No such thing as the wage gap. You make what you deserve
It's a conservative think tank, so grain of salt. It's a far more complex issue than any five minute video can present: I've seen immigrants who have degrees earn less; equally qualified men who were hired after women for the exact same position, not sales related, yet earn more as a starting wage with the company than women who worked their way up to theirs; I've seen sales percentages for women be lowered and sales quotas increased so as to 'incentivize earning more' when women met the quotas faster and more consistently than men.
Also, the wage gap issue is not only a discussion in the US.
The video indicates that solely economics drive wages, and if women earn less then companies should just hire more women. But of course paying less is a way to keep some where they are and others out. The video ignores the very human factor of bias (even as it exposes its own in implying that women don't earn as much because they aren't as willing to stay longer or want that work/life balance so they sacrifice less).
To amend your sentence: if people made what they deserved, there would be no such thing as a wage gap.
This is less directly tied to the topic at hand, so I don't want to sidetrack, but there are valid reasons why the WNBA players aren't making as much as NBA players are, and there are valid reasons why they are laying the groundwork for better compensation.
Your personal experiences aren't as generalizable as statistics are. I don't know how different the problem in Canada and the U.S is, but I have never seen anyone make less bc of their gender. There is a huge difference in income between both genders, but that's bc of personal choices. Many studies have shown that women just have different priorities than men, typically. I've seen women who have the same individualistic priorities as some men and they've gone on to be very successful. They didn't cry, they just worked hard and become more successful than many of their male counter parts.
But more women have a more cohesive approach to life, (family oriented etc.), and that's okay! Do whatever you want, but you can't deny that these directional changes exist between the two genders and are largely responsible for the pay differences. There used to be a problem, and it still may exist to a small degree, but its much much smaller than the media and extreme feminists make it out to be.
If you want success, its possible go and work for it. The WNBA is a different issue entirely, there is so much discrepency there bc of how little the WNBA makes in revenue compared to the NBA. I'm rooting for them though, the NBA helps with a lot of marketing but the problem is, Males typically watch sports. And the culture of today is of such that males want to watch male sports and the occasional womens volleyball. When the culture starts changing, maybe WNBA players will one day earn a lot closer to what NBA players make.
No such thing as the wage gap. You make what you deserve
It's a conservative think tank, so grain of salt. It's a far more complex issue than any five minute video can present: I've seen immigrants who have degrees earn less; equally qualified men who were hired after women for the exact same position, not sales related, yet earn more as a starting wage with the company than women who worked their way up to theirs; I've seen sales percentages for women be lowered and sales quotas increased so as to 'incentivize earning more' when women met the quotas faster and more consistently than men.
Also, the wage gap issue is not only a discussion in the US.
The video indicates that solely economics drive wages, and if women earn less then companies should just hire more women. But of course paying less is a way to keep some where they are and others out. The video ignores the very human factor of bias (even as it exposes its own in implying that women don't earn as much because they aren't as willing to stay longer or want that work/life balance so they sacrifice less).
To amend your sentence: if people made what they deserved, there would be no such thing as a wage gap.
This is less directly tied to the topic at hand, so I don't want to sidetrack, but there are valid reasons why the WNBA players aren't making as much as NBA players are, and there are valid reasons why they are laying the groundwork for better compensation.
Here's an article from Vox, which is anything but a conservative think tank.
The point about a conservative think tank was really a side note of acknowledgement not dismissal, and in acknowledging that the focus will be more on some aspects than others. The Vox article also points out reasons for wage gaps, but also notes clearly that there is surely wage discrimination and to dismiss it is to ignore important factors (that said, it's too large an issue to encompass everything, including differing theories on it). It does suggest some changes that can be made to decrease the gap further.
Peterson strikes me as a rationalist / individualist in Rand's vein (though I'm not convinced he'd acknowledge her as any kind of influence). It is one position, and even though he introduces some eighteen factors for wage gaps, he too ignores certain factors when privileging individual choice and commensurate success. Also, does he really believe that compassion is a feminine trait? Is that not until it becomes useful and monetized? Maybe the Dalai Lama would disagree. The interview is skewed because he had a book to sell and was pitching, but though he, too, suggests what women can do to bridge the wage gap, that there is one is really a woman's responsibility. His eighteen factors that explain the gap do not do so because he sees there is an actual systemic problem. For someone who espouses objectivity, he relies a lot on generalizations and stereotypes of and about women.
