The Sad Reality Of The WNBA and Its Wage Gap

[righterwriter]

You missed concession sales, jersey/merchandise sales, and the TV deal.

Actually, I explicitly mentioned all of those. If you read what I wrote, you'll see them pretty clearly, even with the number of the TV deal mentioned several times.

And again, this is if we're trusting owners on what they make which as we've seen in the NBA can't be done.

That's a massive generalization. How about just sticking to the financial numbers to determine if a raise is viable, as this is what it's all about, not whether you personally feel like each of the owners can't be trusted.

[lambchop]

yea I just hope g-league, ebl, apbl, lavar ball league etc. also get equal pay

[bondom34]

You missed concession sales, jersey/merchandise sales, and the TV deal.

Actually, I explicitly mentioned all of those. If you read what I wrote, you'll see them pretty clearly, even with the number of the TV deal mentioned several times.

And again, this is if we're trusting owners on what they make which as we've seen in the NBA can't be done.

That's a massive generalization. How about just sticking to the financial numbers to determine if a raise is viable, as this is what it's all about, not whether you personally feel like each of the owners can't be trusted.

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

19 was the operating cost alone, without mentioning sales outside the arena or the TV deal.

12 was the money spent on players.

Those are costs. You didn't mention the TV deal, or the sales noted above.

As for a generalization when it's something that team owners in every other sport do, I'd question why owners in this one specific instance can be trusted especially when some own both WNBA and NBA teams.

And again, not saying it even should be 50/50, just likely (key word) more than it is now. The league is growing in popularity and the pay should reflect that IMO. Maybe you disagree, which is fine.

[clyde21]

I don't think they're offbase in arguing that they should get the same BRI breakdown and putting pressure on the WNBA to articulate a genuine financial reason for it being otherwise.

That's already been articulated, though. The WNBA has to cover their basic costs. Their primary (and virtually only) revenue stream is BRI, thus the 75% of BRI revenue going to owners (to cover operational costs).

You misunderstand. In a typical labour negotiation the union is going to want extensive financial disclosure. The companies typically resist that disclosure. The WNBA players seem to want to use rhetoric about equal pay to force the league to show their hand.

Agreed there. I said earlier that they're trying to leverage current social justice initiatives into better pay, without really understanding the math. If they force the owners' hands, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of them just completely drop their teams at that point.

[Sixerscan]

They are more than welcome to negotiate for better pay like anyone else. Just don't use the mens game as the crux of why you should be getting paid more. It's disingenuous and it ignores basic concepts like math.

I don't think they're offbase in arguing that they should get the same BRI breakdown and putting pressure on the WNBA to articulate a genuine financial reason for it being otherwise.

That's already been articulated, though. The WNBA has to cover their basic costs. Their primary (and virtually only) revenue stream is BRI, thus the 75% of BRI revenue going to owners (to cover operational costs).

Even assuming this is actually the case, it's also assuming the league is being optimallly run in a profit maximizing way.

Many people seem to be assuming that the league is doing all they can and the issue is no one wants to watch women play crappy basketball. Surely you can see how a WNBA player could find a plausible way to disagree with that. Like you can probably just look at the difference in salary between what Adam Silver makes and what the WNBA commissioner makes (or their respective resumes) and make certain assumptions about ability.

Some NBA player from the 70s made a fraction of what Alan Crabbe makes. He's not getting paid that much more because he's that much better at basketball or he's personally better at marketing the game or whatever it's mostly because the NBA built and improved its business model tremendously over the years.

[Heat3]

No reason to force equal pay in the entertainment industry which is where sports falls under. If you put asses in the seats and eyeballs on the screen then you get paid more. Simple as that.

[clyde21]

I don't think they're offbase in arguing that they should get the same BRI breakdown and putting pressure on the WNBA to articulate a genuine financial reason for it being otherwise.

