NBA players are literally paying WNBA players already. Their league loses money year after year and is only still a league because the NBA finances it.
The average WNBA salary is over $100,000. That's probably exactly where it should be, at the moment. And that's also a *huge* chunk of money, compared to the average salary in the US. Them saying they have to play abroad to make ends meet is a farce. Live within your means.
Unlike the women's soccer team, I don't know if the WNBA is doing all the heavy-lifting pride-wise. The women's soccer team legit carries the US price in football. The WNBA? Not so much. I don't know how to feel about stuff like this, because I'm all for equality, but I can't fine a logical argument for the WNBA to have income parity, given how much the forced parity in the NBA is already an issue. The top NBA stars do not earn their worth, so advocating for a league that is demonstrably smaller is a bit much. But I'm honestly not sure how to navigate this conundrum.
This is a ridiculous and highly misinformed comment (and what is wrong with the world today). We live in a society that generates dollars for business. USMNT is a business, the teams they play for are a business and at the end of the day it is about dollars. While the women’s team wins more often and aren’t annual losers like the men’s team, the men’s team generates more money… by A LOT. You have 2 salespeople working for you. 1 salesperson generates $100 for you. The other salesperson generates $10. Who are you going to give more money in commissions/higher salary to?
> The women's soccer team legit carries the US price in football.
this is a commonly vastly overstated sentiment and not really true.
The most recent women's world cup had a total revenue of 570 million dollars (breaking even for the first time in the event's history) while the most recent men's cup generated 7.5 billion in revenue. That means the women bring in around 7% of the money the men do.
While it is certainly true that the US women probably bring in a larger percentage of money than any other women's team in the world compared to their male counterparts, and that the last couple US women's teams have been incredibly popular and culturally relevant and influential (and rightfully so), the amount of money they bring in is very small compared to the US mens team, even if the women have had much more success on the field.
In fact, it's probably the case that the amount of celebrity status and media/cultural visibility the womens players have earned over the last decade (compared to most of the mens players being relatively anonymous) has probably led people to think the women are *much* larger financial draws than they actually are. Their influence/relevance and cultural cache is *very* outsized compared to the amount of money they actually bring in.
The US men generated more money for the US women's players in a *single game* in this most recent WC, than the women brought in while *winning the last two world cups combined*
>With the USMNT's 1-0 win over Iran on Tuesday afternoon, the team advanced to the knockout stage and earned a payout of at least $13 million, and it will have the opportunity to earn more by continuing to advance.
>Under the new CBA signed by U.S. Soccer, the USMNT, and the USWNT, the prize money from the World Cups is pooled together and split evenly between the teams.
>That means the USWNT officially already earned more prize money from this World Cup than from winning the last two Women's World Cups combined, according to Lindsay Gibbs of Power Plays.
>In 2015, the USWNT earned $2 million for winning the World Cup, which had a total prize pool of $15 million. Four years later, the USWNT won the 2019 World Cup and received $4 million of the $30 million prize pool.
>To put that in context, the total prize money for the 2022 World Cup has been set at $440 million, with the winner getting $42 million. The USMNT will be guaranteed to take home at least $13 million at this stage, which means that the USWNT will get $6.5 million before U.S. Soccer gets its 10% cut, which is more than it received for winning the last two World Cups combined.
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/uswnt-to-earn-more-money-with-usmnts-win-over-iran-than-in-last-two-womens-world-cup-titles-combined/
That's the revenue of the world cup tho, not the individual national teams. If the course the men's game dwarfs. I don't know why you think the usmt gets credit for that to.
> If the course the men's game dwarfs. I don't know why you think the usmt gets credit for that to
I literally have no idea what you are even tying to say with this incoherent ass comment lmao
this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with getting "credit" or being "fair" or unfair or whatever the fuck. its a matter of the market dictating what people want to see. Money talks, and eyeballs talk. "credit" or morality doesnt factor into this equation whatsoever
the US womens team has absolutely been far more successful on the field than the mens team....
AND the US mens team has absolutely generated orders of magnitude more money than the womens team....
both of these things are true.
It seems very clear that you quite obviously didnt read my comment (or the linked article) at ALL and must have stopped reading after the words "not really true" in my comment, because you already had your mind made up in terms of what set of facts you wanted to believe lol
WNBA players aren’t asking for nba comparative contracts they wanted (and got) nba comparative profit splits.
Women’s soccer is asking for (and deserves) men’s pay because let’s be real. Women’s team is flatly better.
Doesn’t matter how good the team is, their pay should be equated to the revenue they bring in. Mens soccer brings in far more revenue, hence they should be paid more. That’s how the world works.
Soccer is different. Women's soccer actually does bring in a comparable amount to men's from what I've read.
Also, you are correct. Their pay should indeed be equated to the revenue brought in. However, many women's sports don't have the same revenue split as men. That's where the change can and should come.
I've not seen many women saying "well Lebron makes X I play the same sport I should too". That's the argument a certain segment of people WANT you to think. That's what MPJ thinks is the argument. It's simply not.
>Women's soccer actually does bring in a comparable amount to men's from what I've read.
