The Sad Reality Of The WNBA and Its Wage Gap

[Sixerscan]

That's a different argument entirely, and you're going to have to prove to us that the WNBA, in its current form, isn't being run properly -- and I'm not really talking about marketing, because that takes a considerable amount of money that these owners have probably assumed it will not be worth it.

It's a different argument from the strawman many people in here are attacking, but I think it's an important part of an actually nuanced discussion about this issue.

I really need to prove that there is a discrepancy between the two leagues besides level of on court talent? Seems like that is self evident.

I'm not saying the WNBA is being run negligently or anything, just that the NBA is almost certainly being run better, it has more resources, institutional knowledge, relationships, has built on its own success from years before the WNBA was a thing ect.

You asking us to assume that the WNBA isn't being run optimally is quite bizarre, in my opinion. I can't get behind that premise at all. The safer, more plausible assumption here is that it is being run as best as it can, especially after over two decades of being in the business.

And if even if we agree on that point (which we don't), I don't see what it has to do with the players makingn 25% of BRI in comparison the men's. The reasons for that have already been outlined multiple times in this thread.

So your position is the only way the WNBA can make more money is to increase the level of play? The 1986 Celtics made as much collectively as the individual average player does today. Was that because they were that much worse or because there are larger factors at work beyond level of play?

Of course level of play plays a factor but there's other stuff that's outside of the players' control.

Obviously a lot of the points wrt specific numbers that they make is conjecture and negotiating. The point is that everyone should be working towards raising BRI which will raise player salaries.

[clyde21]

It's a different argument from the strawman many people in here are attacking, but I think it's an important part of an actually nuanced discussion about this issue.

I really need to prove that there is a discrepancy between the two leagues besides level of on court talent? Seems like that is self evident.

I'm not saying the WNBA is being run negligently or anything, just that the NBA is almost certainly being run better, it has more resources, institutional knowledge, relationships, has built on its own success from years before the WNBA was a thing ect.

You asking us to assume that the WNBA isn't being run optimally is quite bizarre, in my opinion. I can't get behind that premise at all. The safer, more plausible assumption here is that it is being run as best as it can, especially after over two decades of being in the business.

And if even if we agree on that point (which we don't), I don't see what it has to do with the players makingn 25% of BRI in comparison the men's. The reasons for that have already been outlined multiple times in this thread.

So your position is the only way the WNBA can make more money is to increase the level of play? The 1986 Celtics made as much collectively as the individual average player does today. Was that because they were that much worse or because there are larger factors at work beyond level of play?

Of course level of play plays a factor but there's other stuff that's outside of the players' control.

Obviously a lot of the points wrt specific numbers that they make is conjecture and negotiating. The point is that everyone should be working towards raising BRI which will raise player salaries.

Well, yeah, putting a better product on the court is usually how you'll increase revenue. I'm sure the WNBA has already done a cost and risk analysis on spending more money on marketing. If they saw it would do anything to boost popularity, they would've already done it -- just like how any other business in the world works.

With that said, at the end of the day the product isn't any good (at least in my opinion, and probably the majority of people), and if they can't even get women to watch it, I'm not sure any amount of marketing is going to get it done. At this point, it is what it is, but I suggest against forcing the WNBA owners to pay more...that might just do the opposite effect and shut the entire league down as they're barely surviving as is.

[dorkestra]

I've been watching a couple of these WNBA playoff games. Some great basketball being played. I think my favorite player is Jewell Loyd on Seattle.

It's a trip to watch whole teams of pros play highly organized basketball entirely below the rim. Apparently Seattle and a few other teams have all exceeded the previous most efficient offensive seasons ever this year by adopting more analytic offenses.

I wish them luck in collective bargaining, but until ratings come up I don't know how much leverage they have. I've heard the games are cheaper in some places, but tickets never cost much in New Orleans anyway.

Also: nagging, lesbians, equality, degenerate, inappropriate sexual conduct, complaining, be grateful, political, social justice, transgender, hormones, biological differences, wage gap myth, social media
^ The vocabulary in this video is barely about basketball or economics. It's like a Republican uncle furious after binge watching 24 hours of cable news. Feels like there was a missed opportunity to work immigration in there in some way.

Seattle vs Phoenix series in particular is so entertaining. Diana Taurasi has a competitive edge not seen in the NBA outside of the more instense players. Brittney Griner is a physical force. DaWanna Bonner, the all around player, leading the league in minutes just after having her second child.

