OT WNBA getting paid what they are worth

[CamrnCrz1974]

I'm even more surprised that people were annoyed/angered that the players wore what they did. Or that people really seem to believe that the WNBA is LOSING money. Starting this year, thru 2030, the WNBA is adding a whopping 6 teams. Golden State, Portland, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Philly.

For me, the issue was the actual wording of the message: Pay Us What You Owe Us.
First, as we saw, it was easy for a message referencing salary/compensation to be dismissed based on certain financial metrics.

IMHO, the message should have focused on the percentage of revenue.

WNBA players receive approximately 9.3% of league revenue. For comparison:

• NBA revenue is split roughly 50/50 between players and owners, with players receiving between 49% and 51% of basketball-related income.
• NHL: Players receive around 50% of the revenue.
• NFL: Players receive around 48% of all revenue

To me, the message should have focused on revenue distribution. I would have suggested: Respect Our Work. Respect Our Worth.

 

[Bigboote]

I'm even more surprised that people were annoyed/angered that the players wore what they did. Or that people really seem to believe that the WNBA is LOSING money. Starting this year, thru 2030, the WNBA is adding a whopping 6 teams. Golden State, Portland, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Philly.

While Golden State paid "only" $50M for the expansion fee, the newer teams are now paying $250M. People are delusional if they really believe all these teams are/will be losing money.

I'm not saying that the W is anywhere near as profitable as men's franchises (basketball, baseball, football, hockey, etc.), nor that the women should be paid anywhere near what the men are paid. This is NOT equality for doing the same job. Professional athletes are paid based on the interest in their sport, etc.

What I am saying is that the league is delusional if it thinks it can bamboozle the players by playing hardball, not sharing actual financials, and giving them just a bit more than what they make now. And it's sad that the league, at least per Gabby Williams, is actively trying to put an end to the Unrivaled and Athletes Unlimited leagues.

Bottom line, why would ANY player want to be in a league that lasts 6 months to make $75-210K (only 5 players make over $225K for the season - Gabby, Copper, Ogunbowale, Loyd, and Mitchell) when they could make $300-500K on a team with a much shorter season (even more in Russia and China apparently)?

I'm 100% behind the players and hope they get what they deserve, or decide to strike, and hurt the league for the foreseeable future...

That (the bolded) is certainly not true of all the fans, and not likely most fans. A cheer of "Pay them now" (or something similar) spontaneously went up in the arena. I read a column in the WaPo that was very complimentary of the shirts and the message and indicated the fans have been pretty receptive.

Like you and cancontent, I think it's appropriate and I was not surprised by it at all.

 

[PacoSwede]

what fascinates me is the people who are all for the owners (who can do whatever they want, because they have the power, even if they don't use it well, and $) and against the players (the peons whose only power is the ability to quit and face the consequences).

what in hell is that dynamic? the powerful are the heroes and the players are scumbags who should be thankful they get paid anything for playing a game? making excuses and justifications for the dudes in charge of it all.

what a lousy way to see the world ... especially if you are a working man or woman. It's rah rah for the HAVES (the money, mostly due to their good fortune or being shrewd or exploitive) and boos for the average joe or jane who actually do the real work to earn it!

 

[cancontent]

For me, the issue was the actual wording of the message: Pay Us What You Owe Us.
First, as we saw, it was easy for a message referencing salary/compensation to be dismissed based on certain financial metrics.

IMHO, the message should have focused on the percentage of revenue.

WNBA players receive approximately 9.3% of league revenue. For comparison:

• NBA revenue is split roughly 50/50 between players and owners, with players receiving between 49% and 51% of basketball-related income.
• NHL: Players receive around 50% of the revenue.
• NFL: Players receive around 48% of all revenue

To me, the message should have focused on revenue distribution. I would have suggested: Respect Our Work. Respect Our Worth.

Love the suggestion, but I'm skeptical it would be received any differently.

 

[1974yankees]

Let's check this ...

