• phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    Bill Burr had a good take on this one. Basically, how many of the people complaining about the pay disparity in women’s basketball actually watch women’s basketball? If you want them to get paid more, you need to watch their sport so they will bring in higher ticket sales and ad revenues. His take is a lot women are complaining about this pay disparity and few of them actually even watch the WNBA, so it’s kind of hypocritical since they’re not doing the very thing that would help increase their salaries.

    • JRush@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Except WNBA players don’t get revenue shares like NBA players do. That’s what they’re asking for.

      • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, they should get it. I imagine some of the things NBA players have now were won through bargaining and negotiations.

    • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      And I love that he says that as someone who watches many sports regularly and spends money on everything from going to games to merchandise to even giving them air time in announcing specific events that he’s interestend in during his podcast.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t know what the finances of the WNBA are but people should be paid by their talent and expertise. Someone preforming at a high enough level to make it into the WNBA is exceptionally rare and their salary should reflect that. Else, soon enough there won’t be any WNBA players.

  • markendsley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hey that’s about what most engineers graduating from college get. And they won’t be able to do sponsorships and ad deals. I would say $76k is a much more appropriate salary to start with than what the men make in basketball. That is just crazy

    • bjorney@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      She has north of 3m in sponsorship deals right now, and we can only assume that number will go up in the WNBA

      • silverbax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It may go down in the WNBA. Caitlin Clark isn’t the first player who was expected to make the WNBA popular (Maya Moore, Brittany Griner, etc). It’s far too early to tell if she will have any impact on WNBA viewership.

        The issue is that NIL money is also a way for boosters to pay players to stay instead of the shadowy back door deals that used to happen. Now NIL just allows boosters to pay players through a legitimate channel.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          A lot of NIL money during the off-season is booster money, yes. That’s money that basically will only go to athletes signed with a particular school.

          But there’s also a lot of NIL money for actual big budget TV/print advertising from national corporations for ads produced by major ad agencies. That’s money that follows the athlete.

          Not all of it will follow the athlete to the pros (and not every athlete goes pro), especially since the WNBA seems to have lower viewership than NCAA women’s basketball. But if anyone is gonna be making good money on sponsorships in the WNBA, it’ll be Caitlin Clark.

  • wjrii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    8 months ago

    Women’s basketball has soared in popularity in recent years, with this year’s March Madness tournament dwarfing its men’s counterpart. There are plenty of reasons for this, but one of them is that the game is just fun to watch.

    This should result in more media money, which should result in higher salaries. We’ll see. Football really does suck a lot of the oxygen out of the room, financially speaking.

    Another part of the discussion is that popularity is sort of meeting in the middle, since as women’s basketball rises, men’s college basketball has been gutted by (among other things) stars leaving after one year, as well as court-forced rule changes (completely reasonable, IMHO, because players should get agency) that have everyone else playing musical chairs as they switch schools to pursue their financial and athletic dreams rather than buckle down to get a degree, which is often nerfed anyway.

    College athletics in general, and “revenue sports” in particular, try to meet the letter of the “Student Athlete” rules without giving a single shit about graduating players who have the same level of mastery and accountability as even a garden variety liberal arts major. It’s not really a new thing, either. I muddled my way through an English degree, learning study skills as I went, and while I’m under no delusions that meeting the minimum standards was as hard as it would have been in an engineering program, there weren’t exactly any athletes in my classes on Elizabethan Drama or the History of the English Language, either.

    • eardon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There are plenty of reasons for this, but one of them is that the game is just fun to watch.

      I encourage everyone who takes the “it’s just fun to watch” rhetoric to heart to look at NASCAR. There was a period where it was “cool” to watch NASCAR, once that hype faded and only the people who actually cared about the sport were left, they started having massive declines in spectators.

      I expect women’s basketball to have the same result. It’ll be fun to watch for a year or two to please the feminists, but after that people will realize they don’t actually care and focus more on other things.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It hasn’t? Women’s Final Four broke records in 2023. ESPN inked a $920m deal in Jan. 2024. None of this is instant. If it keeps building people will keep investing.

