What is the future of the WNBA?

[CTyankee]

From the Washington Post today... How long can they last???

Kristi Toliver speaks... LINK

 

[ThisJustIn]

18 years in and we are still rehashing the same stories. Except now mainstream media is picking them up.

For years before the WNBA, women played abroad. Since the W began, women have played abroad. Each player has to deal with the realiities of basing your livelihood on the willingness of people to pay the because of there skill with a basketball. That's a dicey proposal, however you cut it.

And yet, the best player in the world just committed to the W. Why isn't that celebrated?

Considering the court rulings and the NCAA Rulings, perhaps a more pertinant question is "How long will college athletics last?"

That's as much on the administrations as it is the fans....

 

[j66kicker]

18 years in and we are still rehashing the same stories. Except now mainstream media is picking them up.

For years before the WNBA, women played abroad. Since the W began, women have played abroad. Each player has to deal with the realiities of basing your livelihood on the willingness of people to pay the because of there skill with a basketball. That's a dicey proposal, however you cut it.

And yet, the best player in the world just committed to the W. Why isn't that celebrated?

Considering the court rulings and the NCAA Rulings, perhaps a more pertinant question is "How long will college athletics last?"

That's as much on the administrations as it is the fans....

Revenue-producing college athletics will last as long as the millions of fans are still willing to pay $billions to see it. The current question is just whether they will continue to be amateur athletics. And maybe whether they will continue under the NCAA as it currently exists. As long as the demand is there, the supply will find a way to be there. Demand is WBB's problem, in this country anyway.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Revenue-producing = men's football (in some instances) and men's basketball (in some instances). Those sports are NOT college athletics. Women's basketball, and every other sport under the banner of the NCAA, is under threat, funding-wise.

 

[j66kicker]

Revenue-producing = men's football (in some instances) and men's basketball (in some instances). Those sports are NOT college athletics. Women's basketball, and every other sport under the banner of the NCAA, is under threat, funding-wise.

Would agree those sports are not AMATEUR college athletics. But unless they stay under the "NCAA" guise of being "amateur", then there will be no system requiring them to subsidize the sports which not enough people care about to be self-supporting.

 

[genosguy]

Revenue-producing = men's football (in some instances) and men's basketball (in some instances). Those sports are NOT college athletics. Women's basketball, and every other sport under the banner of the NCAA, is under threat, funding-wise.

College Athletes should partake of the "profits" of College sports in as much as better housing, food, stipend but not PAY.
Years ago, FOOTBALL teams in some big time programs were paying (under the table) players to come to their schools to play. I for one was thrilled at the University of Connecticuts STUDENTs that were fielded. Played hard and lost more than won. I followed the Uconn Men thru 5 coaches and most early on had pre med students, engineering students, and some general ed students---the key word was STUDENT. I loved them.
When Tommy Tompson screamed before the Yankee Conf championship with R.I---Jam The Rams, I jumped up from my wooden bleacher seat and cheered--the emotions of College sports is fan tastic.

 

[genosguy]

Would agree those sports are not AMATEUR college athletics. But unless they stay under the "NCAA" guise of being "amateur", then there will be no system requiring them to subsidize the sports which not enough people care about to be self-supporting.

AMATURE--does not in anyway refer to the Athletes abilities and skill set. Some of the Greatest Athletes the USA produced were Amatures.
If you mean todays kids have skills their forebearers may not have had--maybe, but maybe you just didn't get to see them.
The TOTAL PACKAGE OF ALL STUDENT ATHLETES IS COLLEGE SPORTS. Most sports don't support themselves--but the kids playing give their game their ALL--the money makers have to subsidize those programs too. OR the TITLE 9 programs and field hockey, and a dozen other programs will be lost to history. Football and Mens Basketball (in other schools) may take in big buck--shall we make the PRO's and hire only the very best to play for UConn. Yuk.