• The 2025 All Star Game in Indianapolis drew 2.19 million viewers, down from a record 3.44 million last year (when Clark played). It still was the most watched program of the night across the television landscape.
• All-Star Weekend's other events were a hit. Friday's WNBA skills challenge and 3-point contest drew an average of 1.3 million viewers on ESPN, up a whopping 89% over last year.
• Halfway through the 2025 season, the WNBA is on a victory tour. TV ratings are even higher than last year, up 23% across the board.
• Average viewership in 2024 was 201% higher than in the previous year and 791% higher than in 2017, according to media audience measurement company Nielsen.
• Women viewership on ESPN platforms for the 2024 season was up 165% compared to the previous year. And ESPN’s unique viewership rose 157% in 2024, introducing millions of new fans to the game.

For comparison, 2024-25 NBA games on ABC, ESPN, and TNT averaged 1.53 million viewers, just shy of last season’s 1.56 million.

The average viewership for a Seinfeld episode during its entire run was 26.6 million people, according to X. The series finale, however, drew a much larger audience of 76 million viewers.

This is just one show.

Those numbers you posted are pretty bad. Especially the up 89% over last year one.

I suppose a lot of the viewers are tuning in to see Clark. Not really sure why. I don't think she is even on the top 20 best players of all time. She is good, don't get me wrong but she is not some Michael Jordan who is gonna revolutionize the game..

But you wouldn't know that from listening to the media promote her as such...

I still refuse to watch that league...

As for the NBA: I Won't watch that league either. Especially since they don't play defense.

But that is just me.

 

[sivad40]

The average viewership for a Seinfeld episode during its entire run was 26.6 million people, according to X. The series finale, however, drew a much larger audience of 76 million viewers.

This is just one show.

Those numbers you posted are pretty bad. Especially the up 89% over last year one.

I suppose a lot of the viewers are tuning in to see Clark. Not really sure why. I don't think she is even on the top 20 best players of all time. She is good, don't get me wrong but she is not some Michael Jordan who is gonna revolutionize the game..

But you wouldn't know that from listening to the media promote her as such...

I still refuse to watch that league...

As for the NBA: I Won't watch that league either. Especially since they don't play defense.

But that is just me.

Those Seinfeld ratings are 27 years to 36 years old and they used a metric that had to be updated.

Some WNBA games get higher ratings than some NHL games.

How do you know so much about players and sports that you claim not watched.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The WNBA literally has the lowest Television ratings of any sport. There are reruns of Seinfeld that pull more viewers.

So there's that.

Personally I have not watched a single WNBA game since Maya Moore was dominating the league....And I only watched her team because of her. But that is just me.

The average viewership for a Seinfeld episode during its entire run was 26.6 million people, according to X. The series finale, however, drew a much larger audience of 76 million viewers.

This is just one show.

Those numbers you posted are pretty bad. Especially the up 89% over last year one.

First, you posted that the WNBA had the lowest TV ratings of any sport -- without any information, sources, links, etc.

When that statement was proven inaccurate, you referenced a TV comedy for viewing comparison.

I am not sure what the target is when the target keeps moving, irrespective of accuracy or relevance of information.

 

[Viet Vet]

Worth (aka market value): What a willing buyer and willing seller agree to.

 

[Bigboote]

The average viewership for a Seinfeld episode during its entire run was 26.6 million people, according to X. The series finale, however, drew a much larger audience of 76 million.

And those actors earned 600k per episode in 1990s dollars.

 

[Martin84]

I followed the league for some time due to all of the Uconn players. I don’t really find it all that entertaining.

The officiating is atrocious. I feel like they get caught watching the game instead of focusing on responsibilities. How else do they not call blatantly obvious fouls?

There does appear to be an anti-Clark movement amongst some players that has carried over from last year.

The media coverage highlights the littlest thing and turns it into breaking news.

Not impressed with league ownership. My opinions.

 

[1974yankees]

First, you posted that the WNBA had the lowest TV ratings of any sport -- without any information, sources, links, etc.

When that statement was proven inaccurate, you referenced a TV comedy for viewing comparison.

I am not sure what the target is when the target keeps moving, irrespective of accuracy or relevance of information.

I stand corrected....The WNBA does not have the lowest tv ratings of any sport.. That honor belongs to cricket....

Before last year the ratings for the wnba throughout their entire history were putrid... The league has been losing money since it's inception.