That's already been articulated, though. The WNBA has to cover their basic costs. Their primary (and virtually only) revenue stream is BRI, thus the 75% of BRI revenue going to owners (to cover operational costs).

Even assuming this is actually the case, it's also assuming the league is being optimallly run in a profit maximizing way.

Many people seem to be assuming that the league is doing all they can and the issue is no one wants to watch women play crappy basketball. Surely you can see how a WNBA player could find a plausible way to disagree with that. Like you can probably just look at the difference in salary between what Adam Silver makes and what the WNBA commissioner makes (or their respective resumes) and make certain assumptions about ability.

Some NBA player from the 70s made a fraction of what Alan Crabbe makes. He's not getting paid that much more because he's that much better at basketball or he's personally better at marketing the game or whatever it's mostly because the NBA built and improved its business model tremendously over the years.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here to be honest.

Me not knowing who the WNBA commissioner is is probably exactly why he/she don't get paid as much as Adam Silver.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the fair assumption here is that the business is running optimally. That's literally their entire point of existence -- to maximize and milk profits wherever possible. If they're not, then that WNBA commissioner you want to get paid as much as Adam Silver isn't doing their job.

[righterwriter]

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

19 was the operating cost alone, without mentioning sales outside the arena or the TV deal.

12 was the money spent on players.

Those are costs. You didn't mention the TV deal, or the sales noted above.

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

No, I accounted for ticket sales. You mentioned $26.5M in ticket sales, which I included in the $51.5M revenue made from TV and ticket sales (the number you listed).

I subtracted the cost of salaries (approximately $12M) and operating costs (an estimate of $19M). That leaves $20M to cover the costs of everything else league wide. Even if there were no other costs, they owner's would be only making $1.5M/yr each, which is not a lot for a business which requires $31M of costs. But then we need to consider the other costs.

How much is it for 191 road games of travel/accommodation? How about front office and back office employee costs? Lawyers? Security? Equipment? Advertising? Insurance?

Certainly some money is made on concessions and merchandise, but even with all of that, it's not leaving a lot left over for the owners of the teams.

If you can find out the bottom line of how much money is actually made once all expenses are accounted for, and make it at least slightly worthwhile for the owners of the team financially, then it can be determined that raises are viable.

So it's clearly mentioned in the text bolded.

As for a generalization when it's something that team owners in every other sport do, I'd question why owners in this one specific instance can be trusted especially when some own both WNBA and NBA teams.

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.

And again, not saying it even should be 50/50, just likely (key word) more than it is now. The league is growing in popularity and the pay should reflect that IMO. Maybe you disagree, which is fine.

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.

[bondom34]

19 was the operating cost alone, without mentioning sales outside the arena or the TV deal.

12 was the money spent on players.

Those are costs. You didn't mention the TV deal, or the sales noted above.

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

No, I accounted for ticket sales. You mentioned $26.5M in ticket sales, which I included in the $51.5M revenue made from TV and ticket sales (the number you listed).

I subtracted the cost of salaries (approximately $12M) and operating costs (an estimate of $19M). That leaves $20M to cover the costs of everything else league wide. Even if there were no other costs, they owner's would be only making $1.5M/yr each, which is not a lot for a business which requires $31M of costs. But then we need to consider the other costs.

How much is it for 191 road games of travel/accommodation? How about front office and back office employee costs? Lawyers? Security? Equipment? Advertising? Insurance?

Certainly some money is made on concessions and merchandise, but even with all of that, it's not leaving a lot left over for the owners of the teams.

If you can find out the bottom line of how much money is actually made once all expenses are accounted for, and make it at least slightly worthwhile for the owners of the team financially, then it can be determined that raises are viable.

So it's clearly mentioned in the text bolded.

As for a generalization when it's something that team owners in every other sport do, I'd question why owners in this one specific instance can be trusted especially when some own both WNBA and NBA teams.

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.

