WNBA-Players' Union Agreement

[Sifaka]

I’ll explicitly summarize the arguments (sorry not an emoji person (smiley face)):

• Unrivaled came into being as a player innovation for the income hit due to the WNBA’s prioritization rules.
• Unrivaled’s footprint (scheduling, marketing) meshes well with the WNBA and the rising tide of women’s basketball.
• Unrivaled’s full-court 3x3 is non-competitive with the WNBA’s 5x5 format.
• Unrivaled’s required skill sets (third paragraph from the bottom in above pic) is symbiotic to the skill sets that could make better players for the WNBA season.
• Unrivaled employs player development professionals and have training facilities that players can use for their offseason player development regimen at the now new innovation that it is no-cost to WNBA players.
• Unrivaled’s business decisions have resulted in top $ to the very top WNBA players so that (WNBA + Unrivaled) is better for many reasons over foregoing the WNBA and just playing overseas (Diana’s one year off from the WNBA is a prior example).

Since you insist, let us examine each of the points to determine if they show intent, on the part of Unrivaled, to directly benefit the WNBA.

1.

• Unrivaled came into being as a player innovation for the income hit due to the WNBA’s prioritization rules. That’s nice, but it does NOTHING to support the W. Irrelevant.
• 
  
• Unrivaled’s footprint (scheduling, marketing) meshes well with the WNBA and the rising tide of women’s basketball.Irrelevant. That is a mushy PR style statement. It “meshes well” only in that the schedules do not overlap. The statement shows no intent to benefit the W. Further, it omits any reference to development.
• Unrivaled’s full-court 3x3 is non-competitive with the WNBA’s 5x5 format. Here we go again. Tennis is non-competitive with Monopoly. That doesn’t mean either game attempts to benefit or support the other. Irrelevant
• Unrivaled’s required skill sets (third paragraph from the bottom in above pic) is symbiotic to the skill sets that could make better players for the WNBA season. So what! Basketball skills developed in one context are apt to be useful in ALL other basketball contexts. If a 3x3 player develops a better 3 pt. shot, that will be an asset in Turkey, Spain, Australia and also in the W. 3x3 is not the sane game as 5x5, so skill development focus is not the same, despite obvious similarities. What is clearly lacking in the statement above is intent to benefit the W.
• That there may be some coincidental benefit is obvious.
• Unrivaled employs player development professionals and have training facilities that players can use for their offseason player development regimen at the now new innovation that it is no-cost to WNBA players. Stretching are we? These development facilities and staff are intended to benefit the players. They are therefore intended to benefit Unrivaled. They are at no cost to Unrivaled players.
• If the WNBA derives some ancillary benefit, that is not because Unrivaled created a development program in order to help the W.
• Unrivaled’s business decisions have resulted in top $ to the very top WNBA players so that (WNBA + Unrivaled) is better for many reasons over foregoing the WNBA and just playing overseas. I will not invoke the sobriquet Captain Obvious despite the overwhelming stimulus to do so.
• Nothing, not a single phoneme, in the sentence above shows any indication whatsopluckingever of intent on the part of the Unrivaled equity owners and/or players to benefit the W. To call it ‘Irrelevant' would be generous.

This is all, putting it kindly, thin gruel. It is, I happily confess, better than Palinesque Word Salad. But so are the scripts of afternoon soap operas.

None of it supports the false assertion that the intended beneficiary of Unrivaled's plans or actions is the WNBA.

I'm out. Please feel free to have the uncontested bunny. 😇

 

[JoePgh]

Since you insist, let us examine each of the points to determine if they show intent, on the part of Unrivaled, to directly benefit the WNBA.

1.