 

[JoePgh]

If the lure of overseas dollars were going to dry up the talent in the WNBA, it would have happened by now, and it hasn't. Instead, players are drawing attention from European teams and increasing their bargaining power with them by their performance in the WNBA, which at a basketball level is still (by far) the best league in the world. One still sees European stars (e.g., Sandrine Gruda or Celine Dumerc) play in the W to test themselves against the best competition in the world and improve their game.

The real mystery (to which I certainly don't have the answer) is how it is economically possible for overseas salaries to be so high. By all accounts, attendance at overseas games is lower than in the WNBA, ticket prices are far lower, and there is nothing equivalent to ESPN to televise games to a wide audience -- so how can they pay such high salaries, not to mention the first-class travel? One can understand an "ego trip" for certain foreign billionaires as a reason to do it for a few years, but how can that last as a motivation?

I agree that players (especially by their late 20's and 30's) can't really play basketball for 12 months a year without ruining their bodies and burning out. So at some point, you will see older players (including Taurasi, Lauren Jackson, Sue Bird, and Asjha Jones) skip WNBA seasons to revive themselves. That is understandable. There is plenty of outstanding younger talent to take their place and keep the competition at a very high level.

 

[Beemer]

If the lure of overseas dollars were going to dry up the talent in the WNBA, it would have happened by now, and it hasn't. Instead, players are drawing attention from European teams and increasing their bargaining power with them by their performance in the WNBA, which at a basketball level is still (by far) the best league in the world. One still sees European stars (e.g., Sandrine Gruda or Celine Dumerc) play in the W to test themselves against the best competition in the world and improve their game.

The real mystery (to which I certainly don't have the answer) is how it is economically possible for overseas salaries to be so high. By all accounts, attendance at overseas games is lower than in the WNBA, ticket prices are far lower, and there is nothing equivalent to ESPN to televise games to a wide audience -- so how can they pay such high salaries, not to mention the first-class travel? One can understand an "ego trip" for certain foreign billionaires as a reason to do it for a few years, but how can that last as a motivation?

I agree that players (especially by their late 20's and 30's) can't really play basketball for 12 months a year without ruining their bodies and burning out. So at some point, you will see older players (including Taurasi, Lauren Jackson, Sue Bird, and Asjha Jones) skip WNBA seasons to revive themselves. That is understandable. There is plenty of outstanding younger talent to take their place and keep the competition at a very high level.

I read somewhere that in many European countries sports are heavily subsidized by the national governments. Combine that with wealthy owners and that might explain those incredible salaries. I don't know if the Euro teams draw bigger crowds, if they do that would certainly be a factor as well.

 

[wallman]

Maybe they get better tax right offs

 

[rocky rococo]

It's a totally different structure, involving sponsorships, organizational affiliations, club memberships, full slates of revenue-producing sports, and other features. The systems don't resemble anything you see in North America at all.

 

[wallman]

True, the sports all follow the club system, nothing like our college/school system.

 

[j66kicker]

This 12-page 2011 study has some interesting stuff on the European women's pro BB business model, but not "complete" info, as that is not the primary focus of the study (and it also says it's hard to get team financials). Interesting other "stuff" too, plus info regarding specific WNBA players - several from UCONN, and others of interest.

http://www.ijsmart.eu/onlinepic/vol8_a Douglas Michele TURCO.pdf

I didn't realize WNBA attendance had dropped from avg 11,000 in 1998 to around 7,000 now. Yikes. This study quotes average EU attendance to be around 2,000. Sponsors are mainly the rich team owners, but also include corporate sponsors like Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Mercedes and GNC. WNBA is obviously going this way too. Says Foxwoods Casino's sponsorship of the Liberty includes "Foxwoods" completely replacing "Liberty" on their uniforms - nowhere on the uni does it say "Liberty." That must be outdated, as this pic is clearly more recent that 2011...

 

[JoePgh]

Would agree those sports are not AMATEUR college athletics. But unless they stay under the "NCAA" guise of being "amateur", then there will be no system requiring them to subsidize the sports which not enough people care about to be self-supporting.