Sure the WNBA viewership might be around 90% of the people here for obvious reasons. (Ie: The dozens of Uconn players that played in the league)

But the overall perception of the WNBA by the general public is negative. Especially now with all the fighting/cheap shots/bad referees etc....

I just choose not to watch.

As for referencing a tv show like Seinfeld. I just picked that show out of a hat for comparison to tv ratings.

But I would bet that there are reruns and present day television programs that pull higher ratings too.

In all fairness, the only professional sport that I watch is Yankee Baseball. I am getting sick of them too because they are not worth watching anymore.

 

[1974yankees]

Those Seinfeld ratings are 27 years to 36 years old and they used a metric that had to be updated.

Some WNBA games get higher ratings than some NHL games.

How do you know so much about players and sports that you claim not watched.

I can honestly admit with all my heart that I have never watched a professional hockey game in my life. For real. So I don't doubt that some wnba games get better ratings than the NHL..

"How do you know so much about players and sports that you claim to not watch"

Because I am a college basketball player fanatic..(specifically Uconn Women's basketball) so yeah I know and have watched all the college players and teams. I know who is who.....

But I don't watch the Pros....Except when Maya was in the league destroying everyone....

 

[Cuango]

For me, the issue was the actual wording of the message: Pay Us What You Owe Us.
First, as we saw, it was easy for a message referencing salary/compensation to be dismissed based on certain financial metrics.

IMHO, the message should have focused on the percentage of revenue.

WNBA players receive approximately 9.3% of league revenue. For comparison:

• NBA revenue is split roughly 50/50 between players and owners, with players receiving between 49% and 51% of basketball-related income.
• NHL: Players receive around 50% of the revenue.
• NFL: Players receive around 48% of all revenue

To me, the message should have focused on revenue distribution. I would have suggested: Respect Our Work. Respect Our Worth.

All of the leagues (NFL, NHL, NBA) you mention have something the WNBA does not. Those leagues are profitable. The W, according to everything I have seen, has been losing money since it’s inception. There are some who claim the owners are “cooking the books” to maintain this illusion so they can continue to keep salaries low but if that is true, doubtful imo, but if so, why does the player’s assoc. not sue them in court thus presumably forcing them to open up the books?

The reason I doubt any full throated attempt at deception is because the NBA has also said the W has been a consistent loser (financially) and it is hard for me to believe they would risk the fallout that would follow if it came out that they and the owners have been lying about this for (presumably) years and years. I just don’t believe a profit making behemoth like the NBA would risk all that for a mere pittance (to them) like 10-30 million per year!

I was surprised that they (the WNBA) even lost money last year (with the Clark bonanza) but then I remembered they paid for charter for the first time which reportedly cost $25 million+. This could have very believably eaten up the profits earned from the Clark bump. Finally, if the players can show some kind of evidence that there has been some kind of financial hanky panky going on, I will back them 100%.

Even though I believe the players (in general) have behaved very stupidly in many ways, are generally unlikeable and arrogant, have behaved very badly in reference to Caitlin Clark, and have a loooong way to go in learning how to successfully present their product in ways that will encourage rather than alienate fan support, I still would obviously root for them if the owners have indeed been dishonest. I just doubt that will happen in any big-time, RICO, conspiracy kind of way, mostly because of the consequences to the NBA that would/could ensue from such actions.

Just imagine the damage the NBA would suffer if it were to come out that they had actually participated in some sort of conspiracy to keep women basketball players from receiving a just and equitable return from a league they themselves had built? I simply cannot believe they would expose themselves like that. I think it is far more likely that the W has been a money pit but one that most of the owners believe will eventually grow into a money maker.

As for the NBA, I do not think they are concerned about the money at all. Rather, they find themselves in a trap of their own making! They cannot under any circumstances let the W fail! The backlash would be extremely damaging in view of the financial success they continue to enjoy. Letting the W fail for what the vast majority of fans would term a “pittance” when compared to the 78 billion dollars they just recently made for their tv rights, would not be a good look!

 

[Skeets]

This is going to sound horribly sexist, but the owners will walk all over players. Why? Because they are just women. My daughter had a nail in the middle of her tire tread. Maybe a $15 plug job. She came home after being sold 2 new tires. I'm kicking myself for not going with her because I guarantee you that would never have happened. WNBA players cannot be sold 2 new tires.