And again, not saying it even should be 50/50, just likely (key word) more than it is now. The league is growing in popularity and the pay should reflect that IMO. Maybe you disagree, which is fine.

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.

Also for the "teams don't make enough to pay them more" the players' issue is that they get a lower percentage of BRI.

https://www.swishappeal.com/wnba/2018/7/31/17633152/wnba-player-salaries-revenue-share-opportunities

According to a Forbes article in February 2018, the NBA’s 30 teams made $7.4 billion in the previous season. So NBA players made about half of that amount. When there are billions of dollars involved, it isn’t surprising to see the average NBA player is making millions of dollars.

How much do WNBA players make in comparison? According to Adam Grosbard of the Dallas Morning News, the league’s 12 teams made at least $51.5 million in 2017, including a $25 million broadcasting deal with ESPN and $26.5 million in ticket sales. However, the WNBA salary cap is under $1 million. Since there are 12 WNBA teams, that’s a little less than $12 million, which is under 25 percent of revenue, and perhaps closer to 20 percent since that figure doesn’t include merchandise sales. Ultimately, the average WNBA salary is about $76,000.

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. "

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.

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.


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.

[mademan]

I don't think they're offbase in arguing that they should get the same BRI breakdown and putting pressure on the WNBA to articulate a genuine financial reason for it being otherwise.

That's already been articulated, though. The WNBA has to cover their basic costs. Their primary (and virtually only) revenue stream is BRI, thus the 75% of BRI revenue going to owners (to cover operational costs).

Even assuming this is actually the case, it's also assuming the league is being optimallly run in a profit maximizing way.

Many people seem to be assuming that the league is doing all they can and the issue is no one wants to watch women play crappy basketball. Surely you can see how a WNBA player could find a plausible way to disagree with that. Like you can probably just look at the difference in salary between what Adam Silver makes and what the WNBA commissioner makes (or their respective resumes) and make certain assumptions about ability.

Some NBA player from the 70s made a fraction of what Alan Crabbe makes. He's not getting paid that much more because he's that much better at basketball or he's personally better at marketing the game or whatever it's mostly because the NBA built and improved its business model tremendously over the years.

Thats because the opposite and more ridiculous assumption would be that the owners dont want money.

I kind of get what youre saying, as in its not marketed as well. But that takes money. This is a business 20 years in that is still incapable of standing on its own 2 feet without the support of the NBA. What kind of businessman would invest in that?

[I_Like_Dirt]

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.

[Sixerscan]

That's already been articulated, though. The WNBA has to cover their basic costs. Their primary (and virtually only) revenue stream is BRI, thus the 75% of BRI revenue going to owners (to cover operational costs).

Even assuming this is actually the case, it's also assuming the league is being optimallly run in a profit maximizing way.

Many people seem to be assuming that the league is doing all they can and the issue is no one wants to watch women play crappy basketball. Surely you can see how a WNBA player could find a plausible way to disagree with that. Like you can probably just look at the difference in salary between what Adam Silver makes and what the WNBA commissioner makes (or their respective resumes) and make certain assumptions about ability.

Some NBA player from the 70s made a fraction of what Alan Crabbe makes. He's not getting paid that much more because he's that much better at basketball or he's personally better at marketing the game or whatever it's mostly because the NBA built and improved its business model tremendously over the years.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here to be honest.

Me not knowing who the WNBA commissioner is is probably exactly why he/she don't get paid as much as Adam Silver.

I was just using payment there as a proxy for ability. (Which we seem to have no problem with doing for the players)

I'm saying there is an argument to be made that if the WNBA was better run it would take in more BRI and thus more money to pay the players. It's not just about the players on the court.

Like the G league probably isn't that much of higher level of play than the CBA was but it's better run so it's doing much better financially. (At least I assume)

[clyde21]

Even assuming this is actually the case, it's also assuming the league is being optimallly run in a profit maximizing way.