What both focus on are six figure, higher education fields such as medicine, law and the tech industry. So that leaves out groups I've previously mentioned (immigrants, those who do jobs others won't, and a myraid of others not covered in the studies listed - again, I get they're focused so by definition it'll exclude many industries and jobs), and they get left out because they're deemed more disposable, and these are less economic issues than human bias. Even factoring maternity leave, it assumes that most women will get pregnant (it would only be reasonable to make this a legitimate explanation if all women did get pregnant, but of course not all have kids), and ignores that men are eligible for mat leave, too. I've witnessed women get let go when a boss got wind of them wanting to get pregnant, (you're not supposed to ask in interviews if a woman is planning on getting pregnant, but you'd be surprised how many still do), and one was replaced by a man who earned more to start than she was when she left, and he ended up on mat leave for a year when his wife had a baby. Some may point to the staying longer or better work performance and whatnot, but there was no drop off or increase in the levels met.
Anyway, the point isn't that studies and the articles above have no legitimacy, it's just that they aren't comprehensive enough, and thus don't account for a myriad of real world experiences and biases that many still experience. Do some work more and therefore get paid more? Sure. Should those who don't get paid the same? No. Nevertheless, there are instances - and these are not some obscure minority - in which all things being equal, some men earn more than women, and it is this inequity that needs addressing. It exists, and it can be better, but better to pull the fig leaf off and face it rather than explain away what is actually a real problem.
No such thing as the wage gap. You make what you deserve
It's a conservative think tank, so grain of salt. It's a far more complex issue than any five minute video can present: I've seen immigrants who have degrees earn less; equally qualified men who were hired after women for the exact same position, not sales related, yet earn more as a starting wage with the company than women who worked their way up to theirs; I've seen sales percentages for women be lowered and sales quotas increased so as to 'incentivize earning more' when women met the quotas faster and more consistently than men.
Also, the wage gap issue is not only a discussion in the US.
The video indicates that solely economics drive wages, and if women earn less then companies should just hire more women. But of course paying less is a way to keep some where they are and others out. The video ignores the very human factor of bias (even as it exposes its own in implying that women don't earn as much because they aren't as willing to stay longer or want that work/life balance so they sacrifice less).
To amend your sentence: if people made what they deserved, there would be no such thing as a wage gap.
This is less directly tied to the topic at hand, so I don't want to sidetrack, but there are valid reasons why the WNBA players aren't making as much as NBA players are, and there are valid reasons why they are laying the groundwork for better compensation.
Your personal experiences aren't as generalizable as statistics are. I don't know how different the problem in Canada and the U.S is, but I have never seen anyone make less bc of their gender. There is a huge difference in income between both genders, but that's bc of personal choices. Many studies have shown that women just have different priorities than men, typically. I've seen women who have the same individualistic priorities as some men and they've gone on to be very successful. They didn't cry, they just worked hard and become more successful than many of their male counter parts.
But more women have a more cohesive approach to life, (family oriented etc.), and that's okay! Do whatever you want, but you can't deny that these directional changes exist between the two genders and are largely responsible for the pay differences. There used to be a problem, and it still may exist to a small degree, but its much much smaller than the media and extreme feminists make it out to be.
If you want success, its possible go and work for it. The WNBA is a different issue entirely, there is so much discrepency there bc of how little the WNBA makes in revenue compared to the NBA. I'm rooting for them though, the NBA helps with a lot of marketing but the problem is, Males typically watch sports. And the culture of today is of such that males want to watch male sports and the occasional womens volleyball. When the culture starts changing, maybe WNBA players will one day earn a lot closer to what NBA players make.
Sure, that's true, but these experiences were meant more as a supplement not so much a counterpoint. I appreciate the realities of the marketplace and that those who work more or harder should be paid more. But that presumes fairness and the reality of experiences show that even when some work more or harder they aren't equally compensated.
It's not helpful to use terms like extremist feminists as you've done and Peterson in the above video did as well (again, strange labeling for someone who espouses to lead with empirical data). It diminishes the discussion to neat categories when the point is that it is more complex. What you're espousing both of the sources in the quote above do as well, and it's not that they're not valid, just incomplete. I was thinking more about this today, and the vast majority of women who I know and consider friends (or is family) have dealt with work wage issues (maybe not coincidentally, most have had female bosses. That's a whole other issue, maybe related, maybe not).