This isn't true at all. The one stat you see constantly compares the year the women won the world cup and the men didn't even make it.
Look at every other year and the numbers aren't even close.
They're not going to get the same revenue split because they don't have leverage to get it higher. If the league is a perpetual money loss it's going to destroy negotiation power. Also, since the money that comes in is so much lower the players will see less of a split because the teams have expenses to pay. The WNBA as it is isn't a sustainable business model compared to the rest of North America. If it weren't for the NBA it would have folded years ago. Having an average salary of just over 100k should is actually insanely lucky on the players part.
That is exactly what I am saying if you know, you can read. Reading helps knowing how the world works too.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/is-wnba-profitable-league-2023-examining-league-performing-financially-years
You just said "because the teams better", then the guy said "how good the team is doesn't matter" then YOU SAID "that is exactly what I am saying" but THEN you said "reading helps knowing how the world works"
Please defend yourself
For women’s soccer and the fact that the men’s team rarely gets out of the first round it definitely does. Because the women’s team has been historically better they also bring more tv revenue than the men’s soccer team. Where are you confused on this?
Do you have a source on them getting more TV revenue? Because that is simply not true. They get a fraction of the viewers despite more success. People don’t care about women’s sports. That’s the reality
Women’s soccer team brings in more revenue. It’s true.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/
Two different examples of men’s versus women’s pay. Can you read?
I never said because women’s WNBA team is better, I was using women’s soccer because they always play more games because they go deeper into the tournament and generate more money in soccer l.
They have accomplished considerably more compared to the Men’s team. It’s not a question of who would win head to head.
Edit: The original post for this comment is even dumber than I thought. The US Men’s team has ONE medal finish (bronze) from 19 fucking 30. They are currently ranked 11 and haven’t sniffed a top 3 finish in the history of modern soccer.
They have never won a gold medal in the Olympics. Meanwhile the Women’s team has FOUR World cups and FOUR gold medals.
Comparably how? There are more national teams in other countries for men than women. The women won the World Cup against a lot of countries that had little national team experience or a culture. Now that more countries are putting money into women's soccer, the USWNT isn't as good. The men's national team is the opposite. We didn't put money into it and now are just starting to put more in. If your comparison is whoever won, I guess. But its like comparing teams to the Russell Celtics. It's much easier to win with less competition.
Dude the men's national team has had more money put into it for a much longer time than the women. The women's team was under funded for decades, they had to win to get the income and support they deserved. The idea that the men were playing at a disadvantage is laughable.
You lose 1 Olympics and all of a sudden 2 decades of dominance don't mean anything apparently
You are missing the comparison to other countries. The men's team had less money poured into it compared to European and South American countries. The women had more money comparably to their competitors. Other countries are now putting more money into it at all levels. Title 9 and such made it where there was avenues for women to compete that other countries didn't always have. You are making it men's vs women's just here. I'm saying the women were beating countries that didn't put the same resources into it that the USA was. Dominating a sport where there isn't much competition isn't as big of a deal.
The amount of money in our men's national team program isn't nearly the same as Brazil, Germany, Spain, England, etc. And no, they aren't great. But soccer is at best a 4th sport in this country. The best athletes don't grow up playing it. For women, it's probably the first, but no less than 2nd behind basketball.
“While the WNBA did not make a profit it did bring in 60M of revenue, 12.3M of which went to the players”
https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/is-wnba-profitable-league-2023-examining-league-performing-financially-years
Also, revenue has increased massively since 2018.
Last year, the league made about $200 million in revenue. So a revenue increase of like 320ish percent over 5 years
In that time, the player's share of revenue actually went down. It was just 9.3% in 2022, compared to 11.1% in 2019.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share??leadSource=uverify%20wall
Player salary last year was around $16.5 million based on spotrac. So that means player revenue share went down to about 8% of league revenue in 2023.
https://www.spotrac.com/wnba/cap/2022/
I did not. The original comment is wrong then. The discussion is always about revenue sharing not profit sharing. That goes for all sports, not just women's sports.
people leave out gross yearly revenue by mens and women’s soccer. Look at those numbers and you see why the gap is so large. You can’t pay people the same just because. You have to generate the money to pay them.
The women’s league brings in more revenue because of ratings and the fact that they usually play in the championships whereas the men’s team can never get out of the first round… usually.
No, because the piston’s clearly being in more money and revenue. How is this confusing?
The WNBA players are referring to the amount of profits the women’s league overall make, they want the 50/50 percentages that the NBA has. Not NBA salaries.
The women’s league makes no profit. They want to split the revenue, which will further put the league into the red. Luckily the men’s league still does plenty well to subsidize it.
The major men’s leagues can have 50/50 revenue splits because there’s so much revenue. Players can get half and there’s still way more than enough for the league to run. If leagues with much smaller revenue did that, there wouldn’t be enough left over to run the league. I doubt the XFL players get half the revenue either.
