OPINION Should WNBA Players Be Paid More?

[LurkerSix]

Before when no one went to games, i agreed that there was no money to pay them more & trashed them when players were still asking to be paid NBA contracts even tho they played in empty stadium. But now thanks to Catlin & all this press with sold out games, yes they absolutely should get a bigger shares of that media deal. and it def should be a double digit percentage without question.

Money is finally there now, cough it up.

 

[Sky Davis]

Seeing how the money is split between the WNBA, the investment group, and players there’s no way the players can get paid more than 33% of revenue imo

But if they getting paid 10%, bump them bitches up to 25%

They can make a good living with a minimum salary being 80k before endorsements

 

[757'sFinest]

Yeah they deserve atleast 200k minimum

 

[Allah_U_Akbar]

Let them hoes starve another year or 2. I don't like they attitudes.

It’s too late to delete this now.


SMH

 

[Freeman]

View attachment 1553172


It’s too late to delete this now.


SMH

I said what I said nigga.

 

[Elzo69Renaissance]

I’d want niggas to at least watch and follow the W regularly before commenting on this

 

[Freeman]

I’d want niggas to at least watch and follow the W regularly before commenting on this

I watch games here and there but right now I have no reason to commit.

Next year when the Toronto Tempo start I'll tap in fully.

 

[Knock_Twice]

Seeing it from an owner view:

I don't see paying them more it if I'm an owner of a team. Paying you more money on a business that I'm losing on, that means I'm pulling profits from my other businesses to pay for a failing business.

Yes I can write it off as a loss but its "my loss" and "my money" and I am putting "my money" into my team. What you can do as a player or players, is invest into the business and see if you can recoup your money and gain more money.

It's a business at the end of the day, I am not fully up on the whole ordeal, TV deals etc. So I don't know if the owners are getting money from TV deals and streaming deals.

 

[Knock_Twice]

Yes.

Folks do zero research on this topic and think WNBA players are demanding the same pay as NBA players. That's not the case. They are demanding similar percentages.

For example, the NBA got almost 80 billion dollars in media deals for 11 years. NBA players get 50% of that, which is 40 billion. The numbers are more depending on all the other revenue, but you get the idea.

The WNBA just signed a 2.1 billion dollar media deal for close to a decade. Right now they only get 9% of that. They want that to be closer to 50%.

That doesn't mean they get the same number as NBA players. Theyre not asking for half of 80 billion. They're asking for half of 2.1 billion.

And before folks say the WNBA is losing money. That's bullshit. The NBA claims teams are losing money any time the new CBA talks come around. Same with MLB, NFL, etc. if the WNBA was really losing money, billionaires wouldn't be fighting to buy teams. There have been 6 expansion teams added to the WNBA since 2020. Expansion fees are like $250 million this year. You telling me billionaires keep buying teams for millions knowing they're losing money? Nah they just cooking books.

Long ass post to say, yes. Get these ladies as close to 50% revenue sharing as possible.

Thanks for the info, I would ask, why did the WNBA or the WNBA PA President (union) sign off on that 9% and how long are they locked in on that 9%?

If that's the case, these women should do a lockout to up that 9% unless the CBA is coming down the pipe to where they can negoaite those %s

 

[Duwop]

Yes.

Folks do zero research on this topic and think WNBA players are demanding the same pay as NBA players. That's not the case. They are demanding similar percentages.

This all i needed to see. I didn't even read your entire post. This just makes too much sense.

 

[IP360]

Uhh...yes.

This is more about the future of the league, and their future stars. The popularity of the WNBA continues to grow, which means the revenue will grow as well. They'll get to that 50% eventually. This all a starting point.

 

[Playmaker88]

Easy simple answer to this is yes.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

There's no overcorrected narrative in anything I said. It's a fact that before the 80s and Magic and Bird came along the NBA was not bringing in huge profits. The games were on tape delay, it was known as a league for coke addicts. The NBA was in serious trouble yet the percentage of what players made still rose. That's the comparison being made. That if the argument is "it's not making money to justify an increase then how did the NBA manage to pay players more white still operating at a loss for years" isn't an unfair question in response.