And Seattle like you said, they move the ball well, they have a mix of veterans and youth. Breanna Stewart is a lot like James Harden to me. Sue Bird, the cagey veteran. Natasha Howard is a beast. Jewell Loyd is like a Lou Williams type.

[TaylorTRoom]

What should determine wages? Pick one-

1. The most that somebody in a free market is willing to pay for your labor
2. What you need to live on
3. What they can afford to pay
4. What you deserve

[XxIronChainzxX]

Been saying this about the porn industry for ages. Those studs deserve a solid raise. Just the thought of hard working chaps like Mandingo & Lex Steele being so severely underpaid drives me nuts.

You joke, but you actually gave a great counterexample. The sexism on display here isn't necessarily in the corporate interests (I'm sure it's there, too, but not in the example given) but in the public at large. The reality is that, on average, people are more willing to pay more money to watch a man do something than a woman. It's like that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which includes who has the wealth/disposable income. So society is willing to pay more to watch women do porn than a man, but otherwise... not so much... That's where the sexism is on display here.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation, since there is a measurable and objective gap between what a WNBA player can do and what an NBA player can do. Now, maybe you can argue that the feats we ascribe value to themselves involve gender bias. That's a bit too abstract IMO and in any event I don't think it's empirically true in basketball. In any event, the crux of it is that we do not have a situation where WNBA and NBA players are physically capable of doing the same thing and play in segregated leagues.

This is different from other gender workplace issues like say firefighters or the military, where you can argue that i) the performance differences aren't material to the actual job requirements; ii) the requirements themselves aren't probably related to the effectiveness of the job; and iii) the industry is not gender segregated and there exit women (if fewer in number) who meet the same standard.

The porn industry is totally different because there are fundamental gender differences in the audience.

[clyde21]

Been saying this about the porn industry for ages. Those studs deserve a solid raise. Just the thought of hard working chaps like Mandingo & Lex Steele being so severely underpaid drives me nuts.

You joke, but you actually gave a great counterexample. The sexism on display here isn't necessarily in the corporate interests (I'm sure it's there, too, but not in the example given) but in the public at large. The reality is that, on average, people are more willing to pay more money to watch a man do something than a woman. It's like that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which includes who has the wealth/disposable income. So society is willing to pay more to watch women do porn than a man, but otherwise... not so much... That's where the sexism is on display here.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation, since there is a measurable and objective gap between what a WNBA player can do and what an NBA player can do. Now, maybe you can argue that the feats we ascribe value to themselves involve gender bias. That's a bit too abstract IMO and in any event I don't think it's empirically true in basketball. In any event, the crux of it is that we do not have a situation where WNBA and NBA players are physically capable of doing the same thing and play in segregated leagues.

This is different from other gender workplace issues like say firefighters or the military, where you can argue that i) the performance differences aren't material to the actual job requirements; ii) the requirements themselves aren't probably related to the effectiveness of the job; and iii) the industry is not gender segregated and there exit women (if fewer in number) who meet the same standard.

The porn industry is totally different because there are fundamental gender differences in the audience.

Not to get too political here, but even in the military fitness standards for entry are lowered for women.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html

[XxIronChainzxX]

You joke, but you actually gave a great counterexample. The sexism on display here isn't necessarily in the corporate interests (I'm sure it's there, too, but not in the example given) but in the public at large. The reality is that, on average, people are more willing to pay more money to watch a man do something than a woman. It's like that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which includes who has the wealth/disposable income. So society is willing to pay more to watch women do porn than a man, but otherwise... not so much... That's where the sexism is on display here.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation, since there is a measurable and objective gap between what a WNBA player can do and what an NBA player can do. Now, maybe you can argue that the feats we ascribe value to themselves involve gender bias. That's a bit too abstract IMO and in any event I don't think it's empirically true in basketball. In any event, the crux of it is that we do not have a situation where WNBA and NBA players are physically capable of doing the same thing and play in segregated leagues.

This is different from other gender workplace issues like say firefighters or the military, where you can argue that i) the performance differences aren't material to the actual job requirements; ii) the requirements themselves aren't probably related to the effectiveness of the job; and iii) the industry is not gender segregated and there exit women (if fewer in number) who meet the same standard.

The porn industry is totally different because there are fundamental gender differences in the audience.

Not to get too political here, but even in the military fitness standards for entry are lowered for women.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html

They are, hence points i) to iii). Now I'm by no means an expert on the US military, and I'm not a US lawyer, but those are the typically cited reasons for upholding the difference in standards across gender. If it were an empirically demonstrable claim that performing below a given standard endangered lives, you would see different results. But of the cases I am familiar with this was more of a speculative point with the evidence being mixed.