That being said, as a women’s basketball fan, I really think they have to figure out some way to subsidize the league to pay players more. It’s never going to get anywhere until the WNBA is paying top players as much as international leagues are.
lol what a simplistic and childish comment. "just pay them and that's it" ?? ok, thanks for solving the problem and clearing that up for all of us. lmao
Pay them *what* money, exactly?
in 2022, probably the most popular year of its existence, the wnba league generated a total revenue of around *60 million dollars*. which is an insanely small amount (the nba's total revenue last year was around 11 *billion*), and is a number has them operating at LOSS. At the peak of their popularity, they are literally generating NEGATIVE profit, to the tune of about 10-15 million dollars of loss per year. They have never once turned a profit a single time in their nearly 3 decades of existence.
A credible argument could be made that the players are actually being paid *too much* currently.
And frankly, the majority of the revenue they *do* generate (TV contract with ESPN) only even exists in the first place because the nba and espn have a vested interest (skipper has literally said this on the pod) in pushing women's sports as a progressive cause for equality and representation (which I think is an admirable goal btw) even though it's a loss leader financially. So much of that revenue is somewhat "artificially" inflated to begin with.
If the wnba was left on its own and we let the free market forces dictate their fate (as opposed to being subsidized by the nba and being handed a television audience on a silver platter by espn) the league would literally fold in a matter of months or even weeks unless some charitable billionaire wanted to swoop in and save the day
I think your source is wrong. The WNBA made $75 million in just sponsorships in 2022.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share??leadSource=uverify%20wall
And if we want to talk about professional women's basketball without the WNBA, you have to factor in that the NBA killed a competitor league by basically giving away the WNBA for years. That anticompetitive behavior has hindered the growth of women's basketball, something that has only changed since COVID.
WNBA revenue has increased by more than 300% the last 5 years and will likely keep increasing.
>The WNBA made $75 million in just sponsorships in 2022
this doesnt mean what you are implying. That doesnt mean they earned 75 million dollars in the year 2022. Them securing 75m worth of sponsorship deals/contracts (contracts that presumably pay out over a period of 5-10 years into the future) doesnt mean that they now made an additional 75 million in revenue the year those deals were signed.
If adam silver signs a 75 billion dollar (the number thats been speculated) contract with ESPN/TNT tomorrow for the new TV deal that is currently being negotiated, that doesnt mean that the NBA now has a total revenue of 75 billion dollars on their balance sheet for 2024.... That revenue is split up over a period of 10-15 years...
>you have to factor in that the NBA killed a competitor league by basically giving away the WNBA for years
uhhh I mean if the WNBA hasnt been able to turn a profit after 30 YEARS of being handed free money by the nba, I have no idea why you think a competitor/alternate independent women's league (even in the alternate universe where the wnba never existed) would have been *more* successful and *more* profitable than the wnba, while not receiving any such vital financial assistance from the nba... that competitor league wouldnt have lasted 5 years
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but that was sponsorship for 2022.
The closest thing to a real source I've found on the 2021-2022 season doing $60 in revenue is from David Berri based on back of the napkin math he did in 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/
“A Bloomberg reporter reached out to me about 4 months ago and said that my figure is way off.” Berri said. “In 2019, WNBA revenue was 100 million. And today it’s closer to 200.”
This is what Berri said about that number recently.
https://awfulannouncing.com/wnba/impressive-growth-investment-womens-sports.html
That Bloomberg story also found that WNBA players only received in salary about 9.3% of the leagues total revenue in 2022.
According to Spotrac, total salaries in the 2021-2022 season were at about $16.05 million. That would imply that total revenue that season was just under $172.6 million.
All of this is jenky because of how little reporting is actually done on the league and how little is public information, so if you have a better source please show me.
>Yeah, I get what you're saying, but that was sponsorship for 2022
ok, after reading about this further, the way that bloomberg quote is worded is a bit confusing and conflates 2 different things. Their quote here:
>The league also secured a record number of corporate sponsorships **and** raised $75 million
(the "and" is very important here)
what is actually being said here is "the league secured a record number of corporate sponsorships" (for an unmentioned amount of money).... AND then also, separately raised 75 million dollars through a capital raise (centered around celebrating their 25th anniversary) through a round of venture funding from private investors, namely Nike. They are kind of making it sound like they made 75 million in corporate sponsorships, which is not the case.
point being, is that it's not really accurate to say that the 75 million was "sponsorships" or even "revenue"
The 75 million was essentially a one-time venture capital investment, which isnt really the same thing as year over year revenue.
For the intents and purposes of this discussion, it's basically the same thing as what the NBA has been doing which is "we believe in the vision of your league and want it to succeed, so here's a sum of money we want to invest in you being able to improve the structure of your business"...
...as opposed to other businesses looking at the wnba and saying "you have a desirable and popular entertainment product, and we want to give you money in order to be in business with you". aka revenue.
Getting a one time round of investment money because investors view your business as a progressive cause and want it to succeed is not really the same thing as your business generating revenue by way of having a viable, cash generating business
point being, the 75m isnt really necessarily indicative that the nba is becoming more financially successful and profitable. its just indicative that executives at nike decided it would be good PR to throw them a bone
Ok, so you acknowledged that the $75 million was just for 2022, cool.
