Could this be Mechelle Voepel's Worst Article?

[Fairfield Fan]

Even the title is misleading: "Why substantially increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think" (Why increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think)

You sure about that, Mechelle? Maybe it's a lot simpler than that. Perhaps the players are just plain being ripped off.

Voepel refers to David Berri's Forbes article (The WNBA -- Or The NBA -- Should Pay Its Players More), claiming that Berri estimated that the players are being paid 22% of revenue. But he did nothing of the sort.

Berri wrote that that he it was "estimated that WNBA players are receiving only about 20% of league revenues. Yet when players suggest this is wrong, people quickly argue that nothing can be done if the WNBA teams aren't making a profit."

Berri, an econ professor in Utah, explained that, "the WNBA receives $25 million from ESPN, and we can estimate that minimum gate revenue is $27.4 million. So although it appears WNBA revenues are at least $52.4 million, we don't know how much revenue the league receives from Twitter, FanDuel, Tidal, merchandise sales, corporate sponsors, local television and radio deals, and subscriptions to the WNBA League Pass."

So far from estimating that players get 22% of the gross as Voepel claimed, Berri was pointing out that they likely get a lot less.

Voepel claims that getting financial data "is part of an age-old game of cat-and-mouse between management and labor in many industries, financial specifics with the WNBA have always been difficult to pin down."

Excuse me? If management concludes a collective bargaining agreement, which they did, to pay 20% of the gross to the players, then they're obligated not to play a "cat-and-mouse" game, but to tell the truth. Yet while admitting that the WNBA isn't being forthcoming with the financial information, Voepel simply accepts WNBA management's viewpoint: "How many franchises make a profit? It changes year to year, but usually it's about half. How much have some franchises lost? Some say in total, over the years, it's millions."

You sure about that, Mechelle? You just admitted that you don't know the numbers, and that the WNBA is not being forthcoming.

Voepel also basically tells the players to shut up and play, writing that "the WNBA sends its paychecks on time, and they don't bounce." But she gives no solid information on the financials of a single team overseas, except to point to one team that folded. She takes management's position by claiming that overseas teams have cut back on foreign teams on their rosters. But except for the one Turkish team she mentions, it appears that most leagues and most overseas teams are paying far more than the WNBA. So what does it matter if the checks "don't bounce," if the paychecks are lousy to begin with?

Had she read Berri's article closely, she would have seen that he stated that the players are almost certainly being underpaid even under their present agreement, that the franchises are almost certainly worth far more than the misleading "operating profit" figures pre-revenue sharing indicate, and that if the league were to actually attempt to market the product, they could do far better.

Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are beginning to push for fairness in the contracts for the next generation. Michael Voepel did them a major disservice with this misleading article.

 

[Alydar]

There's a problem with saying that the women should get the same % of the gross. There are costs, like arena rental and travel expenses. The cost of these things represent a far larger % of the women's revenue than the men's. I'd guess that there are a lot of costs like those and that the overhead represents a lot bigger slice of the WNBA pie.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

There's a problem with saying that the women should get the same % of the gross. There are costs, like arena rental and travel expenses. The cost of these things represent a far larger % of the women's revenue than the men's. I'd guess that there are a lot of costs like those and that the overhead represents a lot bigger slice of the WNBA pie.

The problem with that is 1) that the players aren't now asking for 50%, and 2) that the question of expenses is exactly what you wrote- a "guess." Instead of simply blindly trusting WNBA management, as Mechelle Voepel does, the players, together, should demand that they open the books. At the very least, it appears, as Berri proves, that the 20% figure does not include any of the revenues from corporate sponsors or clothing or the like. He believes the gross is far higher than the league is claiming. And that is a matter of credibility. That is a matter of cheating the players.

 

[Alydar]

The problem with that is 1) that the players aren't now asking for 50%, and 2) that the question of expenses is exactly what you wrote- a "guess." Instead of simply blindly trusting WNBA management, as Mechelle Voepel does, the players, together, should demand that they open the books. At the very least, it appears, as Berri proves, that the 20% figure does not include any of the revenues from corporate sponsors or clothing or the like. He believes the gross is far higher than the league is claiming. And that is a matter of credibility. That is a matter of cheating the players.

It's only cheating if the players have a contract that specifies that they get a % of the gross. Otherwise it's just tough. I worked for many different employers during my life and never once was I allowed to see their books. The NBA has an agreement with their players. I don't think the W does. It's an old story. I always thought I was underpaid. Many of my employers thought otherwise.

One thing that is often overlooked is that being on a WNBA roster, being a starter & being an all-star translates into bigger overseas money. That money doesn't come from the league but the notoriety the players get from playing in the league has worth of its own.