[clyde21]

I don't think that's a fair characterisation, since there is a measurable and objective gap between what a WNBA player can do and what an NBA player can do. Now, maybe you can argue that the feats we ascribe value to themselves involve gender bias. That's a bit too abstract IMO and in any event I don't think it's empirically true in basketball. In any event, the crux of it is that we do not have a situation where WNBA and NBA players are physically capable of doing the same thing and play in segregated leagues.

This is different from other gender workplace issues like say firefighters or the military, where you can argue that i) the performance differences aren't material to the actual job requirements; ii) the requirements themselves aren't probably related to the effectiveness of the job; and iii) the industry is not gender segregated and there exit women (if fewer in number) who meet the same standard.

The porn industry is totally different because there are fundamental gender differences in the audience.

Not to get too political here, but even in the military fitness standards for entry are lowered for women.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html

They are, hence points i) to iii). Now I'm by no means an expert on the US military, and I'm not a US lawyer, but those are the typically cited reasons for upholding the difference in standards across gender. If it were an empirically demonstrable claim that performing below a given standard endangered lives, you would see different results. But of the cases I am familiar with this was more of a speculative point with the evidence being mixed.

Yeah, I can't speak on the material difference on the ground in the military. All I know is that fitness standards are lowered by a pretty good margin for women, but whether that has any effect on the battlefield or not someone else can chime in that's more in the know about this. I'm assuming similar standards for things like firefighters/police etc.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Not to get too political here, but even in the military fitness standards for entry are lowered for women.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html

They are, hence points i) to iii). Now I'm by no means an expert on the US military, and I'm not a US lawyer, but those are the typically cited reasons for upholding the difference in standards across gender. If it were an empirically demonstrable claim that performing below a given standard endangered lives, you would see different results. But of the cases I am familiar with this was more of a speculative point with the evidence being mixed.

Yeah, I can't speak on the material difference on the ground in the military. All I know is that fitness standards are lowered by a pretty good margin for women, but whether that has any effect on the battlefield or not someone else can chime in that's more in the know about this. I'm assuming similar standards for things like firefighters/police etc.

Yeah. It's a fair point to raise in any case. Mostly I just chime in this thread because the WNBA (and sports in general) are really different from pay equity issues in general and regardless of your politics its just not really a constructive debate. There's lots to talk about substantively re: the salary structure without a dive in the sewage that is internet political debate. But YMMV I guess.

[axeman23]

I mean, I can watch an NBA game and a WNBA game and recognize there are vast differences. But the thing I watch basketball for the most is the love of the game, and that can come out in many different forms. I want to see players having fun and competing and putting everything on the line. and that doesn't have to mean acrobatic dunks or insane vertical leaps. That's why it's easy for me to enjoy the WNBA, a college game, NBA or even a team of kids at the YMCA (where I used to coach). You just want to see passion and appreciation for the sport. It's really quite simple for me.

I agree, it absolutely can be fun to watch basketball, whether it's NBA,WNBA, Euroleague, college, junior club games, even just streetball. Absolutely fine, I enjoy watching all of them at times. But put a $75-100US admission price-tag on watching the game/s, you can be damn sure I'm only spending that on the premium product, which is the NBA. Which is why NBA players are paid what THEY are, the WNBA players are paid what THEY are, and street-ballers don't get a red cent for their games...

[Fencer reregistered]

I haven't read the thread, but is anybody arguing that the pay is too low for the revenue that the WNBA is able to create?

If not, then the real arguments needs to be about whether and how the WNBA can be more effectively marketed and sold. In individual sports -- tennis, golf, various Olympic examples -- it's clear that consumer interest in women's sports, if not equal to that in men's, can at least be reasonably comparable, supporting reasonably comparable pay. But in team sports that rarely seems to happen. I don't have a strong theory to explain the difference.

[bondom34]

Are you intentionally cutting out parts of my post? This is what I wrote verbatim in my post one page back:



So it's clearly mentioned in the text bolded.



Maybe they can be trusted, maybe they can't. You can't just assume that they are all making a lot more profit when there's nothing there to believe such a thing. Find out how much they make in all of their streams of revenue then trust doesn't figure in. As mentioned, typically there is an unbiased accounting service which determines revenue, not just the owners personally hired accountants.



How can you say if it should be more when there's no proof that more is financially viable. I disagree because you haven't proven anything. If you can prove it, then there's no need to debate at all, but as long as you claim that there should be more paid out without supporting it, then you'll get people challenging it and disagreeing.