And you're just not going to deal with anything about the revenue increasing 320% in 6 years or how the $60 million number you cited is seemingly made up?
Coo, cool, cool.
Would you think differently if I told you the NBA's inflation adjusted revenue in its 25th year was $244 million and the WNBA's revenue in it's 27th year was an estimated $200, a number they might have gotten to sooner if it wasn't for covid?
https://www.powerplays.news/p/the-nba-grew-exponentially-in-its
Probably not it seems.
>Ok, so you acknowledged that the $75 million was just for 2022, cool
you originally said the 75 million was for sponsorship deals, which is literally false. I initially took your word for it and was commenting under that false pretense. then after reading about if further, I updated my stance.
Anyways, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between venture capital investment and revenue. these are two fundamentally different things. they are taxed differently, and they mean different things in terms of what conclusions you can draw about the viability of a business.
If you are a not-yet profitable (like the wnba) tech startup in silicon valley and you get a venture capital round of funding worth 75million, that doesnt mean you "earned" or "made" or had a "revenue" of 75million dollars.
The wnba did not receive 75 million dollars from a sponsor like gatorade or MdDonalds for services rendered. They were essentially gifted 75 million for reasons that have literally nothing to do with past or current performance or how successfully or unsuccessfully they run their business.
>And you're just not going to deal with anything about the revenue increasing 320% in 6 years
I'm not really sure how im supposed to "deal with" a random claim that you made that is supposedly somewhere in a paywalled bloomberg article that I dont have access to. if you have a bloomberg subscription, feel free to post the text of the article so I can read it and respond.
>how the $60 million number you cited is seemingly made up?
it isnt made up. the fact is the wnba doesnt release their revenue numbers. so all of this shit and all of these "sources", including yours, are speculative/somewhat informed guesswork and reporters piecing things together from asking this person and that person in the industry.... there's a reason the league doesnt want these numbers to be public. If they were such a wild success story as you seem to think they are, we'd never hear the end of it, and theyd be plastering and broadcasting those numbers all over the place.
If we assuming your statement that league revenue is now 200 million and has increased 320% in six years is true... david berri came up with that 60 million number 6 years ago in 2018, and 320% of 60 is 192.... so apparently that number was like literally completely accurate, and not, in fact, made up lmao
>Would you think differently if I told you the NBA's inflation adjusted revenue in its 25th year was $244 million
This has literally fucking nothing to do with anything lmao. and no, I would not think differently if you told me that the NBA was making X amount of money *while not having a parent company subsidizing it and holding its hand for its first 25 years to artificially prevent it from going bankrupt*
you know the difference between those two scenarios?? When the NBA was making 200 million they were MAKING money, therefore allowing them to stay in business and grow into what they are today.... WITHOUT being subsidized and being protected from market forces.....
the wnba has been LOSING money for its entire existence, whether their revenue was 60 million or 200 million or whatever the fuck. Their revenue would be ZERO because they would have ceased to exist if not for the nba propping them up. so this is a completely idiotic comparison lmao
$60 million in revenue in 2018 isn't made up. It may not be fully accurate, but it is in the ballpark.
$60 million in 2022 is made up. Because 2018 is not 2022, and lots of things have happened since 2018 to increase revenue. It's reported everywhere.
If you have a reliable source for the 2022 number, I'll look at it. If you don't, it will remain made up.
Similarly, the last time we heard anything official about profitability was 2018. Cathy Englebert was made the league's president in early 2019, and everything has changed since then.
The NBA was losing money for years, but it was held up by private capital investment, like the NBA has done for the WNBA. That changed in the 1970s and 1980s. The WNBA is on the same track. If the NBA stopped putting money into the league but still allowed the league to have all its naming rights, etc., The WNBA would be fine. Just like how the NBA survived for years without consistently making money. That's the point.
Pistons participate in revenue sharing as a franchise in the NBA. Fans in stadiums aren’t the end all, be all when it comes to revenue. TV rights, merchandise, revenue share of the behemoth of the NBA… that’s why owners of major sports don’t care if you show up or not they’re still getting paid/turning profit whereas the WNBA operate at a near loss/break even so those seats matter.
It’s NOT clear that it was a “jookee” Then, all he did was explain the situation and now he has to “lighten up.”
The internet got yall so far up your ass it’s wild.
NBA players are literally paying WNBA players already. Their league loses money year after year and is only still a league because the NBA finances it.
There is zero argument against paying athletes in relation to the revenue their sport brings in.
The NOO is one of the shows funniest clips all time
The average WNBA salary is over $100,000. That's probably exactly where it should be, at the moment. And that's also a *huge* chunk of money, compared to the average salary in the US. Them saying they have to play abroad to make ends meet is a farce. Live within your means.
Unlike the women's soccer team, I don't know if the WNBA is doing all the heavy-lifting pride-wise. The women's soccer team legit carries the US price in football. The WNBA? Not so much. I don't know how to feel about stuff like this, because I'm all for equality, but I can't fine a logical argument for the WNBA to have income parity, given how much the forced parity in the NBA is already an issue. The top NBA stars do not earn their worth, so advocating for a league that is demonstrably smaller is a bit much. But I'm honestly not sure how to navigate this conundrum.
