making the team/league money. It's beyond any rational dispute.

Again its just because its women that you guys refuse to see the obvious.

Of course she’s making the league money. Her situation really isn’t any different than any other high profile athlete on a rookie scale but the idea that she should be making 7 figures as has been suggested is detrimental in a league that averages just above that for an entire team. Paying her a disproportionate amount of the cap just disincentives playing for that team to the other players forced to split what’s left. Balancing salaries so that everyone can make a reasonable living is what keeps the league alive. She needs them as much as they need her so a balance must be struck. As far as the it’s because she’s a woman thing goes, the only reason this is even a discussion point for you is because she’s a woman. Caitlin Clark is absolutely not the only pro athlete paid less than her worth to their league.

[Yoshun]

[
The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense. I already pointed out what some of those costs were. The fans are not handing over ticket money to watch her take shots by herself on a dirt court. Stadiums, staff, planes, doctors, other players, insurance, ads, etc. All this stuff is necessary to produce the product that fans are actually buying Fever tickets to see.

I shouldn't bother because you guys really aren't open to the logic of this.

But those are sunk costs, right? The team/league is outlaying that money with or without Clark. But with Clark, just as one example her first pre-season game is in Dallas. The dynamic pricing has the cheapest tickets at like $210 with lower bowl tickets going for 4 figures. For a pre-season game.

Arena seats 7K. This is significant revenue. Prior to this they probably struggle to get a few hundred fans paying 1/10 of those prices for a preseason game. This will be sold out, they will sell tons of merch.

It's a huge money maker. But all the costs of putting on that game were the same without her. She is making the team/league money. It's beyond any rational dispute.

Again its just because its women that you guys refuse to see the obvious.

I hear you and I agree she's worth more, but paying her more would mean renegotiating their CBA. Right now, Caitlin Clark is on a rookie contract consistent with what was negotiated. She's worth more and is having a huge impact, but she also just happened. The salary cap is $1.46 million. She's going to need to have this impact for several seasons before that changes.

[stillgotgame]

Reportedly, she signed a massive Nike deal worth $10M, right?

$20M. and her own shoe. She could care less about the $75K salary.

Read on Twitter

?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Mephariel]

Luckily, Caitlin Clark thinks ahead unlike people insisting she should skip the WNBA and sign with Big 3 or whatever that thing is called.

[JustBuzzin]

Luckily, Caitlin Clark thinks ahead unlike people insisting she should skip the WNBA and sign with Big 3 or whatever that thing is called.

Give me the 5mil + the 20mil shoe contract.

The shoe contract was coming regardless. 75k over 5mil is still a bad decision.

Let's be honest nobody is watching the WNBA or the Big 3.

[One_and_Done]

[
The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense. I already pointed out what some of those costs were. The fans are not handing over ticket money to watch her take shots by herself on a dirt court. Stadiums, staff, planes, doctors, other players, insurance, ads, etc. All this stuff is necessary to produce the product that fans are actually buying Fever tickets to see.

I shouldn't bother because you guys really aren't open to the logic of this.

But those are sunk costs, right? The team/league is outlaying that money with or without Clark. But with Clark, just as one example her first pre-season game is in Dallas. The dynamic pricing has the cheapest tickets at like $210 with lower bowl tickets going for 4 figures. For a pre-season game.

Arena seats 7K. This is significant revenue. Prior to this they probably struggle to get a few hundred fans paying 1/10 of those prices for a preseason game. This will be sold out, they will sell tons of merch.

It's a huge money maker. But all the costs of putting on that game were the same without her. She is making the team/league money. It's beyond any rational dispute.

Again its just because its women that you guys refuse to see the obvious.

The team is outlaying that money with or without Clark, and guess what the team will likely make a similar amount with or without Clark because Gate revenue is a small % of the league's income and jersey sales are redistrubuted between all 30 teams. But leaving that aside, and leaving aside the fact Clark's long term economic power in the WNBA is unproven, it's still a terrible point. Teams have to pay off those sunk costs, like stadium mortages or interest on loans for planes, and they premised the servicing of those expenditures on the existing salary structure. If we suddenly let players get paid more it undermines that, which is really bad given the WNBA already loses money every year.

If Clark comes in and generates big money long term then maybe the league will become profitable. Then she can reap the benefits with a bigger max after her rookie scale. Right now her situation is no different to when a generational talent enters the NBA. This isn't a gender thing, it's an economics thing. The only difference is the women's league loses money.

[Mephariel]

Luckily, Caitlin Clark thinks ahead unlike people insisting she should skip the WNBA and sign with Big 3 or whatever that thing is called.