 

[CTrefugee]

Why are you folks so concerned ? Here are a bunch of women playing a sport they presumably love for just a part of the year and earning a decent wage. If they are good at what they do, they can make more overseas during the off-season. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Hopefully, they used their free college educations to prepare for a fulfilling life after basketball.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Somebody needs to introduce a break-even chart into the equation here, and start off by estimating what the fixed costs of running a basketball league are in terms of stadium leases, coaching staff, etc. If the variable costs are really low...salaries being the biggest controllable parameter...that's not good for the players in terms of their own bargaining leverage.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

It's only cheating if the players have a contract that specifies that they get a % of the gross. Otherwise it's just tough. I worked for many different employers during my life and never once was I allowed to see their books. The NBA has an agreement with their players. I don't think the W does. It's an old story. I always thought I was underpaid. Many of my employers thought otherwise.

One thing that is often overlooked is that being on a WNBA roster, being a starter & being an all-star translates into bigger overseas money. That money doesn't come from the league but the notoriety the players get from playing in the league has worth of its own.

Apparently they do have such a contract that specifies many aspects of salary, bonus, experience, etc. As Voepel writes, "The current CBA went into effect in March 2014 and runs through October 2021. However, both the league and the union have the right to opt out and terminate the agreement after the 2019 season. Either side has until Oct. 31 of this year to exercise that opt-out provision."

So there is a contract on which the WNBA is obligated to make good, and, presumably, to adhere to legally.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Why are you folks so concerned ? Here are a bunch of women playing a sport they presumably love for just a part of the year and earning a decent wage. If they are good at what they do, they can make more overseas during the off-season. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Hopefully, they used their free college educations to prepare for a fulfilling life after basketball.

Two things. First, that was the argument those opposed to collective bargaining and free agency used against baseball players before Curt Flood won his lawsuit: they're having a good time playing the game they loved. So why should they argue?

Those women have to provide for their future retirements, make a living out of their physical skills, and do so before either age or injury catch up with them. And you're right that they could just take off to play overseas. But if they're playing in the world's best league, why aren't they earning the world's best salaries? That's the problem.

And, clearly, they majored in basketball, not college. And that's the same for other top male athletes. The NCAA is a semi-pro league. It could be that women's basketball comes to resemble soccer, with the most talented players decamping as young teenagers for club teams in Europe, and hence to pro leagues over there. But is that what the NCAA wants? What the WNBA wants?

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Somebody needs to introduce a break-even chart into the equation here, and start off by estimating what the fixed costs of running a basketball league are in terms of stadium leases, coaching staff, etc. If the variable costs are really low...salaries being the biggest controllable parameter...that's not good for the players in terms of their own bargaining leverage.

That's why the WNBA players, more than one in ten of whom are UConn alumnae, want to see the numbers. Perhaps they will have to go out on strike to find out what's what.

 

[trisailin]

@Fairfield Fan: If it is indeed so darn easy, I challenge YOU to go do it. Just tell the WNBA you want a franchise. Or better yet, since you seem to think there is so much money there (or could be), just start your own league, tell the players you'll give them xx% of revenue and I'm sure you can get all the players to defect from the WNBA.
I dare you.

 

[OneTrickPony]

That's why the WNBA players, more than one in ten of whom are UConn alumnae, want to see the numbers. Perhaps they will have to go out on strike to find out what's what.

If they get the numbers, I'll be happy to look them over gratis...

 

[Golden Husky]

Even the title is misleading: "Why substantially increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think" (Why increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think)

The author of the piece may be able to get a "not guilty" verdict on one charge of your indictment: Because it is impossible for writers to know in advance over how many columns a headline will sit and/or the size of the type being used, journalists don't write their own headlines. That's the job of an editor.

 

[CL82]

I thought it was fair.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

Why are you folks so concerned ? . . .

It seems like only Fairfield is concerned.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

It seems like only Fairfield is concerned.

Oh, I don't know. I think fairness for women athletes is something that fans of women's sports should be concerned about. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[Bigboote]

Even the title is misleading: "Why substantially increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think"

If it's not complex, then it must be simple. You said we don't know the numbers. Without knowing the numbers, please explain to us how it's simple. I'm not being flippant, just wondering why you don't think it's complex, or less complex than others think it is.

 

[Purduke]

Apparently they do have such a contract that specifies many aspects of salary, bonus, experience, etc. As Voepel writes, "The current CBA went into effect in March 2014 and runs through October 2021. However, both the league and the union have the right to opt out and terminate the agreement after the 2019 season. Either side has until Oct. 31 of this year to exercise that opt-out provision."

So there is a contract on which the WNBA is obligated to make good, and, presumably, to adhere to legally.