Like you point about about WNBA players, you can't say they don't work hard. Yes the seasons are shorter, but again the realities of the marketplace are what they are (and these also seem to be of some debate). There are discrepancies in wages that exist even with all things being equal. These gaps aren't not accounted for in the studies presented, and these are real and legitimate and really not a small minority so as to somehow not count or be dismissed as to small not to. I had my first real paying job at 13. All along the way, working in the summers in high school or during uni and up until now, with all the changes and improvements, there are old hard biases in work places that also need changing. Individual choices and assertiveness are important, but one side of it.
Michael Jordan wrote:Here's a sad reality, WNBA would be more profitable if they wore skimpier outfits IMO
People choose NBA > WNBA cause it's the best players in the world. For WNBA to gain more viewership I think they'd need something other than talent
That may be the reality for some, but I haven't stopped watching the NBA because the short shorts of the 1980s have been replaced with less attractive, more loose longer ones. Maintaining a high standard is where it should be, on the central purpose which is quality of the game.
The many opinions about the state and fate and entertainment level of the WNBA do not intersect enough. The WNBA, as the video bondom34 provided reiterates, is a relatively young league compared to the NBA and even more so to other professional leagues. Where was the NBA in its first twenty or so years? Was there not heavy criticism of players and drugs and I think even tattoos at some point? What about when the NBA was introduced in Canada? Remember the quality of the product initially? Resistance of players to play in another country? Problems with the metric system, as if Canada is the odd one when most countries in the world use it (including those of foreign players)? The cold, as if the Bucks or Pistons or Knicks, etc., haven't had the same. Calls for disbanding the WNBA at a time when the talent is the best its ever been, when social media can help spread the game (and it has, more on this a bit later), when it's more organized than it has ever been misses its point and place in history.
The WNBA players obviously realize they can't be making what the NBA players do and why. They do want a bigger share of the revenue, which currently stands at around 25%. So that's one aspect of it. As for disbanding because of lack of popularity, you'd have to look at what younger generations are saying about the WNBA players. I was following Basketball Without Borders in Serbia this summer which had the best European boys and girls participating, and the girls were thrilled about seeing the coaches (men and women), talked about their favourite pro players, and about how they looked up to them and were happy that they could pursue careers at a pro level in the game they love. You have to wait until development trickles down to more subsequent generations. It's already having an impact so the game is growing even if it takes time for seeds planted nationally and internationally to grow.
In addition, when players finish their pro careers, they go on to have opportunities in new levels. Becky Hammon, for instance, was able to pursue a coaching career which was undoubtedly informed by her playing career.
Also, the attention that players get means their causes get attention, too. Breanna Stewart wrote a deeply personal and moving article in the Players' Tribune about being sexually abused and how basketball was an escape and focus for her which she translated into a career. You have to appreciate the impact and reach that that may have, and it's because of what she does.
A lot the NBA players support the WNBA, too. I don't think it's just pandering, but an appreciation for the grind behind the game; they know what it takes to get to this level.
So if someone doesn't like it, please think twice before suggesting for the women to look cuter or for the uniforms to be sexier or whatever. You don't have to watch if you aren't into it, but respect that they take it seriously and want to contribute and have a voice in growing the game. It's not yet where it could be, but there needs to be a space for it to keep expanding as it already has an important presence both on and off the court.
Very good post, hank you. But...
WNBA is politically correct publicity stunt of NBA to promote values we all strive to achieve in real life, but NBA and all professional sports are so out of real life that’s not even funny.
Gender equity and equality are great accomplishments of civilizational progress and goal of any progressive political and societal thought and ideology. But correlating factor in all this is market and profit margins. We all know that as society we still have to support and fight for better inclusion of women in highest paying jobs, mainly in big business and politics, but not just because they are women, but because they are as good as men and can bring the same result as men do.
Now when we "translate" that to professional sports and use same criteria something is off. Unless WNBA brings the same revenue, profits and ratings as NBA does WNBA players should be happy and collect whatever they are given by NBA, because no matter how good they are (with obvious gender limitations), unfortunately their product is not recognized by the paying customers.
How many great female athletes compete in other totally unrecognized team sports in North America (volleyball, handball,water polo, even soccer) and for their performance get paid significantly less then WNBA athletes just because they are not lucky to have big profitable male competition to support them financially. What about them? Level of interest (with which comes money) in their sports is at the same level as for WNBA (nonexistent on bigger scale) and should they start complaining and ask to be payed like WNBA players, because the difference is almost as big between them as between WNBA and NBA.