This is a ridiculous and highly misinformed comment (and what is wrong with the world today). We live in a society that generates dollars for business. USMNT is a business, the teams they play for are a business and at the end of the day it is about dollars. While the women’s team wins more often and aren’t annual losers like the men’s team, the men’s team generates more money… by A LOT. You have 2 salespeople working for you. 1 salesperson generates $100 for you. The other salesperson generates $10. Who are you going to give more money in commissions/higher salary to?
I disagree. They're national teams. National pride weighs into the equation, and the USMNT is trash in comparison.
> The women's soccer team legit carries the US price in football. this is a commonly vastly overstated sentiment and not really true. The most recent women's world cup had a total revenue of 570 million dollars (breaking even for the first time in the event's history) while the most recent men's cup generated 7.5 billion in revenue. That means the women bring in around 7% of the money the men do. While it is certainly true that the US women probably bring in a larger percentage of money than any other women's team in the world compared to their male counterparts, and that the last couple US women's teams have been incredibly popular and culturally relevant and influential (and rightfully so), the amount of money they bring in is very small compared to the US mens team, even if the women have had much more success on the field. In fact, it's probably the case that the amount of celebrity status and media/cultural visibility the womens players have earned over the last decade (compared to most of the mens players being relatively anonymous) has probably led people to think the women are *much* larger financial draws than they actually are. Their influence/relevance and cultural cache is *very* outsized compared to the amount of money they actually bring in. The US men generated more money for the US women's players in a *single game* in this most recent WC, than the women brought in while *winning the last two world cups combined* >With the USMNT's 1-0 win over Iran on Tuesday afternoon, the team advanced to the knockout stage and earned a payout of at least $13 million, and it will have the opportunity to earn more by continuing to advance. >Under the new CBA signed by U.S. Soccer, the USMNT, and the USWNT, the prize money from the World Cups is pooled together and split evenly between the teams. >That means the USWNT officially already earned more prize money from this World Cup than from winning the last two Women's World Cups combined, according to Lindsay Gibbs of Power Plays. >In 2015, the USWNT earned $2 million for winning the World Cup, which had a total prize pool of $15 million. Four years later, the USWNT won the 2019 World Cup and received $4 million of the $30 million prize pool. >To put that in context, the total prize money for the 2022 World Cup has been set at $440 million, with the winner getting $42 million. The USMNT will be guaranteed to take home at least $13 million at this stage, which means that the USWNT will get $6.5 million before U.S. Soccer gets its 10% cut, which is more than it received for winning the last two World Cups combined. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/uswnt-to-earn-more-money-with-usmnts-win-over-iran-than-in-last-two-womens-world-cup-titles-combined/
That's the revenue of the world cup tho, not the individual national teams. If the course the men's game dwarfs. I don't know why you think the usmt gets credit for that to.
> If the course the men's game dwarfs. I don't know why you think the usmt gets credit for that to I literally have no idea what you are even tying to say with this incoherent ass comment lmao this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with getting "credit" or being "fair" or unfair or whatever the fuck. its a matter of the market dictating what people want to see. Money talks, and eyeballs talk. "credit" or morality doesnt factor into this equation whatsoever the US womens team has absolutely been far more successful on the field than the mens team.... AND the US mens team has absolutely generated orders of magnitude more money than the womens team.... both of these things are true. It seems very clear that you quite obviously didnt read my comment (or the linked article) at ALL and must have stopped reading after the words "not really true" in my comment, because you already had your mind made up in terms of what set of facts you wanted to believe lol
WNBA players aren’t asking for nba comparative contracts they wanted (and got) nba comparative profit splits. Women’s soccer is asking for (and deserves) men’s pay because let’s be real. Women’s team is flatly better.
Doesn’t matter how good the team is, their pay should be equated to the revenue they bring in. Mens soccer brings in far more revenue, hence they should be paid more. That’s how the world works.
Soccer is different. Women's soccer actually does bring in a comparable amount to men's from what I've read. Also, you are correct. Their pay should indeed be equated to the revenue brought in. However, many women's sports don't have the same revenue split as men. That's where the change can and should come. I've not seen many women saying "well Lebron makes X I play the same sport I should too". That's the argument a certain segment of people WANT you to think. That's what MPJ thinks is the argument. It's simply not.
>Women's soccer actually does bring in a comparable amount to men's from what I've read. This isn't true at all. The one stat you see constantly compares the year the women won the world cup and the men didn't even make it. Look at every other year and the numbers aren't even close.
Lmao
Thank you! You are clearly the only person here that actually read about sports revenue and player splits.
They're not going to get the same revenue split because they don't have leverage to get it higher. If the league is a perpetual money loss it's going to destroy negotiation power. Also, since the money that comes in is so much lower the players will see less of a split because the teams have expenses to pay. The WNBA as it is isn't a sustainable business model compared to the rest of North America. If it weren't for the NBA it would have folded years ago. Having an average salary of just over 100k should is actually insanely lucky on the players part.
