Economics of Women's basketball | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Economics of Women's basketball

Fairfield Fan said:
Well, fans are paying billions for tickets and for jerseys, TV is paying billions for the right to broadcast. So there are billions of bucks out there. Who else but the athletes deserves to pick up those billions? How much do the owners deserve? The NBA is prospering with a 50/50 split of revenues.

It's the players whom fans come to see. It's the players who, well, play. So if the game is bringing in billions, then why not give the people who are at the heart of the game the money?

Makes sense to me.
Expand ...



I assume you are talking about the NBA here. It makes sense - for a league where billions of dollars are generated. For a league like the WNBA, where many teams are losing money a 50/50 split may not work at all. Btw, the WNBA's TV contract with ESPN reportedly paid $12 Million this year in total.
 
paisan said:
My comments were meant for saving the WNBA . Personally I believe that the amount of money paid to pro athletes is ridiculous. Why should pro men or women expect to be paid millions. I think it is obscene to pay athletes that amount of money to play a game. Just saying
Expand ...
Agree on the obscene compensation men's pro athletes receive, but its here to stay. I do believe WNBA could do more basic marketing-get players out into the neighborhoods, story placement in press/radio/TV, etc. If you compare to what many college coaches do to get fans, very little demand creation done by WNBA teams and players. Its no accident that even the teams that sell out - Patriots, Red Sox, etc. constantly have their players out making appearances.
 
stamfordhusky said:
I assume you are talking about the NBA here. It makes sense - for a league where billions of dollars are generated. For a league like the WNBA, where many teams are losing money a 50/50 split may not work at all. Btw, the WNBA's TV contract with ESPN reportedly paid $12 Million this year in total.
Expand ...

Yes, the NBA. We shall see what the real economics are for the WNBA going forward.

But clearly there's something wrong with a salary structure that pays Diana Taurasi and Maya Moore just $115k, the same as many other players in the league, when those two are the greatest players of all-time. And A'ja Wilson gets paid just $52k, the rookie of the year, one of the finest players in the league? That's it? Clearly, management has foisted a crappy salary structure on the league, whatever the overall economics. Makes no sense to keep those all-time greats to a cap that puts them on a par with lots of players of far lesser ability.

But I'm guessing that with the opt-out, we'll begin to find out the truth.
 
Good thing these ladies have college degrees, otherwise their career would be flipping burgers.
 
hoopsfan22 said:
Good thing these ladies have college degrees, otherwise their career would be flipping burgers.
Expand ...
I think that assessment is rather harsh, and certainly unsubstantiated. A college degree is a great thing to have, and I would encourage everyone so inclined to get one. But there are many people who may not be suited to a college program. And that does not limit them to burger flipping. Many people without degrees live happy lives and find meaningful work. Conversely , many degreed people are miserable and never find the promise that the degree infers. Furthermore, many burger flippers are content with their lot. Judge not my friend, lest ye be judged, and be found wanting. :rolleyes:
 
.-.
That idiotic statement about flipping burgers got me to thinking of a great burger song


 
triaddukefan said:
That idiotic statement about flipping burgers got me to thinking of a great burger song


Expand ...

Correct on both points. Good God almighty which way do I steer? Your tastes are improving ,Triad.:D
 
There is also a contrast between individual vs. team sports. Women's tennis & golf "compensation" seems to be doing fine & growing (although less than the men obviously), since it is easier to brand some of the top female players. For team sports, there is just no strong natural brand with female teams vs. men's teams. I mean, they have the NY WNBA team playing outside the city in Westchester somewhere. How are you going to build brand like that?
 
BostonFan said:
There is also a contrast between individual vs. team sports. Women's tennis & golf "compensation" seems to be doing fine & growing (although less than the men obviously), since it is easier to brand some of the top female players. For team sports, there is just no strong natural brand with female teams vs. men's teams. I mean, they have the NY WNBA team playing outside the city in Westchester somewhere. How are you going to build brand like that?
Expand ...


Tennis yes. Golf no, at least in the U.S.. Women's golf has been in decline for over a decade. The LPGA is down to 19 tournaments in the U.S. The many tournaments the LPGA plays in Asia, where interest in women's golf is higher, is what keeps it going.
 
.-.
stamfordhusky said:
I assume you are talking about the NBA here. It makes sense - for a league where billions of dollars are generated. For a league like the WNBA, where many teams are losing money a 50/50 split may not work at all. Btw, the WNBA's TV contract with ESPN reportedly paid $12 Million this year in total.
Expand ...

Actually the contract value doubled to $25 million starting last year (see Para 24 below).

However, that change had no direct impact on salaries paid under the CBA because when negotiating the current CBA the women chose to exclude all revenue outside of regular season gate receipts when calculating their revenue sharing pool. Presumably this was done, confronted with significantly falling attendance when the CBA was negotiated, to secure the highest % possible from the most secure stream of revenue. I saw one estimate that the players were being paid approx. 44% of gate receipts.

It is one of the reasons I have problems with the current complaints about what the women are paid under the CBA. In an environment of falling revenues, if the talent decides not to worry about helping to grow the business but rather just max out what they can earn from the most secure revenue stream available, they have demonstrated where their hearts are. No risk, no reward IMHO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...58e76e11b12_story.html?utm_term=.a38f4b1b132c
 
Fairfield Fan said:
Yes, the NBA. We shall see what the real economics are for the WNBA going forward.

But clearly there's something wrong with a salary structure that pays Diana Taurasi and Maya Moore just $115k, the same as many other players in the league, when those two are the greatest players of all-time. And A'ja Wilson gets paid just $52k, the rookie of the year, one of the finest players in the league? That's it? Clearly, management has foisted a crappy salary structure on the league, whatever the overall economics. Makes no sense to keep those all-time greats to a cap that puts them on a par with lots of players of far lesser ability.

But I'm guessing that with the opt-out, we'll begin to find out the truth.
Expand ...

The nba does this too. Just on a larger scale.
 
I totally understand that the WNBA needs to generate as much income as possible. I also realize that the NY team can't even seem to find a buyer. That said some of the things they have done in my view hurts the product. I have watched many WNBA games on TV (None are even reasonably close to my area so I look for UConn players on the rosters). Without looking at the scoreboard it is difficult to even know what teams are playing. Their uniforms provide no clue - just advertising. Doesn't promote love of the jersey to the fans or their kids. They need more oligarchs in the US :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,930
Messages
4,545,412
Members
10,426
Latest member
kmbazz15


Top Bottom