Give me the 5mil + the 20mil shoe contract.

The shoe contract was coming regardless. 75k over 5mil is still a bad decision.

Let's be honest nobody is watching the WNBA or the Big 3.

WNBA = legit organization where she can break records and build a legacy and possibly drive her sport forward.

Big 3 = clown show.

Easy choice.

[JustBuzzin]

Luckily, Caitlin Clark thinks ahead unlike people insisting she should skip the WNBA and sign with Big 3 or whatever that thing is called.

Give me the 5mil + the 20mil shoe contract.

The shoe contract was coming regardless. 75k over 5mil is still a bad decision.

Let's be honest nobody is watching the WNBA or the Big 3.

WNBA = legit organization where she can break records and build a legacy and possibly drive her sport forward.

Big 3 = clown show.

Easy choice.

Oh so this is a hate Big 3 thing. I see your point.

[Mephariel]

Give me the 5mil + the 20mil shoe contract.

The shoe contract was coming regardless. 75k over 5mil is still a bad decision.

Let's be honest nobody is watching the WNBA or the Big 3.

WNBA = legit organization where she can break records and build a legacy and possibly drive her sport forward.

Big 3 = clown show.

Easy choice.

Oh so this is a hate Big 3 thing. I see your point.

Not hating. Just saying it like it is.

[JustBuzzin]

WNBA = legit organization where she can break records and build a legacy and possibly drive her sport forward.

Big 3 = clown show.

Easy choice.

Oh so this is a hate Big 3 thing. I see your point.

Not hating. Just saying it like it is.

You are hilarious

[Lala870]

Doesnt the WNBA have its own forum section? Can a mod explain how this thread can stay in the GB?

[Texas Chuck]

If Clark comes in and generates big money long term then maybe the league will become profitable. Then she can reap the benefits with a bigger max after her rookie scale. Right now her situation is no different to when a generational talent enters the NBA. This isn't a gender thing, it's an economics thing. The only difference is the women's league loses money.

Now you've moved goalposts. I have no idea how far away the WNBA is from profitable. But that wasn't the argument. Nor did I once argue she should make more money. Her deal is collectively bargained. The argument was whether or not she makes them money. I demonstrated that so you moved the goalposts.

It's okay sometimes to just concede you got something wrong. I promise. I have to do it all the time here. People don't think less of you, they think higher of you.

She is going to generate more revenue for the WNBA than they pay her in salary.

[One_and_Done]

If Clark comes in and generates big money long term then maybe the league will become profitable. Then she can reap the benefits with a bigger max after her rookie scale. Right now her situation is no different to when a generational talent enters the NBA. This isn't a gender thing, it's an economics thing. The only difference is the women's league loses money.

Now you've moved goalposts. I have no idea how far away the WNBA is from profitable. But that wasn't the argument. Nor did I once argue she should make more money. Her deal is collectively bargained. The argument was whether or not she makes them money. I demonstrated that so you moved the goalposts.

It's okay sometimes to just concede you got something wrong. I promise. I have to do it all the time here. People don't think less of you, they think higher of you.

She is going to generate more revenue for the WNBA than they pay her in salary.

You imagined those goal posts, since I never said she wouldn't potentially generate more money for the league.

[jbk1234]

Am I the only one who thinks she's good enough to play in the actual NBA? Like she'd be picked in the first round.

[Texas Chuck]

The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense.

This not you saying exactly that?

But its cool. You've finally conceded the point and kudos to you for doing so even if you can't acknowledge you ever said differently.

[One_and_Done]

The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense.

This not you saying exactly that?

But its cool. You've finally conceded the point and kudos to you for doing so even if you can't acknowledge you ever said differently.

No. This is you misunderstanding basic math. Caitlin can generate MORE money than average WNBA player X, while also generating LESS money than the contract people are proposing to pay her. What I said was Clark wouldn't generate more money than the contract people were proposing to pay her.

[Texas Chuck]

The only way you can say she "generates more money than her contract" is if you isolate her from the rest of the cost of doing business, which makes zero sense.

This not you saying exactly that?

But its cool. You've finally conceded the point and kudos to you for doing so even if you can't acknowledge you ever said differently.

No. This is you misunderstanding basic math. Caitlin can generate MORE money than average WNBA player X, while also generating LESS money than the contract people are proposing to pay her. What I said was Clark wouldn't generate more money than the contract people were proposing to pay her.

I mean you literally say her contract which I took to mean, you know, her actual contract. But again if you move the goalposts to a fake contract other people than me were talking about, you win.

