WNBA Players are Overpaid

[Orangutan]

Sexism has nothing to do with WNBA players having lower salaries, it’s because the WNBA doesn’t generate revenue.

I happen to think sexism is a huge part of why the WNBA doesn't generate more revenue.

If every twitter troglodyte that made a "kitchen" comment on a tweet about the WNBA actually went to a game, attendance figures would be through the roof.

There are many men (and some women!) that have preconceived notions about women's basketball and refuse to watch it despite likely never having watched a full game.

The women's game is different and I don't expect every NBA fan to enjoy it. But I do think there are a lot of hardcore NBA fans that would appreciate the WNBA if they approached it with an open mind and gave it a chance.

 

[iri10]

Rather sloppy article, even though I do think the WNBA pay reflects their value (that is, they're not underpaid - just paid less than we would prefer).

He devotes a small part of his article discussing what is referenced in the clickbait title, saying that they may be overpaid relative to the value suggested by consumer interest because the WNBA benefits from association/support of NBA. But then at the end he suggests that the players go to where they're more "valued" - e.g. Russia - without mentioning that the large salaries of Europe are a result of much heavier subsidization. UMMC Ekaterinburg isn't earning more revenue than a WNBA team - not with its cheap or even free tickets plus whatever miniscule TV deal it has, if any.

He has a footnote comparing WNBA salaries to what he describes as the highest PBA "salary." Never mind that PBA players earn prize money for winning bowling tournaments, not "salaries."

The rest of the analysis was not particularly insightful. It's barely at the level I would consider acceptably interesting for a post in the Boneyard Cesspool.

 

[vtcwbuff]

Since I did not know of his past I still find his analysis of the situation extremely shallow. How shallow? If you are going to use A'ja Wilson tweet about Lebron's salary in an argument about WNBA player making too much you might as well use mine-I said the exact same thing: " $154 Mil? Must be nice. Where can I get some of that?"

Context - Wilson seems to imply that WNBA players are pretty much doing the same thing so they deserve similar compensation.

Reality - NBA revenues for 2016/17 were $7.4 billion (Forbes). While WNBA revenues for the same period have not been made public (are they too embarrassed?) Forbes estimated that total revenues are probably a bit more than $60 million. Divide that relatively miniscule revenue pie between the 12 teams, subtract team expenses (staff, travel, insurance etc.) and see how much is left for the players.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Love her passion, but A'ja is simply wrong.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I happen to think sexism is a huge part of why the WNBA doesn't generate more revenue.

If every twitter troglodyte that made a "kitchen" comment on a tweet about the WNBA actually went to a game, attendance figures would be through the roof.

There are many men (and some women!) that have preconceived notions about women's basketball and refuse to watch it despite likely never having watched a full game.

The women's game is different and I don't expect every NBA fan to enjoy it. But I do think there are a lot of hardcore NBA fans that would appreciate the WNBA if they approached it with an open mind and gave it a chance.

All is probably true. And sad. But, in the end, it drives the low salaries. Making the leap from sexism to low salaries (if anyone is so inclined) using this argument may be fundamentally correct, but their view is so non-nuanced as to come off as, well, missing a good deal of the point.

I am as disappointed as anyone with the (relatively) low salary for such accomplished athletes, although - lets be honest - it isn't "bad" money when it isn't compared to other athlete's salaries. But you cannot get blood from a stone. Or water from a dry well. Or, well - choose your own metaphor. If the money isn't there, they are not going to get paid it. That is the central point, with the "why" more money isn't generated a whole separate issue.

 

[Orangutan]

That is the central point, with the "why" more money isn't generated a whole separate issue.

I disagree. That's like saying "The central issue is people drowning, the burst dam is a whole separate issue". If A is the cause of B and B is the cause of C. Then, yes, A is directly related to C.

 

[bballnut90]

I happen to think sexism is a huge part of why the WNBA doesn't generate more revenue.