 

[cancontent]

This is going to sound horribly sexist, but the owners will walk all over players. Why? Because they are just women. My daughter had a nail in the middle of her tire tread. Maybe a $15 plug job. She came home after being sold 2 new tires. I'm kicking myself for not going with her because I guarantee you that would never have happened. WNBA players cannot be sold 2 new tires.

Ooof. It shows you don't have faith in the business acumen of these players, which is disheartening considering what some of these women have accomplished outside of basketball. It's disheartening to read, especially from the perspective of a woman.

 

[Skeets]

Ooof. It shows you don't have faith in the business acumen of these players, which is disheartening considering what some of these women have accomplished outside of basketball. It's disheartening to read, especially from the perspective of a woman.

My post says more about the owners and how they will take advantage if given the opportunity. It is a fact of our society, happens all the time. It certainly wasn't a commentary on the players. Sorry you took it that way.

 

[cancontent]

My post says more about the owners and how they will take advantage if given the opportunity. It is a fact of our society, happens all the time. It certainly wasn't a commentary on the players. Sorry you took it that way.

But the thing is owners of all leagues are notorious for negotiating in bad faith. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Look at the recent situation with the NFL and the collusion against Russell Wilson story that has come out recently. Making things worse, their own union helped to hide the situation. Owners will do what they want to gain an advantage regardless of who they're dealing with.

 

[1974yankees]

All of the leagues (NFL, NHL, NBA) you mention have something the WNBA does not. Those leagues are profitable. The W, according to everything I have seen, has been losing money since it’s inception. There are some who claim the owners are “cooking the books” to maintain this illusion so they can continue to keep salaries low but if that is true, doubtful imo, but if so, why does the player’s assoc. not sue them in court thus presumably forcing them to open up the books?

The reason I doubt any full throated attempt at deception is because the NBA has also said the W has been a consistent loser (financially) and it is hard for me to believe they would risk the fallout that would follow if it came out that they and the owners have been lying about this for (presumably) years and years. I just don’t believe a profit making behemoth like the NBA would risk all that for a mere pittance (to them) like 10-30 million per year!

I was surprised that they (the WNBA) even lost money last year (with the Clark bonanza) but then I remembered they paid for charter for the first time which reportedly cost $25 million+. This could have very believably eaten up the profits earned from the Clark bump. Finally, if the players can show some kind of evidence that there has been some kind of financial hanky panky going on, I will back them 100%.

Even though I believe the players (in general) have behaved very stupidly in many ways, are generally unlikeable and arrogant, have behaved very badly in reference to Caitlin Clark, and have a loooong way to go in learning how to successfully present their product in ways that will encourage rather than alienate fan support, I still would obviously root for them if the owners have indeed been dishonest. I just doubt that will happen in any big-time, RICO, conspiracy kind of way, mostly because of the consequences to the NBA that would/could ensue from such actions.

Just imagine the damage the NBA would suffer if it were to come out that they had actually participated in some sort of conspiracy to keep women basketball players from receiving a just and equitable return from a league they themselves had built? I simply cannot believe they would expose themselves like that. I think it is far more likely that the W has been a money pit but one that most of the owners believe will eventually grow into a money maker.

As for the NBA, I do not think they are concerned about the money at all. Rather, they find themselves in a trap of their own making! They cannot under any circumstances let the W fail! The backlash would be extremely damaging in view of the financial success they continue to enjoy. Letting the W fail for what the vast majority of fans would term a “pittance” when compared to the 78 billion dollars they just recently made for their tv rights, would not be a good look!

Very accurate post.

Especially, the part about how Clark is basically getting mugged every game.

Again I don't watch the games but it is hard to avoid seeing the non stop video clips on every outlet....

The referees should also be ashamed of themselves. I have seen several hits that Clark took that would be considered assault in the legal world.

This is coming from someone who is not a Clark fan...

 

[Cuango]

And those actors earned 600k per episode in 1990s dollars.

How much did Seinfeld make in profits? While I do not know myself, I’d be willing to bet it made huge amounts of money. That is why the actors also made lots of money! The W on the other hand, has by all accounts never made a profit. Could this have something to do with how much players are paid? I’m guessing yes.

