OT: - Napheesa has her say on WNBA leadership | Page 3 | The Boneyard
.

OT: Napheesa has her say on WNBA leadership

cancontent said:
Yet. Businesses are seeing the WNBA differently and if they didn't see the potential, the league wouldn't have earned a $1.1B media deal. Not to mention, team valuations, like the Liberty's, have jumped significantly recently. Companies wouldn't be investing if they didn't see the potential.
Expand ...
Glad someone mentioned it, rather than having to refer to SVP's comments. "Team valuations" are nice, but they do not pay player salaries, nor do they help the league make a profit.

I absolutely think women's basketball has the potential to be profitable, but the model by which the WNBA operates isn't it. I don't think you can honestly have multiple entities competing for the same dollars and eyeballs. Bring Unrivaled, etc. under the WNBA umbrella, expand the league AND the season and stop being the stepchild of the NBA like some kind of junior league, and maybe the profits flow.
 
Sifaka said:
The teams are privately owned and do not release financial statements, audited or otherwise. Nobody on this board knows whether any given WNBA team has earned a profit. Asset valuations have increased dramatically. Hence owners can cash out at a substantial profit should they choose to, or maintain their equity positions if they foresee an attractive profit stream, further equity appreciation, or both.
Expand ...
Oh, please. If they could turn a profit, the NBA would not still be subsidizing them. Cashing out by selling the team is not "profit"
 
DRBackup said:
Oh, please. If they could turn a profit, the NBA would not still be subsidizing them. Cashing out by selling the team is not "profit"
Expand ...
The NBA, founded in 1949, allegedly turned a consistent profit in the mid- to late-80s, during David Stearn’s tenure and the playing days of Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.

In many ways, the script for continuing financial success has been known (star power, media deals and acceptable salary cap systems). And the lessons of drawn out intransigence (lockouts). The NBA owners of the WNBA and WNBA players know this script and lessons.

Whether what’s good for the geese is also good &1 for the gander remains to be seen.

&1 I am aware that ownership in the WNBA is a little bit different (with “league wide revenue sharing”).
 
Understanding NBA ownership and profitability is akin to solving a Rubik’s Cube. A general breakdown of ownership is: NBA (42%), Individual owners (42%), private investors (16%). There are lots of tax related issues and benefits of reporting losses, not unlike producing a blockbuster motion picture that can go through several different releases (big screen, cable, broadcast tv) before eventually showing a profit, several years after release.

The numbers bandied about for several years are that the W loses $20-$40 million per year. Well is it $20 million or $40 million and why the lack of specificity? The investors and businesses that are jumping at the opportunity to invest are not generally interested in throwing good money after bad. They see a significant opportunity to make money.

The recent growth in attendance, tv and advertising revenue, new franchises and team valuations all point to positive growth for the W. Like it or not, the owners and the leadership of the W will need to consider the concerns of the players and compensate them commensurate with the growth of revenue in the league.
 
There are pieces of all sides to these arguments that can be true. I have posted for years regarding the poor refereeing but in all sports, as younger, better players came in, they got the "treatment:" (i.e. Michael Jordan best example). Is this a management issue or an owner issue since they effectively "manage" the league? In the NBA, during the playoffs, it often looks like a WWE event. Seems to appeal to the TV audience and therefore owners don't object. Is this a problem or a strategy?
Nice soundbite regarding players deserving more money but it ignored the new contract that provides higher salaries. Rarely is there a fix that solves all issues overnight. Phee's comments noted a major issue-only a few players are "stars" and draw fans. Few stars=less fans=less money. Just relying on Caitlin, Paige, etc. is not enough. If she has any facts that indicate the owners are taking an unfair % of revenues, she or others should state it. Most of these owners have taken a significant financial risk and have been losing money for years. Phee is one of the few players that get in front of the media but can the players do more to increase demand?
 
DRBackup said:
Glad someone mentioned it, rather than having to refer to SVP's comments. "Team valuations" are nice, but they do not pay player salaries, nor do they help the league make a profit.

I absolutely think women's basketball has the potential to be profitable, but the model by which the WNBA operates isn't it. I don't think you can honestly have multiple entities competing for the same dollars and eyeballs. Bring Unrivaled, etc. under the WNBA umbrella, expand the league AND the season and stop being the stepchild of the NBA like some kind of junior league, and maybe the profits flow.
Expand ...
Agree regarding valuations not paying salaries, however failing to note how businesses are viewing the WNBA today doesn't provide the proper context, which I didn't think is fair.