If every twitter troglodyte that made a "kitchen" comment on a tweet about the WNBA actually went to a game, attendance figures would be through the roof.

There are many men (and some women!) that have preconceived notions about women's basketball and refuse to watch it despite likely never having watched a full game.

The women's game is different and I don't expect every NBA fan to enjoy it. But I do think there are a lot of hardcore NBA fans that would appreciate the WNBA if they approached it with an open mind and gave it a chance.

I agree with that overall sexism is a big issue...the stigma of women's basketball works against players even though the game has come such a long way over the last 20-30 years.

The absence of sexism I was referring to is the insinuation that women are underpaid by the league because they're women. The reason why they're paid less is their play doesn't generate money like the NBA does. I don't think the players' attitudes should be, "we're underpaid and we're upset that men are getting so much more money for doing the same thing" as much as it should be, "how can we change the public's view about women's basketball and market ourselves better."

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

A good article with a poor title.
If salaries went up, some teams would fold. Then, the league would be a joke.

In my opinion, the article overlooked a key fact - 8 of 12 teams are NOT owned by NBA franchises, but from other private owners. Only NY, Phoenix, Minnesota, and Indiana are owned by their respective NBA teams.

It's really hard to claim they deserve more money when the NBA is subsidizing them to keep it afloat.

The league office does not subsidize as much as the article presents (which makes it seem as if the WNBA is almost entirely funded by the NBA). Again, consider two-thirds of the teams have non-NBA owners, meaning they do not share the costs/expenses associated with staff or facilities with NBA counterparts.

The NBA received a ridiculous influx of revenue from the lucrative television deal. This is an external source of revenue.

And the TV deal is important, as it does bring a lot of revenue to the league. But consider this - the NBA entirely funds the G League; as of 2017-18. The G League consists of 26 teams, all of which are either single-affiliated or owned by an NBA team; there are no private owners.

For 2018-19 season, players under NBA G League contracts will earn a base salary of $7,000 per month – or $35,000 – for the five-month regular season. But, in addition to their salaries, players can earn additional money through affiliate player bonuses and NBA Call-Ups. In 2017-18, about one quarter of players under NBA G League contracts also earned an average of $44,000 in NBA affiliate player bonuses – a total of more than $3 million on top of their NBA G League salaries. And record 50 NBA G League players earned a record 60 Call-Ups to the NBA this season, generating earnings of more than $11 million, or approximately $225,000 per player.

No one complaints that the NBA is keeping the G League afloat; in fact, it is part of the NBA's operations.

While the two leagues - WNBA and G League - are not completely comparable, I think analysis of the NBA's minor league system adds to this overall discussion.

"...only half of WNBA teams have managed to become profitable 20 years after the league's founding..."

In the same paragraph of the article, the author stated:
-- Of course, TV ratings themselves are less important to this topic than dollars attached to their television contracts, and to the WNBA’s credit ESPN doubled the value of their contract with the league to $25 million a year in 2016.
...
-- As the New York Times reported in 2016, only half of WNBA teams have managed to become profitable 20 years after the league's founding.

TV ratings are important in another area - market viewership. This is where companies gather information about local markets and interest in the WNBA (along with attendance) to determine whether it will sponsor the local WNBA franchise.

And if you look at the WNBA, it has been a leader among professional teams sports in jersey sponsorships. Nine of the league’s 12 teams have marquee jersey sponsorship deals:

• Chicago Sky - University of Chicago Medicine
• Connecticut Sun - Mohegan Sun Casino
• Dallas Wings - American Fidelity
• Indiana Fever - Finish Line
• Los Angeles Sparks - EquiTrust
• Minnesota Lynx - Mayo Clinic
• New York Liberty - Draft Kings
• Phoenix Mercury - Talking Stick Resort and Casino
• Seattle Storm - Swedish Medical Center

All of this is separate from NBA deals and the WNBA's league-wide sponsorship with Verizon.

