ImageImageImageImageImage

Bradley Beal - Part III

Moderators: nate33, LyricalRico, montestewart

User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,337
And1: 7,820
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1161 » by Jamaaliver » Wed Oct 9, 2019 1:53 pm

God bless Bradley Beal, but as he said himself, he's no economics professor.

The WNBA loses money every year. Virtually nobody is willing to pay to watch them play. They may be the best women ballers in the world, but there are hundreds of thousands of male basketball players who are better and everyone knows it.

There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting (less aces and more volleys). Otherwise, people are going to massively favor the men's version of any sport because it's actually the best playing the best.



IDK...

The quality isn't quite the same as the NBA...but literally half the nation is female. As a male sports fan, I'd pay up for the chance to watch Diana Taurasi, EDD, Megan Rapinoe, Katelyn Ohashi live and in person. As father of teenage daughters, we'd support WNBA, same as women's soccer, women's gymnastics, women's tennis.

But the model can't be the same as the traditional NBA setup. The WNBA might be better off taking a note from The Big 3 league and varying the location from week to week. Touring the nation for a number of games in markets where it's a much bigger deal.





Hell, I'd much rather watch the Mystics than to watch the Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Dolphins or Lebron-less Cavaliers team.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,582
And1: 8,665
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1162 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 2:47 pm

Jamaaliver wrote:
God bless Bradley Beal, but as he said himself, he's no economics professor.

The WNBA loses money every year. Virtually nobody is willing to pay to watch them play. They may be the best women ballers in the world, but there are hundreds of thousands of male basketball players who are better and everyone knows it.

There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting (less aces and more volleys). Otherwise, people are going to massively favor the men's version of any sport because it's actually the best playing the best.



IDK...

The quality isn't quite the same as the NBA...but literally half the nation is female. As a male sports fan, I'd pay up for the chance to watch Diana Taurasi, EDD, Megan Rapinoe, Katelyn Ohashi live and in person. As father of teenage daughters, we'd support WNBA, same as women's soccer, women's gymnastics, women's tennis.

But the model can't be the same as the traditional NBA setup. The WNBA might be better off taking a note from The Big 3 league and varying the location from week to week. Touring the nation for a number of games in markets where it's a much bigger deal.





Hell, I'd much rather watch the Mystics than to watch the Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Dolphins or Lebron-less Cavaliers team.

If so, you are an extremely rare exception. If any significant number of people thought like you, the WNBA would make money. They don't. They never did. They've been propped up by the NBA for 23 years and still nobody is going to games.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,428
And1: 3,876
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1163 » by payitforward » Wed Oct 9, 2019 3:04 pm

nate33 wrote:God bless Bradley Beal, but as he said himself, he's no economics professor.

The WNBA loses money every year. Virtually nobody is willing to pay to watch them play. They may be the best women ballers in the world, but there are hundreds of thousands of male basketball players who are better and everyone knows it.

Why should they be paid anything like NBA players? If the NBA wants to continue to devote resources to subsidize the WNBA game, that's up to them. Just understand that it's a pure subsidy. The NBA players would be taking the money they truly earn by putting butts in seats and handing it over to the WBNA players who are not putting butts in seats. If they want to do that, that's fine by me. Just understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and it's not coming from fans.

There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting (less aces and more volleys). Otherwise, people are going to massively favor the men's version of any sport because it's actually the best playing the best.

I'm not an economics professor either, nate, but I did stay in a Holiday Express last night. Actually, I didn't -- but my sister is an economics professor, & her husband is among the leading economists in the world. Plus, my older daughter is an economist! & I even studied a little economics.

But, in truth, this isn't about economics; it's about business, a very different subject. I'm sure the WNBA loses money overall -- takes in less than it costs -- but I'm guessing that's a minor issue for NBA owners. For one thing, some resources for which the WNBA pays on paper (use of arenas, etc.) are actually no-cost (arenas would otherwise be dark on many nights when the WNBA plays there). There's benefit to partners (vendors, etc.). Ditto for organizational resources.

Not to mention that, e.g. for Monumental Sports, Mystics financial losses don't have a 100% cost; they go into Monumental's tax filings & reduce the tax burden from Wizards/Capitols profits.