Well see this is where we differ - right at the start! I think the fundamental purpose of the WNBA for the NBA is growth of the game. All those other aspects I mentioned are offshoots of the game, and positives that cannot be overlooked when talking about the growth of the game and its impact -- it's not just about the numbers, though of course, not to be ham-fisted about it, profit has to be there. But there are clearly other markers that indicate the WNBA is headed in the right direction, starting, centrally, with the on-court product being better than it has ever been.
I ask that you once again recall what the NBA was when it first formed, how teams were contracted by I think the mid-1050s; if the NBA folded then there would be no golden era of the 1960s (especially for the Cs). Then in the late 1970s to early 80s, with all the issues that had to be dealt with - drug use by players, poor tv ratings - tape delay, yikes, financial problems for teams, the NBA found a way to work through them and then Magic, Bird, and MJ came along. It's the broad version, but the point is that the WNBA, a very young league relative to other major pro sports, is in the process of working through its own issues (some apparent in the first video posted, some addressed by posters here - mostly the financial aspects). Rather than proclamations of calling for its end, better to look at more of the intersecting factors that already make it a success, and look at innovative ways to make it more financially viable, which I'm sure the league is doing.
I can't name any great female athletes in the sports you mentioned, but then again, outside of soccer, I can't name any male athletes in those sports either. So I don't think it's apples to apples here. Because the WNBA is the first pro women's league in the major sports, it is in a unique position to spearhead a new direction. Of course the game is different compared to men, but this is seldom if ever a factor mentioned in Olympic soccer or hockey for women, yet it seems to be such an issue for WNBA, this when the players and games are better than ever. I agree that the position should not be 'just because they're women' - that's patronizing. But just because WNBA is not yet profitable or not yet as widely viewed or attended does not discredit wholly all of what it has already achieved on and off the court (this to those who argue to fold the WNBA).
No doubt the leagues have to do better to bring in paying customers and viewers. I often find out about great games reading after the fact - and I'm an avid basketball fan. It also doesn't help that there have been some legal / violence issues from WNBA players off the court that get more attention than the games. I watch women's tennis and hockey because I really like both sports and so then get into the personalities and broader issues surrounding both the sports and athletes. There does not seem to be that same personal connection yet with the WNBA, and there needs to be on a larger scale. So as to the wage issue, yes it's tied to profit margins (and the extent of these have been debated here), yes it's good money for the short time they're playing, but also yes it's an issue to solve for the WNBA that players can make a lot more overseas (so women's basketball can be profitable after all, yes?), and yes the WNBA players should absolutely bargain for a bigger share of the BRI, while working with the league to increase it.
These will take time. In the meantime, advertise the game more and have a better online presence. A quick perusal of the NBA site (where most people go) and there's not direct link to WNBA at the top tabs, and the WNBA finals preview is one of the links lost among rookies and Dirk's surgery and best WNBA kicks. Surely it's in the league's interest to list WNBA finals games happening now at least as prominently as preseason NBA games that will take place in late September? Meanwhile, if you go to the WNBA site, there are direct, clear icon links in the top right to both the NBA and G-League (plus I got a cross-site scripting attack warning on the WNBA schedule page, Jesus Christ haha!). Ok, it's not a game changer of an observation, but I think little details matter, and they lead to bigger things that can either be overlooked or seen; everything counts in spreading the word.
Fencer reregistered wrote: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.
I do, but I’m afraid of the repurcussuons for writing here it or even saying it to someone although many would probably agree with it.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
GREY 1769 wrote: I ask that you once again recall what the NBA was when it first formed, how teams were contracted by I think the mid-1050s; if the NBA folded then there would be no golden era of the 1960s (especially for the Cs). Then in the late 1970s to early 80s, with all the issues that had to be dealt with - drug use by players, poor tv ratings - tape delay, yikes, financial problems for teams, the NBA found a way to work through them and then Magic, Bird, and MJ came along. It's the broad version, but the point is that the WNBA, a very young league relative to other major pro sports, is in the process of working through its own issues (some apparent in the first video posted, some addressed by posters here - mostly the financial aspects).
.
Twice you’ve mentioned this, but the analogy/equivalency isn’t quite sound. You had a struggling league in the NBA, but it was a men’s league. The chances that a men’s sports league had to gain a piece of the overall entertainment pie was always there because, well, it was a men’s sports league. There’s no new paradigm there.
Any hope that a newly formed women’s league can have any sort of meteoric rise in market share like the NBA did or any meaningful rise at all in a time in which 5,000,000 different entertainment options from streaming services, internet, social media, Youtube, music, online gaming, VR coming soon, etc., etc., are available is simply wishful thinking. Entertainment has never been as plentiful or of high quality. Only the best products can gain a hold of viewers. What were the entertainment options available when the NBA rose in the 1980s?