And this year, the WNBA is allowing franchises to sell additional jersey advertising with a new logo patch located on the upper left-hand shoulder of game jerseys. The new patches add to WNBA team jersey advertising that already includes the logo of a team’s marquee sponsor located above the numbers on the front of the uniform and the Nike logo located on the right shoulder of the jersey.

Again, this is a non-NBA source of revenue, not to mention a source of revenue separate and apart from any TV deal or endorsement deal in which the WNBA is included with the NBA (and the G League). And all of this goes a long toward making WNBA franchises profitable.

And they negotiated their CBA, they have no one to blame on that front either.

This is a fair point. And the current CBA (less than 25 percent of league revenue) is still higher than in previous years.

Thing is, even with the union and players' association representatives, the players do not have that much bargaining power. What is their option, to strike? A strike could severely jeopardize the viability of the league, especially as public sentiment will likely not be on the players' side (as more people will likely think along the lines of the author).

That being said...

What the players CAN do for the next contract is to negotiate for a higher percentage of league revenue, recognizing that franchises need to not only secure marquee jersey deals, but also additional sponsorships to increase revenue.

But slow and steady growth is important, as the WNBA will need to prove that it is and will be a profitable enterprise.

 

[bballnut90]

All is probably true. And sad. But, in the end, it drives the low salaries. Making the leap from sexism to low salaries (if anyone is so inclined) using this argument may be fundamentally correct, but their view is so non-nuanced as to come off as, well, missing a good deal of the point.

I am as disappointed as anyone with the (relatively) low salary for such accomplished athletes, although - lets be honest - it isn't "bad" money when it isn't compared to other athlete's salaries. But you cannot get blood from a stone. Or water from a dry well. Or, well - choose your own metaphor. If the money isn't there, they are not going to get paid it. That is the central point, with the "why" more money isn't generated a whole separate issue.

Exactly. How much are pro female soccer or volleyball players paid? And what about Olympic athletes that have to do all sorts of fundraising/promos/side projects to pay for their training? WNBA players make more in 3 months than the average citizen does in 12 months to get to play the sport they love. They can also rake in big bucks overseas and have a great gateway to broadcasting, running camps, coaching, promo deals, etc. where they have ample opportunity to further bolster their income. Sure they aren't making millions each year, but many of these players can build a 20-30 year career and retirement out of basketball. That's pretty awesome if you ask me.

 

[the Q]

In my opinion, the article overlooked a key fact - 8 of 12 teams are NOT owned by NBA franchises, but from other private owners. Only NY, Phoenix, Minnesota, and Indiana are owned by their respective NBA teams.



The league office does not subsidize as much as the article presents (which makes it seem as if the WNBA is almost entirely funded by the NBA). Again, consider two-thirds of the teams have non-NBA owners, meaning they do not share the costs/expenses associated with staff or facilities with NBA counterparts.

The NBA received a ridiculous influx of revenue from the lucrative television deal. This is an external source of revenue.

And the TV deal is important, as it does bring a lot of revenue to the league. But consider this - the NBA entirely funds the G League; as of 2017-18. The G League consists of 26 teams, all of which are either single-affiliated or owned by an NBA team; there are no private owners.

For 2018-19 season, players under NBA G League contracts will earn a base salary of $7,000 per month – or $35,000 – for the five-month regular season. But, in addition to their salaries, players can earn additional money through affiliate player bonuses and NBA Call-Ups. In 2017-18, about one quarter of players under NBA G League contracts also earned an average of $44,000 in NBA affiliate player bonuses – a total of more than $3 million on top of their NBA G League salaries. And record 50 NBA G League players earned a record 60 Call-Ups to the NBA this season, generating earnings of more than $11 million, or approximately $225,000 per player.

No one complaints that the NBA is keeping the G League afloat; in fact, it is part of the NBA's operations.

While the two leagues - WNBA and G League - are not completely comparable, I think analysis of the NBA's minor league system adds to this overall discussion.