As to how to meld the different leagues together to avoid competition, I don't know what could work. The WNBA opted not to pursue an ownership stake when Unrivaled made the offer. From my view this could have made your suggestion of bringing them under one umbrella possible.
 
Sifaka said:
The teams are privately owned and do not release financial statements, audited or otherwise. Nobody on this board knows whether any given WNBA team has earned a profit. Asset valuations have increased dramatically. Hence owners can cash out at a substantial profit should they choose to, or maintain their equity positions if they foresee an attractive profit stream, further equity appreciation, or both.
Expand ...
And so, this reflects a huge problem when negotiating a CBA if the league/teams don't open their books for full transparency.
 
Basingstoke said:
And so, this reflects a huge problem when negotiating a CBA if the league/teams don't open their books for full transparency.
Expand ...
As I intimated in my earlier post, the financials of ownership in the W are complicated at best and more likely cryptic and thoroughly confusing. The W is run like a venture capital company with multilayered ownership. That’s probably why they hired an accountant with 33 years at Deloitte as commissioner…..🧐
 
Last edited:
DRBackup said:
Cashing out by selling the team is not "profit"
Expand ...
Your naivety in financial matters is cause for great mirth.

Imagine you bought 100 shares of NYSE traded stock Wombat Excelsior at $7.00/share. Five years later you sold it for $37/share. $3,000 is the difference between the purchase and sales price.

Your friendly IRS calls that sum profit. Your tax accountant calls that profit. You insist that it is not profit.

Your friend Henry bought a WNBA ten some years ago for $5 million. He sold it last week for $205 million. The difference between purchase and sales equity ownership prices = $200 million. The IRS taxes that amount as profit. Henry's tax accountant calls it profit. You insist, with equal measures of vehemence and ignorance, that it is not profit.

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Last edited:
Sifaka said:
Your naivety in financial matters is cause for great mirth.

Imagine you bought 100 shares of NYSE traded stock Wombat Excelsior at $7.00/share. Five years later you sold it for $37/share. $3,000 is the difference between the purchase and sales price.

Your friendly IRS calls that sum profit. Your tax accountant calls that profit. You insist that it is not profit.

Your friend Henry bought a WNBA ten some yers ago for $5 million. He sold it last week for $205 million. The difference between purchase and sales equity ownership prices = $200 million. The IRS taxes that amount as profit. Henry's tax accountant calls it profit. You insist, with equal measures of vehemence and ignorance, that it is not profit.

Ignorance is bliss.
Expand ...
I'm not sure why some people insist the WNBA is not profitable for the owners. If that were the case, cities/investors would not be falling over themselves to put bids forward to try to get a franchise. These teams have already committed to join:
On the waiting list is still Boston:
  • Nashville, Tennessee: A Nashville group, backed by former WNBA player Candace Parker, NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning and Nashville Predators owner Bill Haslam. It wants to name the team the Nashville Summitt in honor of late University of Tennessee women's basketball coach Pat Summitt.
  • Houston: Houston Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta is leading the bid for of the league's original cities. "It's time to bring the WNBA back to Houston," Fertitta told the Houston Chronicle in January. Fertitta has submitted a formal bid.
  • Milwaukee: The Bucks' ownership group had expressed interest in putting in a bid for an expansion WNBA team in October 2024 but did not submit an official bid before the deadline for the 16th team.
  • Kansas City: Patrick Mahomes is part of an ownership group that has expressed interest in recruiting an expansion team to Kansas City. “We want to get basketball to Kansas City in general, and then WNBA and the success that they’ve had these last few seasons, it’s kind of a no-brainer,” Mahomes said in November 2024.
  • St. Louis: Boston Celtics star Jayson Tatum is reportedly part of an ownership group trying to lure the WNBA to Tatum's hometown.
  • Austin, Texas: A group backed by Kevin Durant was considering a bid for a WNBA franchise last year, according to a Sports Business Journal report.
So in conclusion - 1 new team this past year. 5 more to be added between next season and 2030. 7 cities currently waiting for the next round of expansions, and most of them already have investors in place. BUT... "No... the WNBA is not profitable". Ever heard of non-cash expenses/deductions? Not trying to do a Tax Class but...