Not only that, but if we reach the point where football and men's basketball players don't need to pretend to be "students", the applicability of Title IX will be in question. Title IX only requires that female student-athletes have the same level of university funding as male student-athletes. If the male athletes in revenue sports are no longer students, then Title IX would not require their funding to be used as a measuring stick. Female athletes would only need to be funded to the same degree as male soccer, lacrosse, tennis, and baseball players, which is pennies compared to the funding for football and men's BB.

From what I've read, football and men's basketball programs do not generally produce a profit that is used to finance women's sports; any "profit" that is generated goes into football coaches' salaries, facilities, recruiting expenses, etc. So I don't know that the removal of that "revenue stream" (if it is fictitious) would have an impact. If there is profit from major football programs, it is probably in the form of increased alumni donations to the university, and I don't think those are considered to be a revenue source that is required to be shared with other athletic programs.

 

[Kibitzer]

18 years in and we are still rehashing the same stories. Except now mainstream media is picking them up.

I think it's instructive to see where the NBA was after 18 years.

Among the teams competing were the Syracuse Nationals, Chicago Zephyrs, St. Louis Hawks, and Cincinnati Royals.

The Seattle Supersonics and the Baltimore Bullets had not yet joined. Nor had the
San Diego Rockets or New Jersey Nets. By the time they did, teams like the Anderson Packers,Tri-City Blackhawks, Sheboygan Redskins, Toronto Huskies, Providence Steamrollers, Cleveland Rebels, and Pittsburgh Ironmen had all disappeared.

 

[Biff]

I think it's instructive to see where the NBA was after 18 years.

Among the teams competing were the Syracuse Nationals, Chicago Zephyrs, St. Louis Hawks, and Cincinnati Royals.

The Seattle Supersonics and the Baltimore Bullets had not yet joined. Nor had the
San Diego Rockets or New Jersey Nets. By the time they did, teams like the Anderson Packers,Tri-City Blackhawks, Sheboygan Redskins, Toronto Huskies, Providence Steamrollers, Cleveland Rebels, and Pittsburgh Ironmen had all disappeared.

Ah the Pittsburgh Ironmen. Rumor was that they were not very good. They didn't stink mind you, they smelt.

 

[wallman]

I think back to the time when people thought the league would never even get going . Happy it's still here and hope it has longevity.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The biggest difference in Europe is that you don't see big time college athletics like you do in the states. Sports loyalty lies with your city's team and the national team whereas in the U.S., college sports are almost as big (or bigger) than the pros.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

From what I've read, football and men's basketball programs do not generally produce a profit that is used to finance women's sports; any "profit" that is generated goes into football coaches' salaries, facilities, recruiting expenses, etc. So I don't know that the removal of that "revenue stream" (if it is fictitious) would have an impact. If there is profit from major football programs, it is probably in the form of increased alumni donations to the university, and I don't think those are considered to be a revenue source that is required to be shared with other athletic programs.

It is much more complicated than your description, I think.

Remember, it isn't the revenue stream that is split, it is the money designated / spent by the programs. Alumni donations can be to specific sports or to the athletic department in general, obviously increased gifts to other areas of the university do not affect athletics.

 

[iamcbs]

It will survive until the NBA turns off the money spigot. The WNBA is wholly and singly supported by the NBA, which is losing a boatload of money subsidizing the WNBA. When Commissioner Silver and the NBA owners decide they're tired of getting soaked to satisfy feminists and former Title IX advocates, then they'll stop and the league will fold.

 

[JoePgh]

It will survive until the NBA turns off the money spigot. The WNBA is wholly and singly supported by the NBA, which is losing a boatload of money subsidizing the WNBA. When Commissioner Silver and the NBA owners decide they're tired of getting soaked to satisfy feminists and former Title IX advocates, then they'll stop and the league will fold.

At this point a number of the teams are owned by parties that are independent of the NBA or any of its teams. I believe about half of the teams now have NON - NBA owners. Moreover several teams are reportedly breaking even (not making a real profit, mind you, just not bleeding cash).

I suspect that the losses of the teams are insignificant compared to the overall business of their owners, and could be borne indefinitely without causing a material financial drain to their owners. For Mohegan Sun, for example, any losses from the Connecticut Sun are a cheap investment in community relations and a way to draw a different population into their casino. They can continue that as long as the league continues and never miss whatever subsidy they may have to provide.