In the same paragraph of the article, the author stated:
-- Of course, TV ratings themselves are less important to this topic than dollars attached to their television contracts, and to the WNBA’s credit ESPN doubled the value of their contract with the league to $25 million a year in 2016.
...
-- As the New York Times reported in 2016, only half of WNBA teams have managed to become profitable 20 years after the league's founding.

TV ratings are important in another area - market viewership. This is where companies gather information about local markets and interest in the WNBA (along with attendance) to determine whether it will sponsor the local WNBA franchise.

And if you look at the WNBA, it has been a leader among professional teams sports in jersey sponsorships. Nine of the league’s 12 teams have marquee jersey sponsorship deals:

• Chicago Sky - University of Chicago Medicine
• Connecticut Sun - Mohegan Sun Casino
• Dallas Wings - American Fidelity
• Indiana Fever - Finish Line
• Los Angeles Sparks - EquiTrust
• Minnesota Lynx - Mayo Clinic
• New York Liberty - Draft Kings
• Phoenix Mercury - Talking Stick Resort and Casino
• Seattle Storm - Swedish Medical Center

All of this is separate from NBA deals and the WNBA's league-wide sponsorship with Verizon.

And this year, the WNBA is allowing franchises to sell additional jersey advertising with a new logo patch located on the upper left-hand shoulder of game jerseys. The new patches add to WNBA team jersey advertising that already includes the logo of a team’s marquee sponsor located above the numbers on the front of the uniform and the Nike logo located on the right shoulder of the jersey.

Again, this is a non-NBA source of revenue, not to mention a source of revenue separate and apart from any TV deal or endorsement deal in which the WNBA is included with the NBA (and the G League). And all of this goes a long toward making WNBA franchises profitable.



This is a fair point. And the current CBA (less than 25 percent of league revenue) is still higher than in previous years.

Thing is, even with the union and players' association representatives, the players do not have that much bargaining power. What is their option, to strike? A strike could severely jeopardize the viability of the league, especially as public sentiment will likely not be on the players' side (as more people will likely think along the lines of the author).

That being said...

What the players CAN do for the next contract is to negotiate for a higher percentage of league revenue, recognizing that franchises need to not only secure marquee jersey deals, but also additional sponsorships to increase revenue.

But slow and steady growth is important, as the WNBA will need to prove that it is and will be a profitable enterprise.

The G league is a completely different argument than the WNBA.

The G league is the NBA's minor leagues. It directly feeds into it's product. Teams own players rights who play on those teams.

an NBA owner who owns a WNBA team gets no direct benefit to his NBA team by doing so.

 

[the Q]

I agree with that overall sexism is a big issue...the stigma of women's basketball works against players even though the game has come such a long way over the last 20-30 years.

The absence of sexism I was referring to is the insinuation that women are underpaid by the league because they're women. The reason why they're paid less is their play doesn't generate money like the NBA does. I don't think the players' attitudes should be, "we're underpaid and we're upset that men are getting so much more money for doing the same thing" as much as it should be, "how can we change the public's view about women's basketball and market ourselves better."

Bingo. We have bingo.

Let's not forget that the NBA is significantly older than the WNBA. Players were not getting $154m deals in the NBA's 20th season of existence.

 

[the Q]

I happen to think sexism is a huge part of why the WNBA doesn't generate more revenue.

If every twitter troglodyte that made a "kitchen" comment on a tweet about the WNBA actually went to a game, attendance figures would be through the roof.

There are many men (and some women!) that have preconceived notions about women's basketball and refuse to watch it despite likely never having watched a full game.

The women's game is different and I don't expect every NBA fan to enjoy it. But I do think there are a lot of hardcore NBA fans that would appreciate the WNBA if they approached it with an open mind and gave it a chance.

This is also called capitalism. If consumers don't like a product they're not going to buy it.