Plus there's a big marketing benefit. Especially in long-term audience growth (increasing numbers of women who add an interest in the NBA to their interest in the WNBA).

TBH, I'm sure there are a bunch of other ways Monumental & other owners do well on their WNBA teams. One way I haven't mentioned is that they get to look good for supporting a woman's league even though "it loses money."
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,337
And1: 7,820
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1164 » by Jamaaliver » Wed Oct 9, 2019 3:08 pm

nate33 wrote:If so, you are an extremely rare exception. If any significant number of people thought like you, the WNBA would make money. They don't. They never did. They've been propped up by the NBA for 23 years and still nobody is going to games.



I think it's just the manner in which women's pro leagues are run and marketed in this country.

There are 160,000,000 females in this country alone. The market is most certainly there.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,582
And1: 8,665
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1165 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 3:24 pm

Jamaaliver wrote:
nate33 wrote:If so, you are an extremely rare exception. If any significant number of people thought like you, the WNBA would make money. They don't. They never did. They've been propped up by the NBA for 23 years and still nobody is going to games.



I think it's just the manner in which women's pro leagues are run and marketed in this country.

There are 160,000,000 females in this country alone. The market is most certainly there.


C'mon now. The WNBA has been trying to figure out how to market women's basketball for 23 years. If it was something as simple as tweaking the way they market it, they would have done so.

The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,582
And1: 8,665
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1166 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 3:29 pm

payitforward wrote:
nate33 wrote:God bless Bradley Beal, but as he said himself, he's no economics professor.

The WNBA loses money every year. Virtually nobody is willing to pay to watch them play. They may be the best women ballers in the world, but there are hundreds of thousands of male basketball players who are better and everyone knows it.

Why should they be paid anything like NBA players? If the NBA wants to continue to devote resources to subsidize the WNBA game, that's up to them. Just understand that it's a pure subsidy. The NBA players would be taking the money they truly earn by putting butts in seats and handing it over to the WBNA players who are not putting butts in seats. If they want to do that, that's fine by me. Just understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and it's not coming from fans.

There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting (less aces and more volleys). Otherwise, people are going to massively favor the men's version of any sport because it's actually the best playing the best.

I'm not an economics professor either, nate, but I did stay in a Holiday Express last night. Actually, I didn't -- but my sister is an economics professor, & her husband is among the leading economists in the world. Plus, my older daughter is an economist! & I even studied a little economics.

But, in truth, this isn't about economics; it's about business, a very different subject. I'm sure the WNBA loses money overall -- takes in less than it costs -- but I'm guessing that's a minor issue for NBA owners. For one thing, some resources for which the WNBA pays on paper (use of arenas, etc.) are actually no-cost (arenas would otherwise be dark on many nights when the WNBA plays there). There's benefit to partners (vendors, etc.). Ditto for organizational resources.

Not to mention that, e.g. for Monumental Sports, Mystics financial losses don't have a 100% cost; they go into Monumental's tax filings & reduce the tax burden from Wizards/Capitols profits.

Plus there's a big marketing benefit. Especially in long-term audience growth (increasing numbers of women who add an interest in the NBA to their interest in the WNBA).

TBH, I'm sure there are a bunch of other ways Monumental & other owners do well on their WNBA teams. One way I haven't mentioned is that they get to look good for supporting a woman's league even though "it loses money."

All of that is true. I'm sure those factors make the financial pain of running the WNBA somewhat bearable. If it was a total money pit, the league probably would have disbanded by now.

I'm certainly not arguing that they should mothball the league. I'm just saying that there is little economic justification in paying the women athletes any more than what they're currently getting. It's not a question of how hard they are working. I can work really hard digging ditches in my back yard and then filling them up again. That doesn't mean I should get paid for it.

You get paid for the value of your work in a marketplace. So far, the marketplace does not value the work of WNBA players.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,428
And1: 3,876
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1167 » by payitforward » Wed Oct 9, 2019 3:51 pm

As I mentioned, this is business not economics. Nothing gets "propped up... for 23 years" unless there are benefits flowing from it. Moreover, every business does everything it can to report lower profits in accounting/tax reports.

