In August, 2021, the NCAA had an External Gender Equity Review done by a law firm that made some findings & recommendations.
www.cbsnews.com
I only asked my question because I was wondering why you started this thread based on an article that was the opinion of a columnist written almost a year ago.In August, 2021, the NCAA had an External Gender Equity Review done by a law firm that made some findings & recommendations.
Here's a brief article about the review which also contains a link to it.
NCAA undervalues women's basketball by millions, report says
NCAA urged to funnel more money into women's basketball because it's a growing sport offering a bucket of revenue.
There may be more info., perhaps others can help search for it.
What exactly has changed since it was written?
They lose 2.5 million because the tournament gives zero credit for any investment made in the tourney. If you are going to lump all “basketball revenue” under one category (WBB+MBB) to sell to investors, but then split the profit with only MBB then you aren’t sharing the revenue equally. EVERY men’s team who plays in the tournament gets a payout. Zero women’s team gets any share of the profit - not even the champion.
In the South we say “blood from a turnip “ but it means the same thing.
Said differently, there’s 100% revenue sharing.
www.sportico.com
No, there is not. When some small market team wins their tournament so gets in the men's tournament and gets knocked out in a play-in game they get a check for over $250,000. The Champion of the women's tournament gets nothing. There is no sharing. You're telling me there were more eyes on that game than the women's championship game? I call BS. They don't have to pay equally, but they need to take a portion on the 630 million they make on the tournament and pay the women unit shares also. Take $10 million and divide it up into unit shares like they do the men. At least it's something. As it is the women don't get 1 penny, but they are selling ads that run through the women's tournament.
There is no profit sharing from the women’s tournament because there is no profit from the women’s tournament.
What seems to have happened is that the NCAA signed a 14 year deal with ESPN that resulted in only $41 million being paid to televise all of the womens NCAAT games.
That appears to be a form of quid pro quo in order to receive the much higher TV payout for the mens games.
That implies that the NCAA "intentionally" undersold the value of the womens NCAAT games, and for too long of a period of time without adequate increases being built into the contract to reflect the need to generate payout money for the womens conferences.
While the amount of money being generated for the men is going higher & higher, the amount for the women hasn't.
Since both sports are under the single umbrella of the NCAA (just like with both MLB leagues & both NFL conferences), the NCAA should come up with a plan to share some of its huge revenues.
It's the NCAA's fault that they undersold the value and not the fault of the women schools and conferences that compete and are losing money.
The NCAA acts as if the women should consider themselves lucky just to be able to play.
When the reality is that they're capable of earning revenue if the NCAA didn't blow the TV deal by giving away the farm.
March Madness Daily: Men’s vs. Women’s NCAA Tournament Money
Differences between the men's and women's NCAA tournaments have come under scrutiny. There are even bigger disparities in the finances.
NCAA reveals budget, revenue gulfs between men’s and women’s basketball tournaments
In a financial summary obtained by Yahoo Sports, the NCAA attempted to justify the disparity between the two tournament budgets.www.yahoo.com
I’m not struggling with the concept. There’s no profit for the women’s tournament because they put about as much effort in selling the women’s tournament as they did that assembling that weight room from last year. I’m not going to argue. It’s never ending.
I’m not sure when marketing is the answer, but I believe it would help. The larger problem is it is competing with the men’s tournament which is just terrific. It will be tough for it to draw from more than diehard fans.
amp.usatoday.com
However, if there were no eyeballs watching it, they wouldn’t put it on the air.
There are eyeballs on WBB, just not enough. Lacrosse, rugby, even table tennis are niche sports with dedicated fans. While WBB also has dedicated fans with eyeballs on broadcasts there are unfortunately many fewer that the eyeballs than on MBB, football, even baseball.
Don’t find too much Lacrosse, rugby or table tennis on the tube.
Yep, that's the point.
Are you suggesting that WBB fans are poorer than MBB fans? I'm sure there's a ton of overlap. I can't be the only one.
Interesting question. We know for sure wbb is much smaller than mbb in terms of fan size. Relative demographics though would be an interesting question. I would speculate the following'
I definitely agree with the first 3, but I'm not sure about number 4. The argument was made that it would be more expensive to stay in larger cities, but you'd save money on getting there. I think it would be a wash in terms of total cost.