When there is a bigger pie to share like with the NBA, then costs like travel, paying the lease on the arena, marketing, security, paying employees, etcetera, are covered by the owners without it being as big of an issue.

When you have a smaller pie to share like with the WNBA, you can't simply split revenue in half and still tell the owners to cover the costs.

Below is a link to an article which shows just how much operating costs are for an arena (typically around $15M/yr). Let's say they are in operation 300 days per year, that would come to a cost of $50,000 per night in operation. There are 368 regular season WNBA games and 14 playoff games, so that's 382 x $50,000. This comes to an estimated cost of $19M for the league.

So $12M in salary + $19M in arena costs = $31M. Add in all the other costs and at the end of the day and its likely a lot of work for the owners and management without making much money.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/study-comparisonofoperatingcostsforsimilararenas.pdf

This was your first reply to me. I'm not seeing anything about this other than "its likely a lot of work for the owners and management without making much money. "

Firstly, that's all you see? What about the numbers of other costs I listed?

Secondly, I was subtracting the known expenses from the known revenue that you listed. Not sure why you missed that, but okay.

As for trust, you can trust who you'd like but again if you do, please do the same when NBA owners demand a cut for NBA players (again not saying they need to be equal), but trust both.

There's no need for trust or mistrust. It's all numbers, then negotiation. Your assuming that there is lying going on just points to your bias without proof. It taints any sort of objective truth seeking you should be holding onto.

And I'm saying they should see if it's financially viable because to me it seems with the growth of the league and newer TV deal it should be.

Unless of course the league was losing money under the old deal before, which is what has been reported. It's fair to wonder why receiving more TV revenue would not result in a raise, but it really is about the bottom line with everything considered. If you can't show reasonably that there is enough money left over for a raise, then you can't say there should be a raise.

At least you've dropped the idea of comparing things to the NBA though.

I didn't cut your post, that was your reply to me. And sorry if we disagree but no need to be aggressive over it.

You quoted my first reply for some reason, not the last one-- which you replied to, in case you forgot-- and had literally everything you claimed that it didn't. That was your bad. If you think my calling you out on that is "aggressive" then I'd recommend that you not do that to people you are having discussions with, as it appears you are being intentionally disingenuous.

No, that was an honest mistake, I thought you were talking about the first reply.

And you don't have full access to their figures, so speculating on them seems wildly inappropriate at best. I'm not assuming anything, but the fact that owners in every sports league state they lose money when they don't seems to indicate a trend.

Finally, I was never comparing to the NBA other than to say they get a much smaller cut. I never once said they should be the same. I wasn't being disingenuous but that was an honest mistake. You still however seem really angered by an issue that honestly I don't care a ton about but think is at least a bit unfair.

[rich316]

The constant trolling on this topic is obvious and tedious.

[righterwriter]

No, that was an honest mistake, I thought you were talking about the first reply.

Okay, no worries. Just as long as you acknowledge the mistake, its fine.

And you don't have full access to their figures, so speculating on them seems wildly inappropriate at best. I'm not assuming anything, but the fact that owners in every sports league state they lose money when they don't seems to indicate a trend.

You don't have the access either, yet you are the one claiming that they deserve a raise. Wouldn't it make more sense to know how much profit (or loss) your company is making before demanding a raise and expecting to be taken seriously?

Finally, I was never comparing to the NBA other than to say they get a much smaller cut. I never once said they should be the same. I wasn't being disingenuous but that was an honest mistake. You still however seem really angered by an issue that honestly I don't care a ton about but think is at least a bit unfair.

Here's what you wrote:

But when comparing them to their NBA counterparts (which was really the point of the idea of the wage gap) they make well less as a portion of the cap. The NBA union obviously has something to do with it, but it is why the gap exists and is larger than needed.

So you were directly comparing them to the NBA when you said that they get a smaller cut (and that "this gap is larger than is needed").

Now that we've had this discussion, can we all agree that comparing the WNBA's cut in comparison with the NBA's cut is irrelevant, except as a talking point that grabs attention?

[bondom34]

No, that was an honest mistake, I thought you were talking about the first reply.

Okay, no worries. Just as long as you acknowledge the mistake, its fine.

And you don't have full access to their figures, so speculating on them seems wildly inappropriate at best. I'm not assuming anything, but the fact that owners in every sports league state they lose money when they don't seems to indicate a trend.

You don't have the access either, yet you are the one claiming that they deserve a raise. Wouldn't it make more sense to know how much profit (or loss) your company is making before demanding a raise and expecting to be taken seriously?