IOW, I don't think we can look at the statement like "the WNBA loses money every year" the way we look at a statement like "the sycamore tree in my backyard loses its leaves every Autumn."

At the same time, I don't think that the fact of "160,000,000 females" means that the WNBA is badly "run and marketed." A population is not a market.

I don't know how much more interest a forum like this one can have in the background of this subject, but I'll end by pointing to the great XXth century writer on business & management, Peter Drucker (I cannot recommend him highly enough: read anything by him, & you'll understand why -- this is a perfect place to start: https://www.inc.com/articles/2009/11/drucker.html) who said, essentially, that "profits are not the purpose of an organization but rather a constraint: not the reason to behave in a particular way but rather a test of whether the business is behaving appropriately. 'If archangels instead of businessmen sat in the directors' chairs, they would still have to be concerned with profitability, despite their total lack of interest in making profits.'"

Note that the WNBA is not "a business." Each team is owned by a separate business, namely by the business who runs the NBA team in that market. Moreover, an NBA team is also not a business: it's a product. Monumental Sports is a business; it has to make a profit or it will not continue to exist. But many businesses have unprofitable products that they continue to market for reasons relating to the health (including profitability) of the overall business.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
TGW
General Manager
Posts: 9,309
And1: 3,215
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1168 » by TGW » Wed Oct 9, 2019 4:02 pm

That's a helluva good point, PIF.

At this point, if the NBA decided not to subsidize the WNBA, they would be accused of sexism by the SJWs. IT IS a business decision.

As for the overall point, the women, from a business perspective, are allowed to shop their services around. The WNBA isn't the only sheriff in town.
User avatar
Kanyewest
General Manager
Posts: 7,745
And1: 1,285
Joined: Jul 05, 2004

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1169 » by Kanyewest » Wed Oct 9, 2019 5:21 pm

I will say the skill level has gone up in the WNBA in the last few seasons and has become more enjoyable. The Mystics right now are putting up 115.9 ORTG. So maybe the viewers start tuning in at least in the DMV although it still seems like it has a ways to go as far as drawing national attention. ESPN decided to air a NBA preseason game while they shifted the WNBA Finals game to ESPN2.

And I suppose there is value added to the branding of the NBA by utilizing the WNBA effectively as well as synergies (ie people who buy WNBA tickets will buy NBA tickets). The same way companies do community service to give consumers a more positive impression

Also, if NCAA Basketball gets gutted, there is a potentially huge growth opportunity for the WNBA, which consistently has higher ratings- maybe because there is a single elimination tournament.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,337
And1: 7,820
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1170 » by Jamaaliver » Wed Oct 9, 2019 5:34 pm

nate33 wrote:There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting...


nate33 wrote:The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.



I think you may be selling women's sports and their fans short.


The complicated truth isn't that women don't play/watch sports...or that they need a man in their life to enjoy them.

(That's a really awful assertion, BTW.)

It's that the NBA isn't the best partner for the WNBA, because there is so little crossover in fans. WNBA would be better off pairing with other women's team sports on their own network/streaming service rather than how they are currently being presented...as the "inferior" female version of an already existing (and more popular) men's league.

I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 27,194
And1: 4,882
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Boardman gets paid!

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1171 » by I_Like_Dirt » Wed Oct 9, 2019 6:06 pm

Jamaaliver wrote:It's that the NBA isn't the best partner for the WNBA, because there is so little crossover in fans. WNBA would be better off pairing with other women's team sports on their own network/streaming service rather than how they are currently being presented...as the "inferior" female version of an already existing (and more popular) men's league.


I think it's a bit more complicated than you're describing, too. Nate suggests sports like tennis where slower and weaker players make things more interesting - I suggest differently: on a macro scale, men in particular want to watch women's sports only if they can objectify them. And it's not about men wanting to watch the best of the best because if that were true college sports wouldn't be a thing; that's just a nice cover for not wanting to watch women unless they can be objectified somehow. It's no surprise that the Williams sisters take so much flak while lesser women's tennis players wind up challenging their fame and earnings.