• Unrivaled came into being as a player innovation for the income hit due to the WNBA’s prioritization rules. That’s nice, but it does NOTHING to support the W. Irrelevant.
• 
  
• Unrivaled’s footprint (scheduling, marketing) meshes well with the WNBA and the rising tide of women’s basketball.Irrelevant. That is a mushy PR style statement. It “meshes well” only in that the schedules do not overlap. The statement shows no intent to benefit the W. Further, it omits any reference to development.
• Unrivaled’s full-court 3x3 is non-competitive with the WNBA’s 5x5 format. Here we go again. Tennis is non-competitive with Monopoly. That doesn’t mean either game attempts to benefit or support the other. Irrelevant
• Unrivaled’s required skill sets (third paragraph from the bottom in above pic) is symbiotic to the skill sets that could make better players for the WNBA season. So what! Basketball skills developed in one context are apt to be useful in ALL other basketball contexts. If a 3x3 player develops a better 3 pt. shot, that will be an asset in Turkey, Spain, Australia and also in the W. 3x3 is not the sane game as 5x5, so skill development focus is not the same, despite obvious similarities. What is clearly lacking in the statement above is intent to benefit the W.
• That there may be some coincidental benefit is obvious.
• Unrivaled employs player development professionals and have training facilities that players can use for their offseason player development regimen at the now new innovation that it is no-cost to WNBA players. Stretching are we? These development facilities and staff are intended to benefit the players. They are therefore intended to benefit Unrivaled. They are at no cost to Unrivaled players.
• If the WNBA derives some ancillary benefit, that is not because Unrivaled created a development program in order to help the W.
• Unrivaled’s business decisions have resulted in top $ to the very top WNBA players so that (WNBA + Unrivaled) is better for many reasons over foregoing the WNBA and just playing overseas. I will not invoke the sobriquet Captain Obvious despite the overwhelming stimulus to do so.
• Nothing, not a single phoneme, in the sentence above shows any indication whatsopluckingever of intent on the part of the Unrivaled equity owners and/or players to benefit the W. To call it ‘Irrelevant' would be generous.

This is all, putting it kindly, thin gruel. It is, I happily confess, better than Palinesque Word Salad. But so are the scripts of afternoon soap operas.

None of it supports the false assertion that the intended beneficiary of Unrivaled's plans or actions is the WNBA.

I'm out. Please feel free to have the uncontested bunny. 😇

You are putting all of your emphasis on "intent", as opposed to "effect". Regardless of what the intent of the Unrivaled investors or players is or was, it is likely that the effect is to allow the players to develop their skills in a way which will benefit their WNBA careers. Moreover, they can do this without going overseas or otherwise disrupting their lives with respect to child care, housing, and similar issues.

I think the "intent" of the players who were the driving force behind the creation of Unrivaled was to make overseas winter play unnecessary by replacing the most of income that it provides, but also affording more palatable lifestyle choices for them. It is a great deal for the players as long as it lasts. The question is whether it is financially viable in the long run for investors. I am not aware of any data yet that shows the financial performance (or lack thereof) of Unrivaled in its first year, but that will be the critical question in the next few months.

 

[Sifaka]

You are putting all of your emphasis on "intent", as opposed to "effect". Regardless of what the intent of the Unrivaled investors or players is or was, it is likely that the effect is to allow the players to develop their skills in a way which will benefit their WNBA careers. Moreover, they can do this without going overseas or otherwise disrupting their lives with respect to child care, housing, and similar issues.

I think the "intent" of the players who were the driving force behind the creation of Unrivaled was to make overseas winter play unnecessary by replacing the most of income that it provides, but also affording more palatable lifestyle choices for them. It is a great deal for the players as long as it lasts. The question is whether it is financially viable in the long run for investors. I am not aware of any data yet that shows the financial performance (or lack thereof) of Unrivaled in its first year, but that will be the critical question in the next few months.

I am happy to agree with everything you have written. Here is why I put such strong emphasis on intent, I was debunking a demonstrably false assertion.

Unrivaled is meant &1 to be a development platform (that pays) to prepare for the WNBA:

The meaning of the quote is clear, and far from your own accurate description of what Unrivaled was meant to be.

That development during Unrivaled seasons can also help performance by players during Unrivaled's off season, the W's season, is not in dispute. But that isn’t why Unrivaled came into being.

What gets lost in the discussion is that the W, by forcing players to choose between playing a full season abroad for decent money or playing in the W, created an opportunity for Unrivaled.