People have been using the same figures with no proof everytime this topic comes up. Thats what I was commenting on. People using figures with no actual proof behind them. Just a random number that became part of the lore of the WNBA not being worth anything.

Bruh, with all due respect, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

Player percentage of revenue sharing in the NBA wasn't really going up much before the 80s. I don't know where you're getting that from, but if you have some proof of that, please show me. Players didn't get up to near a 50% split until like 1997. Remember they went on strike in 1999 because they still weren't happy about the splits.

In 1980, some teams in the league were operating at a loss, but the league as a whole made around ~100M that year in 80s dollars. Thanks largely to Magic and Bird the league was on the rise and by 1989 the league was making about half a billion a year and all the teams were profitable, and even with that, it still took almost a decade for the players to get a 50% split of the profits.

The WNBA players are asking for 50% now and the ink isn't even dry on the contracts. They still haven't actually made a profit in the entire 28 year history of the league. That's why the optics on this are bad. Again, I agree that the players should get a better split of the profits now. But they've been demanding that split for years now even though nobody was making money off the league. Their position now with the upcoming contracts is similar to the NBA's position in the 1980s. Their position in previous years wasn't even as good as the NBA in the 50s and 60s when dudes routinely had to work other jobs in addition to playing in the NBA because the NBA paychecks didn't pay the bills. Think about that. When the WNBA wasn't making any money, the players were still averaging 6 figure salaries. When the NBA wasn't making any money, playing basketball was basically a side hustle for the players.

 

[BlackRain]

Bruh, with all due respect, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

Player percentage of revenue sharing in the NBA wasn't really going up much before the 80s. I don't know where you're getting that from, but if you have some proof of that, please show me. Players didn't get up to near a 50% split until like 1997. Remember they went on strike in 1999 because they still weren't happy about the splits.

In 1980, some teams in the league were operating at a loss, but the league as a whole made around ~100M that year in 80s dollars. Thanks largely to Magic and Bird the league was on the rise and by 1989 the league was making about half a billion a year and all the teams were profitable, and even with that, it still took almost a decade for the players to get a 50% split of the profits.

The WNBA players are asking for 50% now and the ink isn't even dry on the contracts. They still haven't actually made a profit in the entire 28 year history of the league. That's why the optics on this are bad. Again, I agree that the players should get a better split of the profits now. But they've been demanding that split for years now even though nobody was making money off the league. Their position now with the upcoming contracts is similar to the NBA's position in the 1980s. Their position in previous years wasn't even as good as the NBA in the 50s and 60s when dudes routinely had to work other jobs in addition to playing in the NBA because the NBA paychecks didn't pay the bills. Think about that. When the WNBA wasn't making any money, the players were still averaging 6 figure salaries. When the NBA wasn't making any money, playing basketball was basically a side hustle for the players.

https://archive.is/T11TB

There's a paywall free link to an article from The Washington Post from 1983 about just how badly the NBA was doing financially while player salaries were rising. And how the league was on the verge of a strike because owners and players couldn't come to an agreement on a new CBA. Also...WNBA players salaries weren't averaging in the 6 figures until recently. In the 2000s the average was topped out at like 89K. By the 2010s only vets were getting over 100k and that wasn't a common thing. Rookie salaries were like 35 up until a few years ago. Hence why so many also played and continue to play overseas in the WNBA off-season to supplement their income. Basically they are in the same position you described where they have to literally play ball in another country in order to make a decent living.

National Basketball Association owners aren't crying wolf when they say their league is in serious financial trouble.
A look at the books drives home that message ever so painfully. Even shows how some teams that were winning still were operating at a loss.

* It has been learned that only seven of the league's 23 teams made money last season. And the NBA admits to losses of between $15 and $20 million, with comparable losses anticipated this season.

* The average NBA salary is $246,000, making the average team's 12-player payroll $2,952,000. The Bullets, counting Spencer Haywood on the roster, average $167,000. The Indiana Pacers have the lowest average salary at $100,000. The 76ers have the highest, averaging $400,000 a player. The NBA minimum salary is $40,000.