Taking a closer look at that assertion, the sport where I actually think nate's assertion about slower and weaker making things easier to follow and more interesting holds true is actually ultimate fighting. I honestly prefer watching women's fights in that sense. Women demonstrate the technique, counters and form that men quite often can just cut through because a single kick or punch at the right time eliminates the need for any of that. Women's fighting isn't popular but it should be - particularly if that argument holds true.

Women's sports know that this is about objectification, too. They make all sorts of short skirt requirements. The women's market... it's not so much that it isn't there as it isn't there to the same degree. The women's market is spread out a bit more. Sports has absolutely crushed the men's market, by and large. There's a lot of image that goes into that kind of thing growing up, meanwhile, the objectification of women doesn't start with sports - it starts well before that and there are industries geared towards that. Is that good/bad? I have no idea. I do see some things changing for the better lately, albeit slowly.

Disney had this challenge, for example, marketing a female Jedi in a Star Wars market that was absolutely male dominated (not that women don't also like Star Wars, but men like it way more on average). Disney had experience with princesses and the like and still couldn't quite figure out the action figure market and such. And it was there in their case and they really failed to take advantage of it out of the gates. It goes beyond sports, though. And to that end, while I think it's not so simple as same pay for same work, because the pay is essentially for a popularity contest, I do like the ultimate ends the work is aspiring to achieve. Changing society requires action as though it will change quickly when in reality it's going to take decades. Acting as though it will take decades is a recipe for nothing to change at all.

The flip side to this is that the WNBA doesn't actually cost the NBA that much to support in the grand scheme of things. They're attempting to spread the sport and build markets that previously weren't as strong. That was the whole point of their Chinese misadventures and it's the point of the WNBA, too. Get more people playing the sport, watching the sport, etc. That means eventually you'll have more people watching the WNBA and the NBA, too. Continuing to build the fanbase of the sport in general matters. The NBA wasn't exactly a super financial windfall out of the gates, either.
Bucket! Bucket!
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,484
And1: 1,982
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1172 » by DCZards » Wed Oct 9, 2019 6:53 pm

nate33 wrote:
Why should they be paid anything like NBA players? If the NBA wants to continue to devote resources to subsidize the WNBA game, that's up to them. Just understand that it's a pure subsidy. The NBA players would be taking the money they truly earn by putting butts in seats and handing it over to the WBNA players who are not putting butts in seats. If they want to do that, that's fine by me. Just understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and it's not coming from fans.


I personally don’t think NBA players “truly earn” the money they are paid. While I don’t begrudge them the money they make, I don’t think anyone truly earns (or deserve) the $20-$30 million a year that many NBA players make. (I feel the same way about overpaid corporate execs)

So for that reason alone I have no problem whatsoever with the NBA handing money over to WNBA players, regardless of how many butts they put—or don’t put—in the seats. I, for one, find WNBA basketball very entertaining…sometimes more entertaining and more fundamentally sound than NBA ball.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that WNBA players be paid like NBA players. But I do think they should be paid more.

nate33 wrote:There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting (less aces and more volleys). Otherwise, people are going to massively favor the men's version of any sport because it's actually the best playing the best.


The WNBA is “the best playing against the best.” It’s the best women basketball players in the world playing against the best women players. It’s irrelevant that they’re women.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,461
And1: 1,629
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1173 » by doclinkin » Wed Oct 9, 2019 7:38 pm

nate33 wrote:
The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.



Sexist and untrue. I know women who watch basketball, MMA, football, etc who really don't care about any man's opinion of it. Too I know more than a handful of gay women who would happily scoff and mock you for the idiocy of your statement.

Women's viewership of sports is significantly increasing as the descendants of Title IX players grow into measured consumership. I read the free version of this article when it came out: https://nielsensports.com/women-sport/ but essentially Nielsen says that market is swelling.

Still long held prejudices of advertisers and media outlets with similar cro-magnon mindset are similarly intractable. According to Nielsen, Beal is right to suggest you need to prime the pump and pour some advertising and marketing dollars into the league (and women's sports in general) to gin up awareness of the product. There are storylines worth exploring, and the quality of game play is often astounding. It's not above the rim, but is more akin to the Golden State game, or Euro play, with teams operating smoothly and efficiently. People watch the Euro game and the NCAA without regard to lesser top end athleticism, and they still watch the NBA in addition. Viewership of one does not cancel interest in the other. I mean but what else are you going to do in the Summer? Watch golf? I'd rather take my girl to a Mystics game and watch women play the sport I like best, at a very high level.