Finally, I was never comparing to the NBA other than to say they get a much smaller cut. I never once said they should be the same. I wasn't being disingenuous but that was an honest mistake. You still however seem really angered by an issue that honestly I don't care a ton about but think is at least a bit unfair.

Here's what you wrote:

But when comparing them to their NBA counterparts (which was really the point of the idea of the wage gap) they make well less as a portion of the cap. The NBA union obviously has something to do with it, but it is why the gap exists and is larger than needed.

So you were directly comparing them to the NBA when you said that they get a smaller cut (and that "this gap is larger than is needed").

Now that we've had this discussion, can we all agree that comparing the WNBA's cut in comparison with the NBA's cut is irrelevant, except as a talking point that grabs attention?

Can we agree that the gap should be less even if not 50%? Because in all honesty none of us know the exact finances but I'm relatively sure that given what we do know in the league's increased popularity and more recent uptick that they can afford more. Heck it was a topic on the Jump today, and the takes Rachel gave pretty well echo my sentiment. I understand we don't know everything, but right now they can literally just play overseas and make more.

Watch on YouTube

;list=PLn3nHXu50t5xwuAtgeHCEOxv4GA8YKboY&index=2

[Cactus Jack]

I've been watching a couple of these WNBA playoff games. Some great basketball being played. I think my favorite player is Jewell Loyd on Seattle.

Sue Bird is amazing.

[righterwriter]

Can we agree that the gap should be less even if not 50%? Because in all honesty none of us know the exact finances but I'm relatively sure that given what we do know in the league's increased popularity and more recent uptick that they can afford more. Heck it was a topic on the Jump today, and the takes Rachel gave pretty well echo my sentiment. I understand we don't know everything, but right now they can literally just play overseas and make more.

I think arbitrarily picking a number doesn't make sense. It all comes down to costs vs. profit and keeping the business running in a healthy way, both for the franchise and the league. If there is enough profit in there that there can be a raise, then great. But it has nothing to do with what the NBA gets or gender discrimination or whatever points are being made publicly.

[bondom34]

Can we agree that the gap should be less even if not 50%? Because in all honesty none of us know the exact finances but I'm relatively sure that given what we do know in the league's increased popularity and more recent uptick that they can afford more. Heck it was a topic on the Jump today, and the takes Rachel gave pretty well echo my sentiment. I understand we don't know everything, but right now they can literally just play overseas and make more.

I think arbitrarily picking a number doesn't make sense. It all comes down to costs vs. profit and keeping the business running in a healthy way, both for the franchise and the league. If there is enough profit in there that there can be a raise, then great. But it has nothing to do with what the NBA gets or gender discrimination or whatever points are being made publicly.

I wasn't saying to arbitrarily pick a number. I'm saying it should be higher than it is, what that amount is is up to the parties involved. But when a WNBA player can just quit and play overseas to make more, that's a league issue. They can afford more than what they make now IMO. Maybe you fundamentally disagree there. Not sure.

[theonlyclutch]

Can we agree that the gap should be less even if not 50%? Because in all honesty none of us know the exact finances but I'm relatively sure that given what we do know in the league's increased popularity and more recent uptick that they can afford more. Heck it was a topic on the Jump today, and the takes Rachel gave pretty well echo my sentiment. I understand we don't know everything, but right now they can literally just play overseas and make more.

I think arbitrarily picking a number doesn't make sense. It all comes down to costs vs. profit and keeping the business running in a healthy way, both for the franchise and the league. If there is enough profit in there that there can be a raise, then great. But it has nothing to do with what the NBA gets or gender discrimination or whatever points are being made publicly.

I wasn't saying to arbitrarily pick a number. I'm saying it should be higher than it is, what that amount is is up to the parties involved. But when a WNBA player can just quit and play overseas to make more, that's a league issue. They can afford more than what they make now IMO. Maybe you fundamentally disagree there. Not sure.

I definitely disagree, while salaries are a big differentiator between the WNBA and NBA, in many other aspects their cost base is the same. Arenas don't suddenly get cheaper to rent because women play in them vs men...etc. Arena costs, among others, are a pretty insignificant part of NBA revenues, but take up a much bigger part of the pie of WNBA revenues.

If every single part of the cost base get to scale down linearly between the NBA/WNBA revenues, then the women would deserve 50% BRI, but in real life things don't happen that way.

[hype_2004]

Again with this crap, these welfare queens( yes they are as being subsidized by the NBA) do not deserve a cent from the NBA. Any business that continually lose money every year should be dissolved, Without NBA money these women would be working odd jobs just to make ends meet.