For businesses, non-cash expenses can be significant. The most common types include:
  • Depreciation:This deduction accounts for the wear and tear or obsolescence of tangible assets, such as vehicles, equipment, and buildings.
    • Bonus depreciation: For 2025, businesses can deduct 40% of the cost of eligible assets in the first year they are put into service. This is scheduled to phase out completely in 2027.
    • Section 179 deduction: This allows businesses to expense the full purchase price of qualifying equipment or software up to a certain limit in the year of purchase.
  • Amortization: This is the equivalent of depreciation for intangible assets, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and goodwill. These costs are typically deducted over a 15-year period.
  • Depletion: This applies to the use of natural resources, such as timber, oil, and minerals, as they are extracted from the earth.
  • Charitable contributions: Businesses can donate inventory or other non-cash assets to a qualified charity and potentially deduct the fair market value of the property.
  • Bad debt expense: Under the accrual method of accounting, companies can recognize the expense for customer debts they believe will not be paid.
  • Stock-based compensation: The cost of stock options or other equity given to employees is a non-cash expense that can be deducted.
So... ya think any of these WNBA teams have taken advantage of this to make the bottom line lower, and pay less taxes????? 😱
 
And in other business news, there is no conflict of interest between the W and Unrivaled. period. Conflict of interest only happens when a person or entity is contractually forbidden from working for or representing another firm, competing or not. If there is no contract or agreement that prohibits one person from running two businesses, or working at the same position at two different companies, then it's a moot point. Now, most businesses will have that in their employee contract, but apparently the WNBA, or anyone hiring Naphessa or Breanna, hadn't figured on them starting a different league. That they did is just to their credit. Can the WNBA stop Unrivaled from doing anything they want? As they have no ownership stake or leadership position, the answer is a big no. Will some sort of change in this in terms of employee service be a part of the new CBA? I would think so, as the WNBA needs to try to close a pretty big loophole. Whether or not they're successful will be interesting to see.
But I can see why the W didn't want to invest in Unrivaled: any sort of league where the employees not only own, but run the ship, is not a business model that the NFL, NHL, MLB would like to see succeed. In that respect, the WNBA was taking one for the major league sports teams.
And for those who think a competing league can't succeed enough to cause tremors in the establishment, look no further than the AFL (Joe Namath and the Jets!), the ABL with Dr. J, and the AHL, whith whatever hockey players jumped (I can't remember who they were.) So it happens, and historically, the W's success is a very short timeline. If it weren't for the Caitlins and Paiges, or the rivalries (like Clark and Reese throwing shade at each other during the finals) that have happened over the past few years, they'd still be in the financial dark ages. As good as the early players were (and some still are), there's that rivalry x-factor from college that makes for conversation, and that can only happen organically. Being a Smokin' Joe Frazier fan is one thing, but when it elevates to Frazier Vs. Ali, it's a phenomenon, and no one could have predicted that 5 years earlier. The W is in a very lucky place right now, let's hope they right the ship.
 
Last edited:
Dogdude said:
And in other business news, there is no conflict of interest between the W and Unrivaled. period. Conflict of interest only happens when a person or entity is contractually forbidden from working for or representing another firm, competing or not. If there is no contract or agreement that prohibits one person from running two businesses, or working at the same position at two different companies, then it's a moot point. Now, most businesses will have that in their employee contract, but apparently the WNBA, or anyone hiring Naphessa or Breanna, hadn't figured on them starting a different league. That they did is just to their credit. Can the WNBA stop Unrivaled from doing anything they want? As they have no ownership stake or leadership position, the answer is a big no. Will some sort of change in this in terms of employee service be a part of the new CBA? I would think so, as the WNBA needs to try to close a pretty big loophole. Whether or not they're successful will be interesting to see.
But I can see why the W didn't want to invest in Unrivaled: any sort of league where the employees not only own, but run the ship, is not a business model that the NFL, NHL, MLB would like to see succeed. In that respect, the WNBA was taking one for the major league sports teams.
And for those who think a competing league can't succeed enough to cause tremors in the establishment, look no further than the AFL (Joe Namath and the Jets!), the ABL with Dr. J, and the AHL, which whatever hockey players jumped (I can't remember who they were.) So it happens, and historically, the W's success is a very short timeline. If it weren't for the Caitlins and Paiges, or the rivalries (like Clark and Reese throwing shade at each other during the finals) that have happened dover the past few years, they'd still be in the financial dark ages. As good as the early players were (and some still are), there's that rivalry x-factor from college that makes for conversation, and that can only happen organically. Being a Smokin' Joe Frazier fan is one thing, but when it elevates to Frazier Vs. Ali, it's a phenomenon, and no one could have predicted that 5 years earlier. The W is in a very lucky place right now, let's hope the right the ship.
Expand ...
I totally agree that there is no conflict of interest, but disagree that the "Will some sort of change in this in terms of employee service be a part of the new CBA? I would think so, as the WNBA needs to try to close a pretty big loophole."