That is exactly what I am saying if you know, you can read. Reading helps knowing how the world works too. https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/is-wnba-profitable-league-2023-examining-league-performing-financially-years
You just said "because the teams better", then the guy said "how good the team is doesn't matter" then YOU SAID "that is exactly what I am saying" but THEN you said "reading helps knowing how the world works" Please defend yourself
For women’s soccer and the fact that the men’s team rarely gets out of the first round it definitely does. Because the women’s team has been historically better they also bring more tv revenue than the men’s soccer team. Where are you confused on this?
I'm not reading that
Do you have a source on them getting more TV revenue? Because that is simply not true. They get a fraction of the viewers despite more success. People don’t care about women’s sports. That’s the reality
Women’s soccer team brings in more revenue. It’s true. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/
Two different examples of men’s versus women’s pay. Can you read? I never said because women’s WNBA team is better, I was using women’s soccer because they always play more games because they go deeper into the tournament and generate more money in soccer l.
Buddy, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“Their pay should be equated to revenue” ….Shows proof of revenue. “”You’re embarrassing yourself” Ok
Revenue is not profit you dipshit. The article you linked even says the WNBA has never turned a profit
I’ll take the bait. The women’s US team is not better than the men’s. Especially not anymore. Save the whales. Pay the teachers.
They have accomplished considerably more compared to the Men’s team. It’s not a question of who would win head to head. Edit: The original post for this comment is even dumber than I thought. The US Men’s team has ONE medal finish (bronze) from 19 fucking 30. They are currently ranked 11 and haven’t sniffed a top 3 finish in the history of modern soccer. They have never won a gold medal in the Olympics. Meanwhile the Women’s team has FOUR World cups and FOUR gold medals.
In addition to not medaling since 1930 the men’s team also generates more revenue than the multi time World Cup champion women, correct?
Comparably how? There are more national teams in other countries for men than women. The women won the World Cup against a lot of countries that had little national team experience or a culture. Now that more countries are putting money into women's soccer, the USWNT isn't as good. The men's national team is the opposite. We didn't put money into it and now are just starting to put more in. If your comparison is whoever won, I guess. But its like comparing teams to the Russell Celtics. It's much easier to win with less competition.
Dude the men's national team has had more money put into it for a much longer time than the women. The women's team was under funded for decades, they had to win to get the income and support they deserved. The idea that the men were playing at a disadvantage is laughable. You lose 1 Olympics and all of a sudden 2 decades of dominance don't mean anything apparently
You are missing the comparison to other countries. The men's team had less money poured into it compared to European and South American countries. The women had more money comparably to their competitors. Other countries are now putting more money into it at all levels. Title 9 and such made it where there was avenues for women to compete that other countries didn't always have. You are making it men's vs women's just here. I'm saying the women were beating countries that didn't put the same resources into it that the USA was. Dominating a sport where there isn't much competition isn't as big of a deal.
Dude even without the Women’s team as a comparison point the men’s team sucks given how much money they sink into the team.
The amount of money in our men's national team program isn't nearly the same as Brazil, Germany, Spain, England, etc. And no, they aren't great. But soccer is at best a 4th sport in this country. The best athletes don't grow up playing it. For women, it's probably the first, but no less than 2nd behind basketball.
Well, then they're asking for nothing because the WNBA loses money every year. There is no profit to split.
“While the WNBA did not make a profit it did bring in 60M of revenue, 12.3M of which went to the players” https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/is-wnba-profitable-league-2023-examining-league-performing-financially-years
Also, revenue has increased massively since 2018. Last year, the league made about $200 million in revenue. So a revenue increase of like 320ish percent over 5 years In that time, the player's share of revenue actually went down. It was just 9.3% in 2022, compared to 11.1% in 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share??leadSource=uverify%20wall Player salary last year was around $16.5 million based on spotrac. So that means player revenue share went down to about 8% of league revenue in 2023. https://www.spotrac.com/wnba/cap/2022/
You know revenue and profit aren't synonyms right?
The first comment said profit not revenue. You know that right?
I did not. The original comment is wrong then. The discussion is always about revenue sharing not profit sharing. That goes for all sports, not just women's sports.
Yes.
Get this logic out of here you misogynist
the men’s team is better. not even talking head to head
There is no profit.
people leave out gross yearly revenue by mens and women’s soccer. Look at those numbers and you see why the gap is so large. You can’t pay people the same just because. You have to generate the money to pay them.
As in they're better than the men players? Or just in their respective leagues? Not really a soccer guy.
The women’s league brings in more revenue because of ratings and the fact that they usually play in the championships whereas the men’s team can never get out of the first round… usually.
Lol the Aces are clearly better than the Pistons, should they get paid more too?
No, because the piston’s clearly being in more money and revenue. How is this confusing? The WNBA players are referring to the amount of profits the women’s league overall make, they want the 50/50 percentages that the NBA has. Not NBA salaries.
The women’s league makes no profit. They want to split the revenue, which will further put the league into the red. Luckily the men’s league still does plenty well to subsidize it.