    • JRush@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      According to the article, it sounds like those go to the team and owners, not the players. WNBA players don’t even get a dime when someone buys their jersey.

        • MammyWhammy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Imma need to see a source for that claim.

          Sure if she’s doing a team endorsement deal as a part of her contact that goes to the WNBA, but if Vuori or State farm or whoever just sign Caitlin Clark to a deal to appear as Caitlin Clark the WNBA doesn’t just take a cut of that.

    • BreakDecks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      The issue is that men make orders of magnitude more just for being men. No reason to handwave that disparity away.

      • ji17br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Technically they make orders of magnitude more because the money they bring in is orders of magnitude more

        • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, I saw an argument about considering not only what they’re paying the athletes but also what those athletes are bringing in as far as advertisments, ticket sales, merch, etc. I can’t find the video but I remember it clearly because it hadn’t occurred to me before then. I’ll look for it to make sure I’m not making any part of it up, but the numbers were ridiculous as far as how much money was being made from male leagues compared to female leagues.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Damn. You can’t force higher wages if the revenue isn’t coming in though. Maybe make a mixed gender league with co-ed teams.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I imagine “soaring in popularity” would also mean more revenue…

      • silverbax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The article says the women’s college tournament ‘dwarfed the men’s tournament’, but the ratings numbers I’ve seen show the men’s tournament has had 5x the viewership. So someone’s not doing their research. Plus, this is college, not the pros. If the WNBA viewership increases, then,yes, more revenue should come with the next media contract. But that remains to be seen.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The sub header implies WNBA numbers are up though:

          As women’s pro basketball soars in popularity, player compensation lags.

          • silverbax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I can only go by the actual numbers I’ve seen, and it seems like most articles are cherry picking, at least so far. Saying ‘popularity is soaring’ isn’t the same as hard numbers.

            For example, the NBA could claim their popularity is soaring during the NBA Finals, but their actual numbers are dwarfed the the Super Bowl. A lot of this is spin. But if the WNBA numbers actually do increase, then sure, more money would be coming.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      One argument that I have heard is that most women don’t have the height to make dunks, so they have to focus on shooting. That’s arguably a more pure form of the sport.

      Something similar happens in pinball leagues. Tilting is generally an accepted practice, though this is often to the surprise of people who don’t know a lot about pinball. If the table is setup to let you do it, you can do it in a tournament. However, most women don’t have the upper body strength to shove a pinball table around, and many women’s leagues do ban tilting. Bumps are allowed, but not moving the table. Again, arguably, this is a more pure form.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      It doesn’t though. That’s the problem. As a % of league profit, the pays don’t match. Women don’t get much on sales of apparel either.

      • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Profit or revenue? Idk latest numbers but iirc the wnba lost 12 million in 2019 alone. The total value of the wnba is 1 billion dollars. For context, Steve Ballmer bought the clippers for 2 billion.

        The entire wnba has a value that is half the value of the number 2 team in the LA market. Baller bought the team in 2014 btw, so it’s half the value from 10 years ago. I think the most recent sale was when an investment group paid 3 billion for majority share of the hornets about a year ago. By that measure the wnba is worth, maybe a quarter, of one of the least valuable franchises in the nba.

        Plus these are rookie scale contracts. That’s pretty standard part of union collective bargaining. The union wants available funds to go to veteran players. You can’t really make a strong argument for those funds being too low when the league has never turned a profit in 25 years.

    • BreakDecks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Why is NBA “traditional” and WNBA isn’t? Name the differences.

      • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        The nba has been around for 50 years longer. The WNBA is a subsidiary of the NBA. There was never really a market for women’s basketball. There barely is now, after 25 years of the WNBA existing. The NBA runs at a 1.6 billion dollar profit while the WNBA runs at a 22 million dollar loss.

        Making a profit is, traditionally, a part of a professional sports league.

  • guacupado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    The world will be just fine when we stop worshiping athletes. Hopefully this news turns more people off to it.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I always find the forced interest in women sport weird.