Why? Would the WNBA prohibit players from playing in overseas leagues? For national teams? How is Unrivaled (and Athletes Unlimited) any different? There is no overlap, no competition with the W, those leagues don't try to prevent anyone from playing in the W, etc. You even said "no conflict of interest".

So what right does the W even have to try to squelch the Unrivaled or AU leagues? And why would the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB not want the league to be successful? How is it a threat to any of those leagues (including the WNBA)?
 
EricLA said:
I totally agree that there is no conflict of interest, but disagree that the "Will some sort of change in this in terms of employee service be a part of the new CBA? I would think so, as the WNBA needs to try to close a pretty big loophole."

Why? Would the WNBA prohibit players from playing in overseas leagues? For national teams? How is Unrivaled (and Athletes Unlimited) any different? There is no overlap, no competition with the W, those leagues don't try to prevent anyone from playing in the W, etc. You even said "no conflict of interest".

So what right does the W even have to try to squelch the Unrivaled or AU leagues? And why would the NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB not want the league to be successful? How is it a threat to any of those leagues (including the WNBA)?
Expand ...
I agree that right now there is no overlap at all, but I can see the fear of Unrivaled growing and taking some of the steam from the W. I can't imagine the league would ever try to limit playing overseas or for national teams, but I could see them trying to limit the growth of Unrivaled in some way. Their ability is limited for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some sort of clauses thrown in specifically for other pro U.S.-based leagues.
 
Side note - just saw these comments by Aja Wilson in another article:

A’ja Wilson used her postgame presser to back Napheesa Collier, praising her courage to speak out against the commissioner: “I just wanna say I was honestly disgusted by the comments Cathy made but at the same time I am very appreciative that we have people like Phee in our committee of the players association, representing us because that’s what we are have to continue to make the push to stand on what we believe in and I am grateful to have those kind of people to be able to continue to speak up for us.”
 
Cuango said:
What are the chances (and legalities) that in the event of a lockout/walkout) by the W, that Unrivaled could switch to 5x5 for next season? Could the W, or more likely the NBA stop them from doing that? Could/Would that, if successful, result in the death of the W? I suppose much would depend on financial backing but Unrivaled did not seem to have much trouble raising money last year for what were very high salaries compared to what the W was paying at the time
Expand ...

EricLA said:
I'm not sure why some people insist the WNBA is not profitable for the owners. If that were the case, cities/investors would not be falling over themselves to put bids forward to try to get a franchise. These teams have already committed to join:
On the waiting list is still Boston:
  • Nashville, Tennessee: A Nashville group, backed by former WNBA player Candace Parker, NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning and Nashville Predators owner Bill Haslam. It wants to name the team the Nashville Summitt in honor of late University of Tennessee women's basketball coach Pat Summitt.
  • Houston: Houston Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta is leading the bid for of the league's original cities. "It's time to bring the WNBA back to Houston," Fertitta told the Houston Chronicle in January. Fertitta has submitted a formal bid.
  • Milwaukee: The Bucks' ownership group had expressed interest in putting in a bid for an expansion WNBA team in October 2024 but did not submit an official bid before the deadline for the 16th team.
  • Kansas City: Patrick Mahomes is part of an ownership group that has expressed interest in recruiting an expansion team to Kansas City. “We want to get basketball to Kansas City in general, and then WNBA and the success that they’ve had these last few seasons, it’s kind of a no-brainer,” Mahomes said in November 2024.
  • St. Louis: Boston Celtics star Jayson Tatum is reportedly part of an ownership group trying to lure the WNBA to Tatum's hometown.
  • Austin, Texas: A group backed by Kevin Durant was considering a bid for a WNBA franchise last year, according to a Sports Business Journal report.
So in conclusion - 1 new team this past year. 5 more to be added between next season and 2030. 7 cities currently waiting for the next round of expansions, and most of them already have investors in place. BUT... "No... the WNBA is not profitable". Ever heard of non-cash expenses/deductions? Not trying to do a Tax Class but...