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
bondom34 wrote: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 don't think the WNBA can afford much more. The problem, as I see it, is that the WNBA is and always has been a side show. It's something NBA teams put on for the good publicity and to fill stadium dates when their NBA team isn't using the building. I don't think they make much, if any, money on the WNBA.
There's maybe a path to making good money on the NBA, but it involves capital, risk, and probably some uncomfortable negotiations about having WNBA games happening during the NBA season. I really don't think you can run a basketball league profitably running only in the summer; all sorts of entertainment properties avoid doing stuff in the summer because people have better ways to spend their time.
If I were an NBA owner, and I had a choice between spending money improving my WNBA business, or spending money improving my NBA business, I think it's pretty obvious which side is the better bet.
bondom34 wrote: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 don't think the WNBA can afford much more. The problem, as I see it, is that the WNBA is and always has been a side show. It's something NBA teams put on for the good publicity and to fill stadium dates when their NBA team isn't using the building. I don't think they make much, if any, money on the WNBA.
There's maybe a path to making good money on the NBA, but it involves capital, risk, and probably some uncomfortable negotiations about having WNBA games happening during the NBA season. I really don't think you can run a basketball league profitably running only in the summer; all sorts of entertainment properties avoid doing stuff in the summer because people have better ways to spend their time.
If I were an NBA owner, and I had a choice between spending money improving my WNBA business, or spending money improving my NBA business, I think it's pretty obvious which side is the better bet.
Alternatively, you could get in now before it gains in popularity. In the early days of the NBA, owners likely faced similar questions. If you kept that investment it would be well worth it now.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
bondom34 wrote: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 don't think the WNBA can afford much more. The problem, as I see it, is that the WNBA is and always has been a side show. It's something NBA teams put on for the good publicity and to fill stadium dates when their NBA team isn't using the building. I don't think they make much, if any, money on the WNBA.
There's maybe a path to making good money on the NBA, but it involves capital, risk, and probably some uncomfortable negotiations about having WNBA games happening during the NBA season. I really don't think you can run a basketball league profitably running only in the summer; all sorts of entertainment properties avoid doing stuff in the summer because people have better ways to spend their time.
If I were an NBA owner, and I had a choice between spending money improving my WNBA business, or spending money improving my NBA business, I think it's pretty obvious which side is the better bet.
Alternatively, you could get in now before it gains in popularity. In the early days of the NBA, owners likely faced similar questions. If you kept that investment it would be well worth it now.
These are the average RS attendance figures for the WNBA. Attendance completely flat over 7 years. What shows that this thing is trending towards gaining popularity? NBA owners in the 50s likely held on because even though it was tough, they could see the trajectory upwards. Don't see it here.
I realize people want to be optimistic about the WNBA, but the numbers and trends just don't look good. Doesn't mean it doesn't have a function nor serve a purpose, but It is what it is.
The problem is when these players ask for more money, it's not really up to the owners. It's just math, and if it starts going in the negative direction, they'll pull the plug.
bondom34 wrote:Alternatively, you could get in now before it gains in popularity. In the early days of the NBA, owners likely faced similar questions. If you kept that investment it would be well worth it now.
The WNBA has been around for 20 years. Attendance is flat. Revenue is up some on the strength of ESPN overpaying for TV rights. Doesn't feel sustainable; ESPN itself is in significant trouble due to the transition away from cable. This story is extremely unexciting from an investor perspective.
I feel like there are 1001 better things that I could get it on now before it gains in popularity. I'd probably buy some esports teams.
Agenda42 wrote: I don't think the WNBA can afford much more. The problem, as I see it, is that the WNBA is and always has been a side show. It's something NBA teams put on for the good publicity and to fill stadium dates when their NBA team isn't using the building. I don't think they make much, if any, money on the WNBA.
There's maybe a path to making good money on the NBA, but it involves capital, risk, and probably some uncomfortable negotiations about having WNBA games happening during the NBA season. I really don't think you can run a basketball league profitably running only in the summer; all sorts of entertainment properties avoid doing stuff in the summer because people have better ways to spend their time.
If I were an NBA owner, and I had a choice between spending money improving my WNBA business, or spending money improving my NBA business, I think it's pretty obvious which side is the better bet.