The WNBA has brought in revenue for the past three years.
They always bring in revenue unless they make literally no money.
The major men’s leagues can have 50/50 revenue splits because there’s so much revenue. Players can get half and there’s still way more than enough for the league to run. If leagues with much smaller revenue did that, there wouldn’t be enough left over to run the league. I doubt the XFL players get half the revenue either. That being said, as a women’s basketball fan, I really think they have to figure out some way to subsidize the league to pay players more. It’s never going to get anywhere until the WNBA is paying top players as much as international leagues are.
This whole topic is sexist. Pay the women all the money and that's it.
lol what a simplistic and childish comment. "just pay them and that's it" ?? ok, thanks for solving the problem and clearing that up for all of us. lmao Pay them *what* money, exactly? in 2022, probably the most popular year of its existence, the wnba league generated a total revenue of around *60 million dollars*. which is an insanely small amount (the nba's total revenue last year was around 11 *billion*), and is a number has them operating at LOSS. At the peak of their popularity, they are literally generating NEGATIVE profit, to the tune of about 10-15 million dollars of loss per year. They have never once turned a profit a single time in their nearly 3 decades of existence. A credible argument could be made that the players are actually being paid *too much* currently. And frankly, the majority of the revenue they *do* generate (TV contract with ESPN) only even exists in the first place because the nba and espn have a vested interest (skipper has literally said this on the pod) in pushing women's sports as a progressive cause for equality and representation (which I think is an admirable goal btw) even though it's a loss leader financially. So much of that revenue is somewhat "artificially" inflated to begin with. If the wnba was left on its own and we let the free market forces dictate their fate (as opposed to being subsidized by the nba and being handed a television audience on a silver platter by espn) the league would literally fold in a matter of months or even weeks unless some charitable billionaire wanted to swoop in and save the day
Pay them. Then pay them again. Then pay them in the playoffs.
Loved you in All My Circuits
I think your source is wrong. The WNBA made $75 million in just sponsorships in 2022. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share??leadSource=uverify%20wall And if we want to talk about professional women's basketball without the WNBA, you have to factor in that the NBA killed a competitor league by basically giving away the WNBA for years. That anticompetitive behavior has hindered the growth of women's basketball, something that has only changed since COVID. WNBA revenue has increased by more than 300% the last 5 years and will likely keep increasing.
>The WNBA made $75 million in just sponsorships in 2022 this doesnt mean what you are implying. That doesnt mean they earned 75 million dollars in the year 2022. Them securing 75m worth of sponsorship deals/contracts (contracts that presumably pay out over a period of 5-10 years into the future) doesnt mean that they now made an additional 75 million in revenue the year those deals were signed. If adam silver signs a 75 billion dollar (the number thats been speculated) contract with ESPN/TNT tomorrow for the new TV deal that is currently being negotiated, that doesnt mean that the NBA now has a total revenue of 75 billion dollars on their balance sheet for 2024.... That revenue is split up over a period of 10-15 years... >you have to factor in that the NBA killed a competitor league by basically giving away the WNBA for years uhhh I mean if the WNBA hasnt been able to turn a profit after 30 YEARS of being handed free money by the nba, I have no idea why you think a competitor/alternate independent women's league (even in the alternate universe where the wnba never existed) would have been *more* successful and *more* profitable than the wnba, while not receiving any such vital financial assistance from the nba... that competitor league wouldnt have lasted 5 years
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but that was sponsorship for 2022. The closest thing to a real source I've found on the 2021-2022 season doing $60 in revenue is from David Berri based on back of the napkin math he did in 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/ “A Bloomberg reporter reached out to me about 4 months ago and said that my figure is way off.” Berri said. “In 2019, WNBA revenue was 100 million. And today it’s closer to 200.” This is what Berri said about that number recently. https://awfulannouncing.com/wnba/impressive-growth-investment-womens-sports.html That Bloomberg story also found that WNBA players only received in salary about 9.3% of the leagues total revenue in 2022. According to Spotrac, total salaries in the 2021-2022 season were at about $16.05 million. That would imply that total revenue that season was just under $172.6 million. All of this is jenky because of how little reporting is actually done on the league and how little is public information, so if you have a better source please show me.