For businesses, non-cash expenses can be significant. The most common types include:
  • Depreciation:This deduction accounts for the wear and tear or obsolescence of tangible assets, such as vehicles, equipment, and buildings.
    • Bonus depreciation: For 2025, businesses can deduct 40% of the cost of eligible assets in the first year they are put into service. This is scheduled to phase out completely in 2027.
    • Section 179 deduction: This allows businesses to expense the full purchase price of qualifying equipment or software up to a certain limit in the year of purchase.
  • Amortization: This is the equivalent of depreciation for intangible assets, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and goodwill. These costs are typically deducted over a 15-year period.
  • Depletion: This applies to the use of natural resources, such as timber, oil, and minerals, as they are extracted from the earth.
  • Charitable contributions: Businesses can donate inventory or other non-cash assets to a qualified charity and potentially deduct the fair market value of the property.
  • Bad debt expense: Under the accrual method of accounting, companies can recognize the expense for customer debts they believe will not be paid.
  • Stock-based compensation: The cost of stock options or other equity given to employees is a non-cash expense that can be deducted.
So... ya think any of these WNBA teams have taken advantage of this to make the bottom line lower, and pay less taxes????? 😱2025-26 Women's Basketball Schedule - University of Connecticut Athletics
Expand ...

EricLA said:
Well said, Eric LA. Lot of dialogue about the W owners and investors not making a profit and I was wondering when someone on the Boneyard would chime in with the fact that there are significant tax write-offs that for these top tier wealthy owners are quite beneficial for them through amortization of the intangible assets like player contracts, broadcast media deals, branding and goodwill, season ticket receipts, league rights and probably more.
Expand ...

When someone buys a team for billions of $ they can immediately allocate a large portion of that to these intangible assets and then can deduct that amount in equal segments over 15 years. We are talking about the top 1% earners here. A billionaire owner with a profitable business can use the tax losses from the team they just bought to offset the income from their other profitable business(es) reducing the total tax bite they owe.

Someone will point out that Congress and the IRS are looking to reduce this tax benefit considering the investment akin to a "hobby loss" (wow to be so rwealthy as to buy a team and have the IRS consider it a "hobby". That's a completely different world.) Anyway, so far it hasn't gotten any further than being a proposal. Maybe someone will have more and better info.
 
msf22b said:
NYT piece details what W players would theoretically earn if the were
paid as much as their NBA counterparts.
Eye-opening (and specific)

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The W.N.B.A. Is Making More Money Than Ever. Why Aren’t the Players?

Other professional sports leagues give their players roughly 50 percent of the revenue, but the W.N.B.A. players get less than 10 percent.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Expand ...
In contrast, here is the current CBA “league-wide revenue sharing scheme”. WNBA Revenue Sharing Explained - by Jacob Mox (HerHoopStats).

It is a Rube-Goldberg Contraption where the players’ share is not directly based on “basketball-related income”. It is very very loosely based on “league-wide revenue” after carve-outs.

The formula for players’ share is 0.5 x 0.7 x Net Overage, where Net Overage is year-over-year difference in Cumulate Revenue over Cumulative Target.

Because of the Covid-shortened season, Cumulative Revenue had a mountain of a Cumulative Target to overcome before Net Overage above to be positive.

As the NYT article says, the NBA’s revenue sharing in the 50s-70s (i.e. before the mid- to late-80s when the NBA allegedly became consistently profitable) already had a not-overly wrought revenue sharing formula that paid players 40%+ of revenues.
 
msf22b said:
NYT piece details what W players would theoretically earn if the were
paid as much as their NBA counterparts.
Eye-opening (and specific)

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The W.N.B.A. Is Making More Money Than Ever. Why Aren’t the Players?