Alternatively, you could get in now before it gains in popularity. In the early days of the NBA, owners likely faced similar questions. If you kept that investment it would be well worth it now.
These are the average RS attendance figures for the WNBA. Attendance completely flat over 7 years. What shows that this thing is trending towards gaining popularity? NBA owners in the 50s likely held on because even though it was tough, they could see the trajectory upwards. Don't see it here.
I'm thinking TV ratings? Not sure, but it seems from everyone I've interacted with who cares about basketball it's gaining. I didn't care a few years ago, and do now.
Agenda42 wrote:
bondom34 wrote:Alternatively, you could get in now before it gains in popularity. In the early days of the NBA, owners likely faced similar questions. If you kept that investment it would be well worth it now.
The WNBA has been around for 20 years. Attendance is flat. Revenue is up some on the strength of ESPN overpaying for TV rights. Doesn't feel sustainable; ESPN itself is in significant trouble due to the transition away from cable. This story is extremely unexciting from an investor perspective.
I feel like there are 1001 better things that I could get it on now before it gains in popularity. I'd probably buy some esports teams.
But again, these guys are already invested in these sports, and many own a group of teams (guys like Leonsis for example).
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
bondom34 wrote:I'm thinking TV ratings? Not sure, but it seems from everyone I've interacted with who cares about basketball it's gaining. I didn't care a few years ago, and do now.
TV ratings are even worse. 2016 was the worst year in the WNBA's history in terms of TV ratings.
bondom34 wrote:I'm thinking TV ratings? Not sure, but it seems from everyone I've interacted with who cares about basketball it's gaining. I didn't care a few years ago, and do now.
TV ratings are even worse. 2016 was the worst year in the WNBA's history in terms of TV ratings.
So they're improving since? From this, they're in a pretty similar boat to the early NBA:
And increasing slightly in popularity. Heck, 4 years ago you wouldn't have WNBA threads here. Now you do, that's even saying something.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
bondom34 wrote:I'm thinking TV ratings? Not sure, but it seems from everyone I've interacted with who cares about basketball it's gaining. I didn't care a few years ago, and do now.
TV ratings are even worse. 2016 was the worst year in the WNBA's history in terms of TV ratings.
So they're improving since? From this, they're in a pretty similar boat to the early NBA:
And increasing slightly in popularity. Heck, 4 years ago you wouldn't have WNBA threads here. Now you do, that's even saying something.
Saying something 'is improving' after literally the worst output in its history is disingenuous. Yes, it's 'improving', but that's only because 2016 was the WORST ratings recorded in its history. it's improving on that, yes.
Anyways, more power to you if you feel like there's potential there. I think the numbers look pretty grim, but I hope I'm wrong.
And increasing slightly in popularity. Heck, 4 years ago you wouldn't have WNBA threads here. Now you do, that's even saying something.
Saying something 'is improving' after literally the worst output in its history is disingenuous. Yes, it's 'improving', but that's only because 2016 was the WORST ratings recorded in its history. it's improving on that, yes.
Anyways, more power to you if you feel like there's potential there. I think the numbers look pretty grim, but I hope I'm wrong.
Hope so too, but from what I've seen I'll agree to disagree .
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
Watching the US Open tennis I learned the men and women champions are in fact paid the same amount. If I were the men I would be complaining since each of their 6 matches they play extra sets worth of work for the same pay and many times it takes two extra sets to decide. The maximum lenght of a womens match is the minimum of a mans where is the outrage for that inequity. Watching them struggling along for as much as 5 hours in the heat it really is far more demanding and they do deserve equal pay for equal work at the very least.
12footrim wrote:Watching the US Open tennis I learned the men and women champions are in fact paid the same amount. If I were the men I would be complaining since each of their 6 matches they play extra sets worth of work for the same pay and many times it takes two extra sets to decide. The maximum lenght of a womens match is the minimum of a mans where is the outrage for that inequity. Watching them struggling along for as much as 5 hours in the heat it really is far more demanding and they do deserve equal pay for equal work at the very least.
meh, it's not like they're getting an hourly wage. Should the winner of the pepsi 600 get more money than the winner of the Daytona 500 just because they drove further?
Drop the rim height to 9'5" to somewhat account for the average height difference between men and women, and quadruple the strength and conditioning to favor athleticism, and women's basketball will get a whole lot more entertaining at all levels.
Fencer reregistered wrote: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.
I do, but I’m afraid of the repurcussuons for writing here it or even saying it to someone although many would probably agree with it.
Plenty of female athletes are straight.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
.