 

[iamcbs]

At this point a number of the teams are owned by parties that are independent of the NBA or any of its teams. I believe about half of the teams now have NON - NBA owners. Moreover several teams are reportedly breaking even (not making a real profit, mind you, just not bleeding cash).

I suspect that the losses of the teams are insignificant compared to the overall business of their owners, and could be borne indefinitely without causing a material financial drain to their owners. For Mohegan Sun, for example, any losses from the Connecticut Sun are a cheap investment in community relations and a way to draw a different population into their casino. They can continue that as long as the league continues and never miss whatever subsidy they may have to provide.

First, lets establish some baseline facts. Your contention that half of the WNBA Teams are owned by non-NBA owners is wrong. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, dated September 24, 2013 the only non-NBA owned team in the league is the Chicago Sky. Mohegan Sun Casino doesn't own the Connecticut franchise, they are merely a sponsor. Several WNBA Teams have sold sponsorships as a revenue-generator hence the uniforms of some team, i.e. Phoenix and Minnesota look like NASCAR Fire Suits. The WNBA's contract with ESPN is a complete boondoogle, last year's WNBA Finals featuring a marquee team and the 4th larget TV market in the country drew a 0.4 average rating, while the NBA Finals this past season drew a 16.7 average rating. The only team WNBA teams to experience any growth at all last year were Seattle and Atlanta with growth rates approximately 25%, which is excellent. League-wide season ticket renewal rates hove at around 40%, which is abysmal by any metric. WNBA salaries don't even compare to those in overseas leagues which is why the women have to play year round. Profitability will always be a problem for the league.

 

[JRRRJ]

Ah the Pittsburgh Ironmen. Rumor was that they were not very good. They didn't stink mind you, they smelt.

does the visor have an internal mirror you could deploy?

 

[Biff]

does the visor have an internal mirror you could deploy?

Ummmm no.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

First, lets establish some baseline facts. Your contention that half of the WNBA Teams are owned by non-NBA owners is wrong. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, dated September 24, 2013 the only non-NBA owned team in the league is the Chicago Sky. Mohegan Sun Casino doesn't own the Connecticut franchise, they are merely a sponsor. Several WNBA Teams have sold sponsorships as a revenue-generator hence the uniforms of some team, i.e. Phoenix and Minnesota look like NASCAR Fire Suits. The WNBA's contract with ESPN is a complete boondoogle, last year's WNBA Finals featuring a marquee team and the 4th larget TV market in the country drew a 0.4 average rating, while the NBA Finals this past season drew a 16.7 average rating. The only team WNBA teams to experience any growth at all last year were Seattle and Atlanta with growth rates approximately 25%, which is excellent. League-wide season ticket renewal rates hove at around 40%, which is abysmal by any metric. WNBA salaries don't even compare to those in overseas leagues which is why the women have to play year round. Profitability will always be a problem for the league.

As a recent news article said, you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

- The Connecticut Sun is owned by the Mohegan Sun. Other Casinos have "sponsored" teams, as you note without ownership.
- The Tulsa Shock are owned by a group of investors headlined by Bill Cameron and David Box.
- The Seattle Storm belong to Force 10 Hoops LLC, a consortium of four female investors who purchased the team in 2008.
- The Atlanta Dream is owned by Dream Too LLC, composed of Mary Brock and Kelly Loeffler since 2011
- The LA Sparks belong to an investment group primarily made up of LA Dodgers owners, including controlling owner Mark R. Walter and Magic Johnson.
- As noted, the Chicago Sky are also independently owned.

As you also note, TV viewership is not very good, although I'm not sure how you relate the poor viewership of the WNBA finals to the ESPN contract being a "boondoggle".

Your last comment, that profitability will always be a problem for the league is most likely correct, I fear.

Your earlier comment about the league existing to satisfy "feminists and former Title IX advocates" makes me wonder why you are posting on a WBB board??