OT: WNBA Finances

[maddoggy]

.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/12/06/for-the-wnba-business-isnt-as-bad-as-it-looks",,,The NBA at 21 years of age in 1966 averaged 6,631 fans per game. Players were not paid anywhere close to the exorbitant salaries they now command. The league had 10 teams. The WNBA in 2017 averaged 7,716 fans per game. Players make between $39,000 and $115,000 per season. The league has 12 teams.

"WNBA owners have an incentive to maintain that the league is in the red, Berri said, as it gives them better bargaining position when negotiating with players. If owners said the league was profitable, players would be better positioned to ask for more money, which would drive up the cost of running a franchise — and even profitable WNBA franchises run on tight margins."

The full piece is here.
For the WNBA, business isn’t as bad as it looks

 

[vtcwbuff]

Sometimes numbers do lie - as in trying to imply that the WNBA has better attendance numbers than the NBA in 1966. For one thing the population in 1966 was less than 2/3 of what it is now.

I guess it depends on ones definition of growth - stable or stagnant? In any case
there is a whole lot of "kumbaya" in that article.

 

[Carnac]

This is great news in light of the fact that two (San Antonio & New York) WNBA franchises have been put up for sale since September. I'm a big fan of the league.

I'd like to see it remain solvent, thereby being able increase their player compensation format, and of course stay in business. I would love to see a WNBA franchise come back to the bay area here in Northern California.

I wonder how a franchise would do in South Carolina, seeing as how much the local fans show their support of the Lady Gamecocks with their attendance. I would imagine ticket prices for a WNBA game would be slightly more than for a USC game.

 

[GiladKatzDeli]

I wonder what the CT Sun's attendance would be if they played in Hartford?