| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/24/19 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Two words: Franchise value.
WNBA franchise value: $0
MLS expansion franchise cost: $130 million
MLS top three franchises: >$200 million
We can argue about why that is, but, in philosophic terminology, it's a brute fact.
Now, if Jimmy Dolan had sold the Liberty for $130 million -- or $30 million, or $1 million -- this whole discussion would be different.
(One other note: There are 24 teams in MLS, thus 24 more markets that will attract viewers ... and none of those TV markets are as small as Connecticut's.)
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 3:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Two words: Franchise value.
WNBA franchise value: $0
MLS expansion franchise cost: $130 million
MLS top three franchises: >$200 million
We can argue about why that is, but, in philosophic terminology, it's a brute fact.
Now, if Jimmy Dolan had sold the Liberty for $130 million -- or $30 million, or $1 million -- this whole discussion would be different.
(One other note: There are 24 teams in MLS, thus 24 more markets that will attract viewers ... and none of those TV markets are as small as Connecticut's.) |
Why would ESPN or any other TV network care about that? It doesn't affect the ratings or ad rates.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
Two words: Franchise value.
WNBA franchise value: $0
MLS expansion franchise cost: $130 million
MLS top three franchises: >$200 million
We can argue about why that is, but, in philosophic terminology, it's a brute fact.
Now, if Jimmy Dolan had sold the Liberty for $130 million -- or $30 million, or $1 million -- this whole discussion would be different.
(One other note: There are 24 teams in MLS, thus 24 more markets that will attract viewers ... and none of those TV markets are as small as Connecticut's.) |
Why would ESPN or any other TV network care about that? It doesn't affect the ratings or ad rates. |
Not to mention, the TV contracts are going to affect franchise value, not the other way around...
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 4:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
Two words: Franchise value.
WNBA franchise value: $0
MLS expansion franchise cost: $130 million
MLS top three franchises: >$200 million
We can argue about why that is, but, in philosophic terminology, it's a brute fact.
Now, if Jimmy Dolan had sold the Liberty for $130 million -- or $30 million, or $1 million -- this whole discussion would be different.
(One other note: There are 24 teams in MLS, thus 24 more markets that will attract viewers ... and none of those TV markets are as small as Connecticut's.) |
Why would ESPN or any other TV network care about that? It doesn't affect the ratings or ad rates. |
Not to mention, the TV contracts are going to affect franchise value, not the other way around... |
The TV contracts don't operate in the market of team values, but they do operate in a market. The NHL is able to charge ESPN the amount they do because someone else is willing to pay something close for the rights. Who is ESPN competing with for WNBA rights? If the answer is no one, then there is no reason that ESPN would pay more.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 4:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Okay, let's tackle this from another direction.
Say you are an employee of a Silicon Valley startup.
This startup was created by a bunch of investors spearheaded by a group that was interested in your product as a long term investment and it was an offshoot of a product that this group was already invested in. They invested in the startup knowing that it would be unlikely to make a profit anytime soon, but was a way for them to increase their marketshare both by introducing a new product and by the overlap with their other investment.
As an employee, would you not be interested in getting paid for what you are contributing to this long term investment, or would you be content with your bosses telling you that your pay is contingent only upon the sucess of your product?
Basically, it is not an unfair question for them to be posing to the NBA/other interested parties. What is the actual valuation of this long term investment? Because of course these very smart businesses people are going to try and pay as little as possible and get as much as possible of the long term gains from it. It is the job of the players to counter that.
Just like if my Silicon Valley startup had an intrinsic value to investors beyond that of my P&Ls, you can be sure I would be leveraging that when it came to my funding. And my investors would expect me to.
And no one in the world would call it "charity" or think me naive for doing this.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 4:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| And MLS is heading towards 30 teams. The interest in MLS is very high despite the USMNT being terrible. Expect teams in Las Vegas, Sacramento & St. Louis within 5 years. If only the WNBA had this high of interest in ownership groups; teams like Houston & Sacramento would've never folded and San Antonio & Detroit would have never relocated.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 5:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Okay, let's tackle this from another direction.
Say you are an employee of a Silicon Valley startup.
This startup was created by a bunch of investors spearheaded by a group that was interested in your product as a long term investment and it was an offshoot of a product that this group was already invested in. They invested in the startup knowing that it would be unlikely to make a profit anytime soon, but was a way for them to increase their marketshare both by introducing a new product and by the overlap with their other investment.
As an employee, would you not be interested in getting paid for what you are contributing to this long term investment, or would you be content with your bosses telling you that your pay is contingent only upon the sucess of your product?
Basically, it is not an unfair question for them to be posing to the NBA/other interested parties. What is the actual valuation of this long term investment? Because of course these very smart businesses people are going to try and pay as little as possible and get as much as possible of the long term gains from it. It is the job of the players to counter that.
Just like if my Silicon Valley startup had an intrinsic value to investors beyond that of my P&Ls, you can be sure I would be leveraging that when it came to my funding. And my investors would expect me to.
And no one in the world would call it "charity" or think me naive for doing this. |
This all assumes the original group REALLY saw/sees intrinsic value as a long term investment vs goodwill.
I don't think that is a given at the NBA league level or with some of the ownership groups - particularly some tied to the NBA teams.
Let's look at it from yet another angle.
Instead of real long term value what if that spearheading group saw it as a nice PR move and a nice way to avoid noise vs. expecting a tangible Long term return... And invest/invested accordingly.