I'm willing to cede I may be unusual: hell I watched a ton of women's Jiu Jitsu this summer. That's another sport that is underrated, any of the grappling arts are hellafun to watch, dissecting the physical chess game. And being cro-magnon myself, um, yeah, there are women in whichever sport that are easy on the eyes, doesn't hurt to draw viewership there. That'more than a handful of gay women' I referred to earlier would heartily agree. Bia Mesquita, man, she's, um, yeah... But hell I know women who watch the Men's' game for the same reason. Athleticism is sexy. It's not the only reason to watch but no point disregarding it. But if Nielsen says we are missing the boat, I'd listen, since they are the ones in the very business of reminding advertisers who their core audiences are.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,582
And1: 8,665
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1174 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 7:43 pm

doclinkin wrote:
nate33 wrote:
The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.



Sexist and untrue. I know woman who watch basketball, MMA, football, etc who really don't care about any man's opinion of it. Too I know more than a handful of gay women who would happily scoff and mock you for the idiocy of your statement.

It may be sexist but it is not untrue. There are of course exceptions, which is why I said "generally speaking". If what I'm saying isn't true, then there would be women's sports leagues making money right now. There aren't. The number of people willing to pay to watch women's sports events is vanishingly small.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,461
And1: 1,629
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1175 » by doclinkin » Wed Oct 9, 2019 7:47 pm

Consider also that women do play overseas and make significantly more money over there than they do here. And there is high viewership of women's leagues in Europe. In basketball anyway. Are there simply more boyfriends and husbands overseas than in America? Why? Are american men all homosexual or something? Or is it those a few of us who have a half dozen women attached to us who are altering the boyfriend-to-woman market and skewing the ratio for everyone else. And because we are so busy with our multiple women we don't have time to properly train them about Sport and How to Watch Sport.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,461
And1: 1,629
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1176 » by doclinkin » Wed Oct 9, 2019 8:03 pm

nate33 wrote:
doclinkin wrote:
nate33 wrote:
The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.



Sexist and untrue. I know woman who watch basketball, MMA, football, etc who really don't care about any man's opinion of it. Too I know more than a handful of gay women who would happily scoff and mock you for the idiocy of your statement.

It may be sexist but it is not untrue. There are of course exceptions, which is why I said "generally speaking". If what I'm saying isn't true, then there would be women's sports leagues making money right now. There aren't. The number of people willing to pay to watch women's sports events is vanishingly small.



Nielsen disagrees with you. The trick is finding those audiences where and how they choose to watch. Their studies suggest there is a rising tide of viewership both for womens sports and among women in general. They turn up for event viewing, yes, for the USA Women's soccer. For Tennis. For the olympics. But the point is in these cases the storyline is what drives viewership. That is simply marketing. Which speaks to Bradley Beal's point. If you pour some money into marketing you may find the right way to tap into this market. There is money to be made even in America, even with our apparently more chauvinist outlook. Austraiia hosts 53,000 people in the women's championship game of Aussie Rules Football. England fills Wembley stadium with 40k butts in seats for the women's football finals. There's a market there if we can put in work to grow it.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,337
And1: 7,820
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1177 » by Jamaaliver » Wed Oct 9, 2019 8:43 pm

doclinkin wrote:Sexist and untrue. I know woman who watch basketball, MMA, football, etc who really don't care about any man's opinion of it. Too I know more than a handful of gay women who would happily scoff and mock you for the idiocy of your statement.




It's extremely sexist and dismissive...and truly indicative of the larger problem.

Everything he's framed is through the eyes/perspective of male viewers -- assuming that female viewers have no interest in watching elite female athletes.

It's incredibly wrong. But, sadly, it's kind of par for the course.

I regret even jumping into this debate. But some things HAVE to be pushed back on. This fallacy that girls only watch sports because of boys...or that no one wants to watch high level female athletes (outside of national competition) is pretty repugnant.