* League sources say the average team pays out an additional $975,000 for coaches' salaries and money due players who are no longer with the team and another $240,000 in such benefits as insurance, pensions and health and medical coverage for the players. That comes to $4,167,000 a season.

While the NBA says it does not keep such figures, a team-by-team breakdown of ticket prices shows that the average NBA ticket price is $9.88, and with an average attendance of 10,114 for 41 home dates (through March 6), the average team would take in $4,096,979 in gate receipts. The league takes 7 percent of the gate, leaving the teams with an average of $3,810,191. That means salaries and player benefits eat up an average of $286,788 more per team than the average team takes in at the gate.
* League sources say at least four teams, the Utah Jazz, Indiana Pacers, Cleveland Cavaliers and San Diego Clippers, are in such precarious financial positions they could possibly be folded or merged. Cleveland owner Ted Stepien is now talking about moving the franchise to Toronto.

* Owners are having difficulty working out a new collective bargaining agreement with the players and the players have set an April 2 strike date if a settlement isn't reached by then. Each team stands to lose approximately an additional $2.5 million if there is a strike. How can a league with perhaps the best athletes in the world be in such a jam? Who is to blame and how does the rat get out of the maze?

 

[genocide_cutter]

If ticket sales can support it yes

They can't

 

[AZTG]

Thanks for the info, I would ask, why did the WNBA or the WNBA PA President (union) sign off on that 9% and how long are they locked in on that 9%?

If that's the case, these women should do a lockout to up that 9% unless the CBA is coming down the pipe to where they can negoaite those %s

Its all about leverage just like any other negotiation.

The NBA didn't want to give players 50% either. And the NFL still not giving players guaranteed contracts.

I say all that to say that players had no choice but to accept it cause the league wasn't getting the looks it is now. New teams are being added like hot cakes. Billionaires are fighting to own the teams.

Now the players got leverage. They can threaten a work stoppage like the bunch the NBA players had. Owners are way more invested cause the worth of the product is going up so much so theyll be more willing to pay the ladies.

Good time to negotiate

 

[The Lonious Monk]

https://archive.is/T11TB

There's a paywall free link to an article from The Washington Post from 1983 about just how badly the NBA was doing financially while player salaries were rising. And how the league was on the verge of a strike because owners and players couldn't come to an agreement on a new CBA. Also...WNBA players salaries weren't averaging in the 6 figures until recently. In the 2000s the average was topped out at like 89K. By the 2010s only vets were getting over 100k and that wasn't a common thing. Rookie salaries were like 35 up until a few years ago. Hence why so many also played and continue to play overseas in the WNBA off-season to supplement their income. Basically they are in the same position you described where they have to literally play ball in another country in order to make a decent living.

Did you actually read the article you just posted.

The league has suggested a guaranteed compensation plan, which will put a ceiling on salaries and give the players a share of league revenues. The players have agreed in principle to the plan, but don't want it to go into effect until after the Robertson settlement expires after the 1986-87 season.

Based on that, the NBA didn't even start revenue sharing with the players until 1986. So that makes your whole point moot because by the time the players started getting a cut of the revenue, the NBA has basically started to right the ship.

The rest of the article kinda goes against your point. Sure, some players were getting paid more money, but based on what the article said, paying like that was a gamble. Philly did it for Moses Malone and he put them in Championship contention for several years which led to them making more money. So that worked out. Other teams tried to do the same thing, failed, and basically put themselves on the brink of financial disaster. In other words, part of the reason teams were struggling in the 80s was because they were making bad payroll decisions.

Why would the NBA then allow the WNBA to do the same thing? That doesn't make any sense. And get the fuck out of here saying the WNBA players had to play overseas to make a decent living. You just said they were averaging 89K in the 00s. That salary would put them in the 75th percentile of earners in the country now, so they were probably even better off back then. 35K isn't great, but it's not poverty money, especially for someone fresh out of college. At around the same time, I was in grad living decently off 22K.