So now I'm going to concede. I did not understand you because you chose to use words different from what you meant, but that's on me, I definitely should have read your mind.

Clark is not a boon to the league because fictionally she might have a much bigger contract and because in your mind smaller losses are not better than bigger losses. It's profit or nothing.

We are just going to fundamentally disagree on the importance of saying what we mean, not changing arguments mid-stream, and the basic value of money. Good luck in all future endeavors.

[One_and_Done]

This not you saying exactly that?

But its cool. You've finally conceded the point and kudos to you for doing so even if you can't acknowledge you ever said differently.

No. This is you misunderstanding basic math. Caitlin can generate MORE money than average WNBA player X, while also generating LESS money than the contract people are proposing to pay her. What I said was Clark wouldn't generate more money than the contract people were proposing to pay her.

I mean you literally say her contract which I took to mean, you know, her actual contract. But again if you move the goalposts to a fake contract other people than me were talking about, you win.

So now I'm going to concede. I did not understand you because you chose to use words different from what you meant, but that's on me, I definitely should have read your mind.

Clark is not a boon to the league because fictionally she might have a much bigger contract and because in your mind smaller losses are not better than bigger losses. It's profit or nothing.

We are just going to fundamentally disagree on the importance of saying what we mean, not changing arguments mid-stream, and the basic value of money. Good luck in all future endeavors.

I said multiple times Caitlin should be happy getting paid her rookie structured salary, so I'm not seeing the shift. We were talking about whether Caitlin selling so many more tickets than her rookie salary justified a higher pay point, with various numbers being thrown out in this thread.

However, I will add that it's not clear any WNBA player generates enough money to pay their existing contract, because the league should fold. Even if Caitlin generated 2 million dollars, a made up number we can't prove, it isn't clear to me that she would necessarily be generating a salary worth a 10th of that. That's because salary is based on what the league is able to pay and stay viable if it ran as a real business. With all the extra costs Clark might still generate 2 mill in costs each year, completely offsetting what she's hypothetically bringing in. This is the problem with calculating salary for a business that should fold.

The men's CBA does give them about 50% of revenue, which I think is too much btw, but the reason they can demand that is because the business is profitable. If the NBA was a major money loser surviving on subsidies the CBA would look very different.

[Doctor MJ]

Overpaid given the league loses money.

Lol so you are saying the players should be playing for free?

How many companies start off losing money for a long ass time? It's called being a startup and being propped up by VC money. WNBA is no different and yet they should be ponying up for Caitlin given her importance. They are lucky that she didn't choose big 3 or a oversees league didn't over her the bag.

Hopefully Caitlin elevates the status of the league but overall wanna is fortunate that Nike exists to pay her what she is really worth.

Your "real worth" is what the market for your services are. As a player the market for her services is relatively low, because nobody watches the WNBA and it loses money. As a celebrity her market value is much.higher, but it has relatively little to do with how good she is in the WNBA. She's being paid for being a charismatic winner companies can market, and as long as she doesn't damage that image too much in the WNBA it won't really matter if she's not a top 20 player. Good for her.

If the women's league wants to make more money they should just form a pro-leagur from the top college teams. That's how alot of old football leagues started. Then once it's stable you add some non-college based teams in big markets.

The reason this hasn't been done in a long time is that the pros are too good. Top college teams would get thrashed by WNBA teams, just like would happen in men's with the NBA.

I think the most dangerous threats to the NBA/WNBA are two things:

1. Big money from teams bought by the ultra-rich in Europe or elsewhere.

2. Young players finding a way to make more money through social media than from playing in a top pro league - and this could include something like a 1 on 1 or 3 on 3 league in theory, but would have its bang-for-buck for the players not to try to be as big as the NBA/WNBA, but just providing more money for the individuals in question.

Regarding 1: I think this is a rising threat for the men's, and probably only a temporary non-rising threat for the women's now that Russia chose to use an American basketball player as a political hostage. The advantage the NBA has, besides existing preeminence, is that it already has the big revenues. No one can stop some ultrarich from offering a basketball player a billion dollars to come play for him...but that's not how you build a sustainable league.

Regarding 2: I'm honestly surprised that someone like Kyrie didn't go all in on something like this when he had the whole vaccine thing, but I also have to say, I think it unlikely he could make as money from that as the hundreds of millions he makes in the NBA. The women's game is different monetarily and so it should be easier for a female baller to do this and come out ahead.

As I say that though, I think to really do this sustainably, you have to be someone who enjoys putting on a show more than who enjoys grinding with a team. I don't think that's Clark's personality.