Of course there is "a contract." It is called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It was, of course, negotiated between the WNBA and WNBPA during 2014. Instead of all this righteous obfuscation, like:

"Excuse me? If management concludes a collective bargaining agreement, which they did, to pay 20% of the gross to the players, then they're obligated not to play a "cat-and-mouse" game, but to tell the truth."

why not just spend the 10 seconds it took me to go to the WNBPA website and pull up the CBA and read it yourself, and then you could answer your own question before asking it? Simple answer -- management didn't agree to that. So think of all the faux outrage we all could have been saved.

Here, I'll save you the 10 seconds and post it:

https://wnbpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WNBA-CBA-2014-2021Final.pdf

As to the agreement, there is a salary cap (Section VII) and a profit sharing agreement (Section XII). There are various league guarantees about minimum salaries league wide etc etc but interestingly, every dollar in the agreement is based on "regular season ticket revenue." Not ESPN contract revenue or total revenue including all the other various sources you speculate about, just regular season ticket revenue. That amount, oh by the way, must be reported every two weeks to the WNBPA, and at the end of the season, final numbers reported within 30 days.

And surprise, surprise, per Section XII.2.b.1 the WNBPA has the right to have that data independently audited (who could have guessed). But not every other part of the WNBA or NBA revenue structure. Just the regular season ticket revenue, because that is the metric that determines how much the league is obligating itself to pay. In CBA parlance, they call that "need to know." ​

And one other big surprise, in other various sections of the CBA, broadcast rights, licensing rights, apparel sales etc are all addressed -- and generate no player income -- so it is not like those rascally-rabbit owners conspired to slip a quick one past those "how were we to know" UCONN and Stanford educated damsels.

But here's the real kicker, the CBA was ratified by the players (WOMEN PLAYERS) when it was negotiated. So it really doesn't matter what some "economics" professor thinks hi sense of social justice requires the powers that be SHOULD pay those players -- the WOMEN PLAYERS decided just 4 years ago that isn't what they felt was (to use your word) FAIR.

So what exactly is your point?

 

[j66kicker]

Oh, I don't know. I think fairness for women athletes is something that fans of women's sports should be concerned about. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I am a fan of certain women's sports and, specifically, I am concerned about the WNBA. But I'm struggling to understand what isn't fair.....?

 

[Cuango]

Even the title is misleading: "Why substantially increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think" (Why increasing WNBA player salaries is more complex than you think)

You sure about that, Mechelle? Maybe it's a lot simpler than that. Perhaps the players are just plain being ripped off.

Voepel refers to David Berri's Forbes article (The WNBA -- Or The NBA -- Should Pay Its Players More), claiming that Berri estimated that the players are being paid 22% of revenue. But he did nothing of the sort.

Berri wrote that that he it was "estimated that WNBA players are receiving only about 20% of league revenues. Yet when players suggest this is wrong, people quickly argue that nothing can be done if the WNBA teams aren't making a profit."

Berri, an econ professor in Utah, explained that, "the WNBA receives $25 million from ESPN, and we can estimate that minimum gate revenue is $27.4 million. So although it appears WNBA revenues are at least $52.4 million, we don't know how much revenue the league receives from Twitter, FanDuel, Tidal, merchandise sales, corporate sponsors, local television and radio deals, and subscriptions to the WNBA League Pass."

So far from estimating that players get 22% of the gross as Voepel claimed, Berri was pointing out that they likely get a lot less.

Voepel claims that getting financial data "is part of an age-old game of cat-and-mouse between management and labor in many industries, financial specifics with the WNBA have always been difficult to pin down."

Excuse me? If management concludes a collective bargaining agreement, which they did, to pay 20% of the gross to the players, then they're obligated not to play a "cat-and-mouse" game, but to tell the truth. Yet while admitting that the WNBA isn't being forthcoming with the financial information, Voepel simply accepts WNBA management's viewpoint: "How many franchises make a profit? It changes year to year, but usually it's about half. How much have some franchises lost? Some say in total, over the years, it's millions."

You sure about that, Mechelle? You just admitted that you don't know the numbers, and that the WNBA is not being forthcoming.

Voepel also basically tells the players to shut up and play, writing that "the WNBA sends its paychecks on time, and they don't bounce." But she gives no solid information on the financials of a single team overseas, except to point to one team that folded. She takes management's position by claiming that overseas teams have cut back on foreign teams on their rosters. But except for the one Turkish team she mentions, it appears that most leagues and most overseas teams are paying far more than the WNBA. So what does it matter if the checks "don't bounce," if the paychecks are lousy to begin with?

Had she read Berri's article closely, she would have seen that he stated that the players are almost certainly being underpaid even under their present agreement, that the franchises are almost certainly worth far more than the misleading "operating profit" figures pre-revenue sharing indicate, and that if the league were to actually attempt to market the product, they could do far better.

Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are beginning to push for fairness in the contracts for the next generation. Michael Voepel did them a major disservice with this misleading article.

From what I have heard, the WNBA has never come close to being profitable and is only in existence at all due to the NBB propping it up with regular infusions of cash! However, we apparently live in a world where inconvenient facts like this are simply to be ignored! Why should the fact that the whole league is a propped up farce stand in the way of these women making at least a somewhat less embarrassing salary when compared with the NBA players! It is simply intolerable that these players have to play for the equivalent of regular people’s salaries! I am reminded of the two economists who fell into a deep, sheer-sided pit! One said, “What shall we do? “The other replied, “First, we assume a ladder!”

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Of course there is "a contract." It is called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It was, of course, negotiated between the WNBA and WNBPA during 2014. Instead of all this righteous obfuscation, like:

"Excuse me? If management concludes a collective bargaining agreement, which they did, to pay 20% of the gross to the players, then they're obligated not to play a "cat-and-mouse" game, but to tell the truth."

why not just spend the 10 seconds it took me to go to the WNBPA website and pull up the CBA and read it yourself, and then you could answer your own question before asking it? Simple answer -- management didn't agree to that. So think of all the faux outrage we all could have been saved.

Here, I'll save you the 10 seconds and post it:

https://wnbpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WNBA-CBA-2014-2021Final.pdf

As to the agreement, there is a salary cap (Section VII) and a profit sharing agreement (Section XII). There are various league guarantees about minimum salaries league wide etc etc but interestingly, every dollar in the agreement is based on "regular season ticket revenue." Not ESPN contract revenue or total revenue including all the other various sources you speculate about, just regular season ticket revenue. That amount, oh by the way, must be reported every two weeks to the WNBPA, and at the end of the season, final numbers reported within 30 days.

And surprise, surprise, per Section XII.2.b.1 the WNBPA has the right to have that data independently audited (who could have guessed). But not every other part of the WNBA or NBA revenue structure. Just the regular season ticket revenue, because that is the metric that determines how much the league is obligating itself to pay. In CBA parlance, they call that "need to know." ​

And one other big surprise, in other various sections of the CBA, broadcast rights, licensing rights, apparel sales etc are all addressed -- and generate no player income -- so it is not like those rascally-rabbit owners conspired to slip a quick one past those "how were we to know" UCONN and Stanford educated damsels.

But here's the real kicker, the CBA was ratified by the players (WOMEN PLAYERS) when it was negotiated. So it really doesn't matter what some "economics" professor thinks hi sense of social justice requires the powers that be SHOULD pay those players -- the WOMEN PLAYERS decided just 4 years ago that isn't what they felt was (to use your word) FAIR.

So what exactly is your point?

First, the NBA CBA includes in their 50% of the gross precisely those TV revenues, apparel sales, licensing rights, etc. that are not included in the WNBA CBA. So not only is the 20% figure low, it is even lower considering that they don't include some major portions of the WNBA's revenues, as Berri pointed out.

The WNBA likes to claim that it is the best league in the world. So why doesn't it pay its athletes as though they are the best women basketball players in the world?

Yes, this was concluded four years ago. But it is becoming very clear that WNBA players are increasingly distrustful, angry and dissatisfied with that agreement.

The bottom line is that they are beginning to come together to take action. And you all, management, and Mechelle Voepel might be very surprised when they do take action.

The NBA men took a stand; might be time for WNBA women, including more than a dozen UConn alumnae, to also take a stand.

 

[shizam]

Another thing these players have to deal with is they get injured the last few games and they lose a ton of overseas money. I’d want limited minutes if I was on a team going no where near end of season. Who cares if you win 6 games instead of 5 and lose your ability to make good money overseas. Please bench me the last game!

 

[AllAmerRedHeads]

I look forward to the day when these women get paid a whole lot more. in relation to the NBA and other leagues, they should. Yet, economics, I just dont see it. Crowds have never grown like I personally hoped, TV needs to have higher numbers.

History. The WBL, WABA, WBA, ABL and others. all folded. I believe I remember the star of the ABL New England Blizzard getting about 120-130K in 1998-9 season before the league folded. they tried to pay the players better and were about 10 million in the red before they started their final season and folded around December 23 1998.

There are so many different sports and other entertainment out there trying to get our entertainment dollars then 20-30 years ago. If the league can figure out to get a bigger piece of that entertainment pie dollar in our pockets, I hope it will increase the pockets of these players.

Until then, I am thankful we have a league that has last 20 years in the US. No other league has come close and I hope it will continue. I do expect more teams to go by the way side over time and hope there will be people that have enough money and love for wbb that will invest in a team.