The WNBA looks like it's taking off and hopefully the ladies get big pay increases. We should all want that. Let's just stop with the exaggerated narratives.

 

[BlackRain]

Did you actually read the article you just posted.



Based on that, the NBA didn't even start revenue sharing with the players until 1986. So that makes your whole point moot because by the time the players started getting a cut of the revenue, the NBA has basically started to right the ship.

The rest of the article kinda goes against your point. Sure, some players were getting paid more money, but based on what the article said, paying like that was a gamble. Philly did it for Moses Malone and he put them in Championship contention for several years which led to them making more money. So that worked out. Other teams tried to do the same thing, failed, and basically put themselves on the brink of financial disaster. In other words, part of the reason teams were struggling in the 80s was because they were making bad payroll decisions.

Why would the NBA then allow the WNBA to do the same thing? That doesn't make any sense. And get the fuck out of here saying the WNBA players had to play overseas to make a decent living. You just said they were averaging 89K in the 00s. That salary would put them in the 75th percentile of earners in the country now, so they were probably even better off back then. 35K isn't great, but it's not poverty money, especially for someone fresh out of college. At around the same time, I was in grad living decently off 22K.

The WNBA looks like it's taking off and hopefully the ladies get big pay increases. We should all want that. Let's just stop with the exaggerated narratives.

My point the entire time was that despite losing money NBA player salaries rose. There's no disputing that fact. It's pretty clear.

Also there's a pretty big gap between saying they were averaging 6 figures when they were 10k+ below that number. You could just say you got that wrong. 35K/year ain't great at all. Especially depending on the cost of living where you're at thats very much a check to check salary.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

My point the entire time was that despite losing money NBA player salaries rose. There's no disputing that fact. It's pretty clear.

Also there's a pretty big gap between saying they were averaging 6 figures when they were 10k+ below that number. You could just say you got that wrong. 35K/year ain't great at all. Especially depending on the cost of living where you're at thats very much a check to check salary.

But they didn't. Not generally speaking. Go read your own article. It specifically said that some teams gambled trying to pay players more but that was part of the reason why the league was in trouble to begin with. So why are you act like paying the players is something that the WNBA could have always done if, by your own source, that kinda decision making hurt the NBA when it was in a similar position.

I didn't dispute that I got it wrong. Fine, the average was 89K. That's still not the same as the NBA, at a similar point in its timeline, couldn't even pay its players a living wage. Again, I lived in the period you're talking about off 22K so you're not going to tell me what was good or bad. 35K wasn't great but it is a living wage depending on where they were living. The players getting paid the minimum of 35K were probably living in places with lower costs of living. If people were getting paid 35K in L.A. or San Francisco, then you're right, but is that really true? I'm asking because I don't know.

 

[BlackRain]

But they didn't. Not generally speaking. Go read your own article. It specifically said that some teams gambled trying to pay players more but that was part of the reason why the league was in trouble to begin with. So why are you act like paying the players is something that the WNBA could have always done if, by your own source, that kinda decision making hurt the NBA when it was in a similar position.

I didn't dispute that I got it wrong. Fine, the average was 89K. That's still not the same as the NBA, at a similar point in its timeline, couldn't even pay its players a living wage. Again, I lived in the period you're talking about off 22K so you're not going to tell me what was good or bad. 35K wasn't great but it is a living wage depending on where they were living. The players getting paid the minimum of 35K were probably living in places with lower costs of living. If people were getting paid 35K in L.A. or San Francisco, then you're right, but is that really true? I'm asking because I don't know.

Like you said paying the players more was a gamble the NBA owners took even at a loss. The WNBA owners could've chosen to take a similar gamble. It wasn't impossible they just chose not to.


The numbers aren't available for the 2000s, part of the issue some have with how WNBA owners have hidden numbers, but i can tell you as of this year for the Mystics rookies the average salary is between 66k-75k and in DC and PG County that will barely qualify you for a 600 sq ft 1 BR apartment depending on the area. Most would need a roommate or cosigner to avoid being smack in the middle of the hood making that money here.