    There are men that train and work just as hard as professional women and don’t get paid for it. We don’t owe them anything just because they play a game and you can’t even say it’s because amateur men aren’t as good because amateur men are better than professional women.

    The fact there is money there at all is because of entertainment and entertainment alone and I don’t like being told I need to enjoy any type of entertainment.

    If I do watch a sport I’m going to want to watch the most entertaining version of that sport which will be the top mens league. If I want to watch more sport I’ll watch other mens leagues around the world. If i want to wathc more then the youth teams are good because you ca follow people up through the ranks. If I really want to watch more sport I’ll go support my local club which is probably still higher quality than the women’s game.

    The way I see it is you can either watch a oscar winning movie or you can watch some b rated poor quality movie. Watching either is fine, enjoying either is fine. But don’t act like a b movie needs to make the same at box office just because a women made it.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Forced interest? Again, the recent game was the most watched basketball game in ESPN history. There’s no forced interest. The women just want the same share of revenues that men get

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The NCAA isn’t paying her professional salary, the WNBA is. Yearly revenue of the WNBA is $60 million. The NBA is $10 BILLION. Average viewership for WNBA games about 400,000 people; NBA is 12.4 million.

        The highest NBA rookie contract is 12 Million/year. That is .0012% of NBA revenue.

        76K/year is .00126% of WNBA revenue. Technically she’s getting a bigger percentage of WNBA revenue than Wembamyama is of the NBA’s.

        It’s like complaining that the Canadian Football League players aren’t being paid as much as NFL players.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Average NBA viewership is 1/10th of your claim. Forgive me for doubting your argument.

          Estimated 2023 revenue for WNBA = $200 million. Your entire argument is predicated on inaccurate data. WNBA revenue doubled YOY, while player pay remained the same. But if you are all for our corporate overlords keeping our money, you do you. It’s fine to be a conservative ig. Just odd that Lemmy keeps putting forth these right wing arguments about revenue when the population tends to support fair pay for workers in other domains.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Viewership was for finals games, since that was the most equivalent for what you’re talking about. And I was using 2022 statistics, since we still don’t know official revenue numbers for FY23.

            I don’t think the WNBA opting out of the CBA was great for the WNBA players, but this has nothing to do with politics. The point is that viewership for the WNBA is a fraction of the NBA and the WNBA has never turned a profit in its entire history. It is entirely subsidized by the “corporate overlords” of the men’s game.

            The fundamental problem is that far more people will complain about WNBA player contracts and/or discuss the gender politics around the game, like you are doing, then, you know, actually watch the WNBA.

            Why not unbundle the subsidization of the WNBA from the NBA revenues? That would give a better picture of the solvency of the WNBA as a business. Professional sports aren’t social programs, as you note; they’re corporate business endeavors. With that considered, being unprofitable for 25 years puts the WNBA in a difficult situation.

  • eardon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Cue useful idiots saying she doesn’t make enough money for… checks notes playing sports.

    You know there are doctors who make less than her?

    In fact, there are countless people who work harder than her for less while actually doing something useful to society.

    • jwt@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well yeah sure, but these quote unquote useful idiots aren’t so much complaining about the absolute dollar number, but about the discrepancy in salary with her male counterparts. I for one would be more than OK with male athletes taking pay cuts to drop to her salary level.

      • eardon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I for one would be more than OK with male athletes taking pay cuts to drop to her salary level.

        You are in the minority.

        The vast majority of useful idiots will say she should make more money despite everyone who works harder than her for less.

        • jwt@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The vast majority of useful idiots will say she should make more money despite everyone who works harder than her for less.

          I’m sure you have some awesome stats to back up that claim.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not about how much she makes, it’s about the disparity in pay between men and women doing the same thing. Her making $76k for playing sports wouldn’t be a callout if LeBron (or whomever) were also making $76k.

  • mycathas9lives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s a good paying job straight out of college. Man, I wish I had a job like that first thing. She worked hard and I wish her well. Dang…76K…just dang.