For better or worse.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The G league is a completely different argument than the WNBA.

The G league is the NBA's minor leagues. It directly feeds into it's product. Teams own players rights who play on those teams.

an NBA owner who owns a WNBA team gets no direct benefit to his NBA team by doing so.

Not entirely true.

The presence of NBA players at games, the presence of staff, etc. feed into season ticket purchasing (this is present at Mercury games). I myself purchased my Suns season tickets while at a Mercury game ten years ago.
The ownership of the WNBA team allows the NBA team to negotiate better lease deals with the owners of the venues, as it is another guaranteed 17 dates (not including preseason). Teams are negotiating for 58 games, instead of 41 (again, not including preseason).
75 percent of players on a G League team will never be called up to that franchise. So the NBA team is paying for those players who will not "directly" benefit the team

 

[CocoHusky]

Sorry...you are not an A.W.

That was exactly my point. Glad we are in agreement.

 

[the Q]

Not entirely true

The presence of NBA players at games, the presence of staff, etc. feed into season ticket purchasing (this is present at Mercury games). I myself purchased my Suns season tickets while at a Mercury game ten years ago.
The ownership of the WNBA team allows the NBA team to negotiate better lease deals with the owners of the venues, as it is another guaranteed 17 dates (not including preseason). Teams are negotiating for 58 games, instead of 41 (again, not including preseason).
75 percent of players on a G League team will never be called up to that franchise. So the NBA team is paying for those players who will not "directly" benefit the team

1) good point on the lease. Hadn’t looked at it the way before.

2) Re: the 75% comment. It’s the same with Baseball. Most of the guys in the minors aren’t real pro prospects. One very prominent Baseball writer calls them “chattel” that is a necessary expense to allow the real prospects to develop.

 

[Roger G]

No. It's a troll article disguised as sober economic commentary.

The Austrian school of economics is no fly by night operation. They have a long history of well articulated premises. What points do you not accept and for what reason? If you cannot make a sober reply, then who is the troll?

 

[the Q]

Well as far as I can tell, the league thinks they have so much money that they decided to give $5 of every ticket sold to a bunch of organizations that a not insignificant portion of the population finds abhorrent. Further, the leagues giving to those organizations is economically stupid. If people wanted to give to any of those organizations, they would do so directly and get a tax benefit...when the league gives, the individual gets no tax benefit.
I find the marketing of the whole league makes no sense to me. "Watch me work" - do I care how hard they work? I'd much rather see your "finished product" (When your lawn service advertises, they don't advertise "watch me work", rather they advertise "this is how your lawn can look" - in virtually any field the advertising is not "I work hard", instead it is "I get these results"). Part of the reason I find this so odd is that in fact I do enjoy the finished product a great deal. The finished product has compelling attractive entertainment value. Sell that, not everything else.

I’m still baffled to no one, including Fortune 500 companies, seems to understand that lame virtue signaling doesn’t equal increased profits.

 

[Roger G]

Well as far as I can tell, the league thinks they have so much money that they decided to give $5 of every ticket sold to a bunch of organizations that a not insignificant portion of the population finds abhorrent. Further, the leagues giving to those organizations is economically stupid. If people wanted to give to any of those organizations, they would do so directly and get a tax benefit...when the league gives, the individual gets no tax benefit.
I find the marketing of the whole league makes no sense to me. "Watch me work" - do I care how hard they work? I'd much rather see your "finished product" (When your lawn service advertises, they don't advertise "watch me work", rather they advertise "this is how your lawn can look" - in virtually any field the advertising is not "I work hard", instead it is "I get these results"). Part of the reason I find this so odd is that in fact I do enjoy the finished product a great deal. The finished product has compelling attractive entertainment value. Sell that, not everything else.

I agree so totally. I also hate the lean in stuff. Give me a break, do I really have to lean in for the poor women or are they great, strong women as I see them? My wife is currently scraping the popcorn from our ceiling. No wilting flower there. Women can be great!