Many people seem to be assuming that the league is doing all they can and the issue is no one wants to watch women play crappy basketball. Surely you can see how a WNBA player could find a plausible way to disagree with that. Like you can probably just look at the difference in salary between what Adam Silver makes and what the WNBA commissioner makes (or their respective resumes) and make certain assumptions about ability.

Some NBA player from the 70s made a fraction of what Alan Crabbe makes. He's not getting paid that much more because he's that much better at basketball or he's personally better at marketing the game or whatever it's mostly because the NBA built and improved its business model tremendously over the years.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here to be honest.

Me not knowing who the WNBA commissioner is is probably exactly why he/she don't get paid as much as Adam Silver.

I was just using payment there as a proxy for ability. (Which we seem to have no problem with doing for the players)

I'm saying there is an argument to be made that if the WNBA was better run it would take in more BRI and thus more money to pay the players. It's not just about the players on the court.

Like the G league probably isn't that much of higher level of play than the CBA was but it's better run so it's doing much better financially. (At least I assume)

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.

[lambchop]

IF so much money could be made with the WNBA, some dudes would have already capitalized on it. WNBA players are simply delusional thinking that they are a little bit of publicity away from making big bucks. There is very little financial potential in that league. However, it's going to be interesting once the first transgenders start to play there and we'll be seeing putback dunks, windmills etc.

If anything can make the league more electrifying it will probably be transgenders cause they'll have mens' athleticism

Watch on YouTube

[Lala870]

#lowertherim

[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.

[righterwriter]

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

No, I accounted for ticket sales. You mentioned $26.5M in ticket sales, which I included in the $51.5M revenue made from TV and ticket sales (the number you listed).

I subtracted the cost of salaries (approximately $12M) and operating costs (an estimate of $19M). That leaves $20M to cover the costs of everything else league wide. Even if there were no other costs, they owner's would be only making $1.5M/yr each, which is not a lot for a business which requires $31M of costs. But then we need to consider the other costs.

How much is it for 191 road games of travel/accommodation? How about front office and back office employee costs? Lawyers? Security? Equipment? Advertising? Insurance?

Certainly some money is made on concessions and merchandise, but even with all of that, it's not leaving a lot left over for the owners of the teams.

If you can find out the bottom line of how much money is actually made once all expenses are accounted for, and make it at least slightly worthwhile for the owners of the team financially, then it can be determined that raises are viable.

So it's clearly mentioned in the text bolded.

As for a generalization when it's something that team owners in every other sport do, I'd question why owners in this one specific instance can be trusted especially when some own both WNBA and NBA teams.

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.

And again, not saying it even should be 50/50, just likely (key word) more than it is now. The league is growing in popularity and the pay should reflect that IMO. Maybe you disagree, which is fine.

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.

Also for the "teams don't make enough to pay them more" the players' issue is that they get a lower percentage of BRI.

https://www.swishappeal.com/wnba/2018/7/31/17633152/wnba-player-salaries-revenue-share-opportunities

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.

[Sixerscan]

I'm not really sure what you're saying here to be honest.

Me not knowing who the WNBA commissioner is is probably exactly why he/she don't get paid as much as Adam Silver.

I was just using payment there as a proxy for ability. (Which we seem to have no problem with doing for the players)

I'm saying there is an argument to be made that if the WNBA was better run it would take in more BRI and thus more money to pay the players. It's not just about the players on the court.

Like the G league probably isn't that much of higher level of play than the CBA was but it's better run so it's doing much better financially. (At least I assume)

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.

[clyde21]

I was just using payment there as a proxy for ability. (Which we seem to have no problem with doing for the players)

I'm saying there is an argument to be made that if the WNBA was better run it would take in more BRI and thus more money to pay the players. It's not just about the players on the court.

Like the G league probably isn't that much of higher level of play than the CBA was but it's better run so it's doing much better financially. (At least I assume)

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.

[HollowEarth]

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.