From what I have heard they have lost a minimum of 10 million every year they have been in existence! I believe they’ve been in existance for 27+ years or so. That means (not counting the reported 40-50 million they lost last year, the owners are now owed somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars! Give or take 20 or 30 million. Now if or when the league does start to make money, the owners and/or the NBA are going to expect that all that lost money will be reimbursed to them. How is that wrong?

I have no idea as to the reliability of these numbers but as far as I know the NBA, as the other money supplier to the W, has backed them up as being true. That is why I tend to believe the numbers. Of course, the fact that until Clark arrived, the league’s attendance and viewership numbers were pathetic also lends credence to the contention that the league has been a money pit for its entire existence. I’m actually rooting for the players to make more money but those increases must be paid by profits, not by imaginary “because I deserve it” money.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I was surprised that they (the WNBA) even lost money last year (with the Clark bonanza) but then I remembered they paid for charter for the first time which reportedly cost $25 million+. This could have very believably eaten up the profits earned from the Clark bump. Finally, if the players can show some kind of evidence that there has been some kind of financial hanky panky going on, I will back them 100%.

The financial losses from the previous year are based, in part, on the outdated television contract.

One year ago today, the WNBA announced a new 11-year media rights deal featuring partnerships with Disney, Amazon Prime Video and new rights holder NBCUniversal. The deal is valued at about $2.2 billion, or $200 million per year, a source told ESPN. The deal will begin with the 2026 season and run through 2036.
There is still an opportunity for increased earnings: The WNBA is likely to sell two additional packages for $60 million, pushing the total to over $260 million per year.

Again, this starts with the 2026 WNBA season.

To address @Cuango 's point about the 2024 season and profitability, the WNBA’s operating expenses have drastically increased, with about $25 million for chartered flights in addition to an expanded workforce (for this year and future years).

The $200 million payout annually for the WNBA is bump from the previous $65 million.

The owners of WNBA teams control about 42 percent of the total league revenue, based on ownership structure.
That means the $200 million per year will be an $84 million disbursement to the WNBA itself. It is reasonable to expect that $59 million annually will be directed to franchises (subtracting only the cost of chartered flights).

Unlike in the NBA, athletes in the W do not enjoy a 50/50 revenue-sharing model. Instead, less than 10% of total revenue is designated for talent, resulting in a team salary cap of a little less than $1.38 million.

With the new figures, even with the 10% share, players would still take home higher salaries. Using the expected maximum amount of $59 million annually, each WNBA franchise could receive about $421,428 per year toward roster compensation solely from the media rights deal.

If that share increases significantly from the approximate 10 percent figure, a team's salary cap could come close to doubling.

 

[sivad40]

How much did Seinfeld make in profits? While I do not know myself, I’d be willing to bet it made huge amounts of money. That is why the actors also made lots of money! The W on the other hand, has by all accounts never made a profit. Could this have something to do with how much players are paid? I’m guessing yes.

From what I have heard they have lost a minimum of 10 million every year they have been in existence! I believe they’ve been in existance for 27+ years or so. That means (not counting the reported 40-50 million they lost last year, the owners are now owed somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars! Give or take 20 or 30 million. Now if or when the league does start to make money, the owners and/or the NBA are going to expect that all that lost money will be reimbursed to them. How is that wrong?

I have no idea as to the reliability of these numbers but as far as I know the NBA, as the other money supplier to the W, has backed them up as being true. That is why I tend to believe the numbers. Of course, the fact that until Clark arrived, the league’s attendance and viewership numbers were pathetic also lends credence to the contention that the league has been a money pit for its entire existence. I’m actually rooting for the players to make more money but those increases must be paid by profits, not by imaginary “because I deserve it” money.

Adam Silver said the WNBA an lost AVERAGE of $10M a year until last of course. 27 ×10= 270 + 50= $320 M. The WNBA just received $750M in expansion fees which is twice as more than more than the deficit.

 

[NoSpamHere]

Based on what?

Sorry, just got back online. My comment was based on all the reporting around the NBA rights deal and how the percentage allocated to the WNBA was allocated. There was a big stink from the WNBPA back then saying it was arbitrary and not reasonable.