 

[the Q]

Well as far as I can tell, the league thinks they have so much money that they decided to give $5 of every ticket sold to a bunch of organizations that a not insignificant portion of the population finds abhorrent. Further, the leagues giving to those organizations is economically stupid. If people wanted to give to any of those organizations, they would do so directly and get a tax benefit...when the league gives, the individual gets no tax benefit.
I find the marketing of the whole league makes no sense to me. "Watch me work" - do I care how hard they work? I'd much rather see your "finished product" (When your lawn service advertises, they don't advertise "watch me work", rather they advertise "this is how your lawn can look" - in virtually any field the advertising is not "I work hard", instead it is "I get these results"). Part of the reason I find this so odd is that in fact I do enjoy the finished product a great deal. The finished product has compelling attractive entertainment value. Sell that, not everything else.

Agreed on the marketing aspect.

It’s the same bad argument that the women’s soccer team is tying to use. Equal work would mean equal revenue generated.

 

[Roger G]

I happen to think sexism is a huge part of why the WNBA doesn't generate more revenue.

If every twitter troglodyte that made a "kitchen" comment on a tweet about the WNBA actually went to a game, attendance figures would be through the roof.

There are many men (and some women!) that have preconceived notions about women's basketball and refuse to watch it despite likely never having watched a full game.

The women's game is different and I don't expect every NBA fan to enjoy it. But I do think there are a lot of hardcore NBA fans that would appreciate the WNBA if they approached it with an open mind and gave it a chance.

I do agree with you there. I encounter that when I tell people I enjoy women's basketball. They know not what they speak of.

 

[the Q]

I do agree with you there. I encounter that when I tell people I enjoy women's basketball. They know not what they speak of.

Well it’s funny that for 20 years we’ve been told how boring and bad for the NBA the spurs are.

Guess which team plays the closest to women’s basketball?

 

[lne001]

And if you look at the WNBA, it has been a leader among professional teams sports in jersey sponsorships.

For that alone the WNBA should be allowed to dangle in the wind.

 

[Roger G]

In my opinion, the article overlooked a key fact - 8 of 12 teams are NOT owned by NBA franchises, but from other private owners. Only NY, Phoenix, Minnesota, and Indiana are owned by their respective NBA teams.



The league office does not subsidize as much as the article presents (which makes it seem as if the WNBA is almost entirely funded by the NBA). Again, consider two-thirds of the teams have non-NBA owners, meaning they do not share the costs/expenses associated with staff or facilities with NBA counterparts.

The author's point is that no matter how much or how little the WNBA is subsidized, if it is subsidized at all, from the perspective of economics, the players are overpaid--provided the W does not keep all the subsidy and shares it with its players, which it is fair to assume. Value, in a pure market system, is determined by how much things are valued in the marketplace. Such value is highly democratic as all the potential buyers of a good, in this case sports entertainment, essentially vote with their dollars. When someone's pay is subsidized, a group smaller than the total market, in this case the NBA, sets the wage instead of the market as a whole. In this way, the wage is inflated from what it would otherwise be. From the perspective of an Austrian economist, this would be seen as a distortion of the market. And by the way, the less distortions in the market, the more efficient is the market which provides producers with appropriate incentives to bring to market goods and services in kinds and at levels that consumers want.

 

[Roger G]

Well it’s funny that for 20 years we’ve been told how boring and bad for the NBA the spurs are.

Guess which team plays the closest to women’s basketball?

There is a point there, but while I don't expect the WNBA to ever acquire the popularity that the NBA has, it seems to me that many more people would find the sport enjoyable if they only gave it a chance. To my mind, that does not mean that the players in the W deserve equal pay. I concur with your economic perspective on the matter.

 

[Roger G]

Worth discussing?

WNBA Players Overpaid

This was a good off season topic for discussion. Thank you. One can see by the comments that have been generated how interesting some of us have found it.