Other professional sports leagues give their players roughly 50 percent of the revenue, but the W.N.B.A. players get less than 10 percent.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Expand ...
Boy is it ever. I've gotten through a portion and this graph caught my eye.

1759497678785.png
 
All other issues aside….. the fact that the league does such a miserable job with the rules and referees justifies the harsh criticism.

Even with all the amazing players ...I personally find the games unwatchable because of this.
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
In contrast, here is the current CBA “league-wide revenue sharing scheme”. WNBA Revenue Sharing Explained - by Jacob Mox (HerHoopStats).

It is a Rube-Goldberg Contraption where the players’ share is not directly based on “basketball-related income”. It is very very loosely based on “league-wide revenue” after carve-outs.

The formula for players’ share is 0.5 x 0.7 x Net Overage, where Net Overage is year-over-year difference in Cumulate Revenue over Cumulative Target.

Because of the Covid-shortened season, Cumulative Revenue had a mountain of a Cumulative Target to overcome before Net Overage above to be positive.

As the NYT article says, the NBA’s revenue sharing in the 50s-70s (i.e. before the mid- to late-80s when the NBA allegedly became consistently profitable) already had a not-overly wrought revenue sharing formula that paid players 40%+ of revenues.
Expand ...
This seems like right out of the music industry, where the musicians get paid album revenues after a whole bunch of mysterious expenses and write-offs. Out of a $20 cd (who buys those anymore, anyway) the musician might get a buck. The more generous smaller indy artist-run labels would let musicians buy their own cd's for roughly half the regular retail price to sell on tour. So each cd could cost the artist between 7-10 bucks, and they'd have to cart them around and sell for 15-20 at their own shows. The current NBA plan is much more open, even if not exactly transparent. I think that's all anyone can ask for these days: transparency.
 
And this just in from the NY Times.
Does WNBA have ‘worst leadership in the world’? A timeline of Cathy Engelbert’s tenure

I think the basic problem of giving Englebert (or any commissioner who might have been in charge at this point in time) for there financial success of women's basketball has nothing to do with any form of management or promotional efforts; it was entirely the result of the perfect storm of Clark chasing a record in college, the rivalries that ensued due to that publicity, and the plethora of other amazing players, especially Bueckers. Nothing that happened in college b-ball over the past 3-4 years could have been predicted. So you can really only grade her on her interaction with players and ability to get good officiating standards. Ooops...
 
This morning I watched excerpts from Engelbert’s press conference yesterday where she gave a series of what I would refer to as “non-answer, answers” to questions from ESPN’s Malika Andrews. Subsequently, the ESPN panel doing the first game between the Mercury & the Aces called out Engelbert for her non-answers to direct questions. Engelbert also interjected comments about how she is, “ a human being” and how attacks on her were hurtful to her daughters.

Give me a xxxxing break!!! Playing the sympathy card is ridiculous and only causes me to lose what little respect I might have had left for Engelbert.

A dynamic that many career women understand is that all too frequently, the support they would hope for from other career women is woefully lacking. Engelbert made it to the pinnacle of her profession as the CEO of Deloitte and now the Commissioner of the W. Somewhere along the way she became insensitive to the challenges of other professional women.
 
Last edited:
oldude said:
This morning I watched excerpts from Engelbert’s press conference yesterday where she gave a series of what I would refer to as “non-answer, answers” to questions from ESPN’s Malika Andrews. Subsequently, the ESPN panel doing the first game between the Mercury & the Aces called out Engelbert for her non-answers to direct questions. Engelbert also interjected comments about how she is, “ a human being” and how attacks on her were hurtful to her daughters.

Give me an xxxxing break!!! Playing the sympathy card is ridiculous and only causes me to lose what little respect I might have had left for Engelbert.

A dynamic that many career women understand is that all too frequently, the support they would hope for from other career women is woefully lacking. Engelbert made it to the pinnacle of her profession as the CEO of Deloitte and now the Commissioner of the W. Somewhere along the way she became insensitive to the challenges of other professional women.
Expand ...
I had the same thought on using her daughters (and brothers re: officiating). For the full press conference video and quick thoughts on the entire video, I posted it on the other thread.
 

Online statistics

Members online
293
Guests online
2,906
Total visitors
3,199
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,488
Messages
4,398,322
Members
10,212
Latest member
MurrDog


.
..
Top Bottom