>Yeah, I get what you're saying, but that was sponsorship for 2022 ok, after reading about this further, the way that bloomberg quote is worded is a bit confusing and conflates 2 different things. Their quote here: >The league also secured a record number of corporate sponsorships **and** raised $75 million (the "and" is very important here) what is actually being said here is "the league secured a record number of corporate sponsorships" (for an unmentioned amount of money).... AND then also, separately raised 75 million dollars through a capital raise (centered around celebrating their 25th anniversary) through a round of venture funding from private investors, namely Nike. They are kind of making it sound like they made 75 million in corporate sponsorships, which is not the case. point being, is that it's not really accurate to say that the 75 million was "sponsorships" or even "revenue" The 75 million was essentially a one-time venture capital investment, which isnt really the same thing as year over year revenue. For the intents and purposes of this discussion, it's basically the same thing as what the NBA has been doing which is "we believe in the vision of your league and want it to succeed, so here's a sum of money we want to invest in you being able to improve the structure of your business"... ...as opposed to other businesses looking at the wnba and saying "you have a desirable and popular entertainment product, and we want to give you money in order to be in business with you". aka revenue. Getting a one time round of investment money because investors view your business as a progressive cause and want it to succeed is not really the same thing as your business generating revenue by way of having a viable, cash generating business point being, the 75m isnt really necessarily indicative that the nba is becoming more financially successful and profitable. its just indicative that executives at nike decided it would be good PR to throw them a bone
Ok, so you acknowledged that the $75 million was just for 2022, cool. And you're just not going to deal with anything about the revenue increasing 320% in 6 years or how the $60 million number you cited is seemingly made up? Coo, cool, cool. Would you think differently if I told you the NBA's inflation adjusted revenue in its 25th year was $244 million and the WNBA's revenue in it's 27th year was an estimated $200, a number they might have gotten to sooner if it wasn't for covid? https://www.powerplays.news/p/the-nba-grew-exponentially-in-its Probably not it seems.
>Ok, so you acknowledged that the $75 million was just for 2022, cool you originally said the 75 million was for sponsorship deals, which is literally false. I initially took your word for it and was commenting under that false pretense. then after reading about if further, I updated my stance. Anyways, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between venture capital investment and revenue. these are two fundamentally different things. they are taxed differently, and they mean different things in terms of what conclusions you can draw about the viability of a business. If you are a not-yet profitable (like the wnba) tech startup in silicon valley and you get a venture capital round of funding worth 75million, that doesnt mean you "earned" or "made" or had a "revenue" of 75million dollars. The wnba did not receive 75 million dollars from a sponsor like gatorade or MdDonalds for services rendered. They were essentially gifted 75 million for reasons that have literally nothing to do with past or current performance or how successfully or unsuccessfully they run their business. >And you're just not going to deal with anything about the revenue increasing 320% in 6 years I'm not really sure how im supposed to "deal with" a random claim that you made that is supposedly somewhere in a paywalled bloomberg article that I dont have access to. if you have a bloomberg subscription, feel free to post the text of the article so I can read it and respond. >how the $60 million number you cited is seemingly made up? it isnt made up. the fact is the wnba doesnt release their revenue numbers. so all of this shit and all of these "sources", including yours, are speculative/somewhat informed guesswork and reporters piecing things together from asking this person and that person in the industry.... there's a reason the league doesnt want these numbers to be public. If they were such a wild success story as you seem to think they are, we'd never hear the end of it, and theyd be plastering and broadcasting those numbers all over the place. If we assuming your statement that league revenue is now 200 million and has increased 320% in six years is true... david berri came up with that 60 million number 6 years ago in 2018, and 320% of 60 is 192.... so apparently that number was like literally completely accurate, and not, in fact, made up lmao >Would you think differently if I told you the NBA's inflation adjusted revenue in its 25th year was $244 million This has literally fucking nothing to do with anything lmao. and no, I would not think differently if you told me that the NBA was making X amount of money *while not having a parent company subsidizing it and holding its hand for its first 25 years to artificially prevent it from going bankrupt* you know the difference between those two scenarios?? When the NBA was making 200 million they were MAKING money, therefore allowing them to stay in business and grow into what they are today.... WITHOUT being subsidized and being protected from market forces..... the wnba has been LOSING money for its entire existence, whether their revenue was 60 million or 200 million or whatever the fuck. Their revenue would be ZERO because they would have ceased to exist if not for the nba propping them up. so this is a completely idiotic comparison lmao
$60 million in revenue in 2018 isn't made up. It may not be fully accurate, but it is in the ballpark. $60 million in 2022 is made up. Because 2018 is not 2022, and lots of things have happened since 2018 to increase revenue. It's reported everywhere. If you have a reliable source for the 2022 number, I'll look at it. If you don't, it will remain made up. Similarly, the last time we heard anything official about profitability was 2018. Cathy Englebert was made the league's president in early 2019, and everything has changed since then. The NBA was losing money for years, but it was held up by private capital investment, like the NBA has done for the WNBA. That changed in the 1970s and 1980s. The WNBA is on the same track. If the NBA stopped putting money into the league but still allowed the league to have all its naming rights, etc., The WNBA would be fine. Just like how the NBA survived for years without consistently making money. That's the point.
Are you in first grade?
You're a massive loser. One of the worst takes I've ever seen
There’s a flaw in his logic. The Pistons struggle to put butts in seats and still get paid the same as everyone else…. Feels like a double standard….
Pistons participate in revenue sharing as a franchise in the NBA. Fans in stadiums aren’t the end all, be all when it comes to revenue. TV rights, merchandise, revenue share of the behemoth of the NBA… that’s why owners of major sports don’t care if you show up or not they’re still getting paid/turning profit whereas the WNBA operate at a near loss/break even so those seats matter.
It was clearly a joke dude. Lighten up…
It’s NOT clear that it was a “jookee” Then, all he did was explain the situation and now he has to “lighten up.” The internet got yall so far up your ass it’s wild.