I'm disappointed that he would even throw it out there as some indisputable truth in the first place.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,582
And1: 8,665
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1178 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:03 pm

After Two Decades, WNBA Still Struggling for Relevance

Half of the W.N.B.A.’s 12 teams lose money, and they benefit from revenue generated by the N.B.A.’s national television and sponsorship deals. This season, the $25 million the W.N.B.A. is getting from its primary broadcaster, ESPN, is a tiny fraction of the N.B.A.’s average $930 million payment from ESPN and TNT, which will rise to about $2.6 billion next season.

In a rare and candid moment last year, James L. Dolan, who owns the W.N.B.A.’s Liberty and the N.B.A.’s Knicks, told HBO’s “Real Sports” that he came close to handing the franchise back to the league in 2015.

“It hasn’t made money,” he said. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.”

Dolan has held on to the Liberty, though, and there seems to be little doubt of the N.B.A.’s continued support of the W.N.B.A. as a legacy investment in women’s basketball.

But the W.N.B.A. has a fundamental problem: It needs more fans — lots of them. Attendance fell to an average of 7,318 a game last season, almost two decades after reaching its peak of 10,864 in 1998, the league’s second season.



WNBA at Crossroads After Losing Nearly $12 Million Last Season
NEW YORK (AP) — As 2018 comes to a close, the WNBA is at a crossroads.

The play on the court has never been better, with Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird leading the Seattle Storm to a championship. Most of the playoff positions weren’t decided until the final days of the season. Television ratings were up over 30 percent and the WNBA Finals Game 3 clincher had its highest rating on ESPN2 since 2010. Buoyed by the strong ratings, the network decided to up the number of games it will cover next year. Metrics also were up for league pass, merchandise sales and social media.

Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA said it has lost a significant amount of money over the last 22 years, including $12 million last season.

“On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told the AP in a phone interview in October.

Attendance across the league was down nearly an average of 1,000 fans per game.
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,484
And1: 1,982
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1179 » by DCZards » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:34 pm

WNBA TV Ratings Are Rising Fast in 2019


The WNBA season is still young, but the TV ratings have already increased by 64 percent year-over-year, peaking with a 0.6 Nielsen rating for the Sparks-Lynx game on June 8.

Lyndsey D’Arcangelo, who covers the WNBA for The Athletic, tweeted out the ratings comparison between this season and last season.

The WNBA already receives money from its television deal with ESPN and expanded its coverage this year with 16 regular-season telecasts.

“We’re excited that ESPN will feature expanded coverage of WNBA games in the 2019 season,” said interim WNBA President Mark Tatum. “The enhanced schedule reflects ESPN’s commitment to the WNBA and gives our fans additional opportunities on ESPN networks to see the best players in the world compete at the highest level.”

In addition to ESPN’s rising success over the years, CBS Sports’ TV deal with the WNBA this season could also have a positive impact on the ratings. Over the course of the WNBA season, CBS Sports will feature live broadcasts of 40 WNBA games in primetime and on weekends.

Despite stars like Minnesota Lynx’s Maya Moore sitting out, and Los Angeles Sparks’ Candace Parker not playing due to an injury, the league is still growing. In their stead, Phoenix Mercury’s Brittney Griner and Washington Mystics’ Elena Delle Donne are living up to expectations, and helping to attract more viewers than before.

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ny-tv-ratings-wnba-games-higher-last-year-20190612-ppzovay3gjhbxedlee74ofk3sy-story.html
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,484
And1: 1,982
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1180 » by DCZards » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:41 pm

The W.N.B.A. Is Putting On Some of the Best Pro Basketball in America. Why aren’t more fans showing up?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/02/magazine/wnba-atlanta-dream.html
Excerpt:
Comparisons between the two are inevitable and yet often misleading: The N.B.A. is more successful but also 50 years older, which has allowed it to mold the game — and the audience — in its image. Judging women’s basketball by the standards of men’s is like assessing an orchestra with a decibel meter. Yet expanding Americans’ notions of what professional sports should look like and who should play them requires confronting current disparities between men’s and women’s experiences.

Return to Washington Wizards