 

[Cuango]

The financial losses from the previous year are based, in part, on the outdated television contract.

One year ago today, the WNBA announced a new 11-year media rights deal featuring partnerships with Disney, Amazon Prime Video and new rights holder NBCUniversal. The deal is valued at about $2.2 billion, or $200 million per year, a source told ESPN. The deal will begin with the 2026 season and run through 2036.
There is still an opportunity for increased earnings: The WNBA is likely to sell two additional packages for $60 million, pushing the total to over $260 million per year.

Again, this starts with the 2026 WNBA season.

To address @Cuango 's point about the 2024 season and profitability, the WNBA’s operating expenses have drastically increased, with about $25 million for chartered flights in addition to an expanded workforce (for this year and future years).

The $200 million payout annually for the WNBA is bump from the previous $65 million.

The owners of WNBA teams control about 42 percent of the total league revenue, based on ownership structure.
That means the $200 million per year will be an $84 million disbursement to the WNBA itself. It is reasonable to expect that $59 million annually will be directed to franchises (subtracting only the cost of chartered flights).

Unlike in the NBA, athletes in the W do not enjoy a 50/50 revenue-sharing model. Instead, less than 10% of total revenue is designated for talent, resulting in a team salary cap of a little less than $1.38 million.

With the new figures, even with the 10% share, players would still take home higher salaries. Using the expected maximum amount of $59 million annually, each WNBA franchise could receive about $421,428 per year toward roster compensation solely from the media rights deal.

If that share increases significantly from the approximate 10 percent figure, a team's salary cap could come close to doubling.

Wow! Thanks for that info! Glad to hear from someone who knows a bit more about the whole situation. The problem still, from what I’ve heard, is that the players are talking a lot more than doubling. Doubling seems fairly reasonable based on what little I’ve heard about it. I would think that would be a major victory for the players! They are also, I believe, looking for major changes/increases in pensions, pregnancy leave, reduction/changes in scheduling, and roster sizes.

I think much of what we see from the players is a direct result of having been propped up financially by the NBA these many years. When you know the league is not going to fold no matter what, it tends to take away the constant fear that most struggling businesses have looming over their heads on a day to day basis. This can (and has imo) lead to some pretty unrealistic self perceptions that are fueling their (I believe) delusional view of their bargaining position vis a vis the owners/NBA.

I wonder if there’s any possibility that the League could actually go away over this? When it comes down to it, it is a business after all. If they actually walk out or are locked out, what are the chances that it simply goes away and/or is replaced with something else?

 

[cometjo]

I stand corrected....The WNBA does not have the lowest tv ratings of any sport.. That honor belongs to cricket....

Before last year the ratings for the wnba throughout their entire history were putrid... The league has been losing money since it's inception.

Sure the WNBA viewership might be around 90% of the people here for obvious reasons. (Ie: The dozens of Uconn players that played in the league)

But the overall perception of the WNBA by the general public is negative. Especially now with all the fighting/cheap shots/bad referees etc....

I just choose not to watch.

As for referencing a tv show like Seinfeld. I just picked that show out of a hat for comparison to tv ratings.

But I would bet that there are reruns and present day television programs that pull higher ratings too.

In all fairness, the only professional sport that I watch is Yankee Baseball. I am getting sick of them too because they are not worth watching anymore.

I seems like you are just making up numbers based on your prejudices—300 million people watched the final of the last cricket World Cup. How Many People Watch Cricket World Cup: Global Viewership Insights

 

[Sifaka]

With ~$12 billion in revenue, guess who's crying poor?


“MLB's desire for a salary cap dates back decades. The players' strike in 1994 that canceled the World Series was in direct response to the league's efforts to move to a capped system. Some of the same talking points used by MLB in the 1990s -- particularly about the lack of profitability of teams amid an environment that has seen immense growth in franchise value and revenue -- have reemerged in recent years.

"In the back of our heads, we're like, 'Why are you talking to us like owning a baseball team is like owning a nail salon?'" Castellanos said. "That you're only going to be a functional business if you can make up the money that you put in this year?”

Sound familiar?