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
Last edited by TigerVol on 07/24/19 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 5:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| MLS has interest from potential owners because ESPN and such pay high rights fees, despite ratings no better than the W's. The NBA let the networks lowball the W.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 5:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world.
It is growing in popularity in the US.
As MLS transitions from being mostly a retirement league to being a balanced feeder/talent/retirement league the potential audience grows.
Not only from improved quality but from player interest.
MLS teams who land young international talent draw new fans. When those player go to the other leagues in England, Germany, Spain and France the MLS fans follow those players - look now a growing US audience for those league games.
When more top league stars finish their careers here when just a step slow vs washed up that improves the quality and draws fans of those players to watch MLS.
The potential upside is HUGE no matter the ratings today.
While there is certainly a viable best case scenario for women's bball the upside potential doesn't come anywhere close to MLS and the holistic world football/soccer scene.
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 5:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TigerVol wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Okay, let's tackle this from another direction.
Say you are an employee of a Silicon Valley startup.
This startup was created by a bunch of investors spearheaded by a group that was interested in your product as a long term investment and it was an offshoot of a product that this group was already invested in. They invested in the startup knowing that it would be unlikely to make a profit anytime soon, but was a way for them to increase their marketshare both by introducing a new product and by the overlap with their other investment.
As an employee, would you not be interested in getting paid for what you are contributing to this long term investment, or would you be content with your bosses telling you that your pay is contingent only upon the sucess of your product?
Basically, it is not an unfair question for them to be posing to the NBA/other interested parties. What is the actual valuation of this long term investment? Because of course these very smart businesses people are going to try and pay as little as possible and get as much as possible of the long term gains from it. It is the job of the players to counter that.
Just like if my Silicon Valley startup had an intrinsic value to investors beyond that of my P&Ls, you can be sure I would be leveraging that when it came to my funding. And my investors would expect me to.
And no one in the world would call it "charity" or think me naive for doing this. |
This all assumes the original group REALLY saw/sees intrinsic value as a long term investment vs goodwill.
I don't think that is a given at the NBA league level or with some of the ownership groups - particularly some tied to the NBA teams.
Let's look at it from yet another angle.
Instead of real long term value what if that spearheading group saw it as a nice PR move and a nice way to avoid noise vs. expecting a tangible Long term return... And invest/invested accordingly. |
If that is the case, the NBA will turn them down and will not adjust their valuation. But as I noted before, I am pretty sure the NBA does see value in normalizing basketball for women as that is 50% of their potential market. And the WNBA is a powerful marketing tool for that. How much that is worth, is what the question becomes.
But most importantly, what I am trying to point out here is that the players seeking the NBA and others to define that value, whether the NBA ultimately would agree or not, is not an unreasonable position to take, and one that is actually quite common in the business world. Yet we get bogged down in so many of these other details that we ignore those factors and think "well how can they possibly expect more money when then league isn't more popular"?
And just to also point out: good PR also has a monetary value to a corporation. It all factors in.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 5:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| MLS has interest from potential owners because ESPN and such pay high rights fees, despite ratings no better than the W's. The NBA let the networks lowball the W. |
Right. This is cyclical. But basic numbers suggest that the idea that we just aren't able to pay the WNBA more is bullshit. For some reason..networks and franchises always seem to find money for men.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TigerVol wrote: |
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world.
It is growing in popularity in the US.
As MLS transitions from being mostly a retirement league to being a balanced feeder/talent/retirement league the potential audience grows.
Not only from improved quality but from player interest.
MLS teams who land young international talent draw new fans. When those player go to the other leagues in England, Germany, Spain and France the MLS fans follow those players - look now a growing US audience for those league games.
When more top league stars finish their careers here when just a step slow vs washed up that improves the quality and draws fans of those players to watch MLS.
The potential upside is HUGE no matter the ratings today.
While there is certainly a viable best case scenario for women's bball the upside potential doesn't come anywhere close to MLS and the holistic world football/soccer scene. |
We've heard this before from a litany of failed US soccer leagues. At best MLS will be the NASL redux. The top players are never gonna come to the US.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 7:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| TigerVol wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Okay, let's tackle this from another direction.
Say you are an employee of a Silicon Valley startup.
This startup was created by a bunch of investors spearheaded by a group that was interested in your product as a long term investment and it was an offshoot of a product that this group was already invested in. They invested in the startup knowing that it would be unlikely to make a profit anytime soon, but was a way for them to increase their marketshare both by introducing a new product and by the overlap with their other investment.
As an employee, would you not be interested in getting paid for what you are contributing to this long term investment, or would you be content with your bosses telling you that your pay is contingent only upon the sucess of your product?
Basically, it is not an unfair question for them to be posing to the NBA/other interested parties. What is the actual valuation of this long term investment? Because of course these very smart businesses people are going to try and pay as little as possible and get as much as possible of the long term gains from it. It is the job of the players to counter that.
Just like if my Silicon Valley startup had an intrinsic value to investors beyond that of my P&Ls, you can be sure I would be leveraging that when it came to my funding. And my investors would expect me to.
And no one in the world would call it "charity" or think me naive for doing this. |
This all assumes the original group REALLY saw/sees intrinsic value as a long term investment vs goodwill.
I don't think that is a given at the NBA league level or with some of the ownership groups - particularly some tied to the NBA teams.
Let's look at it from yet another angle.
Instead of real long term value what if that spearheading group saw it as a nice PR move and a nice way to avoid noise vs. expecting a tangible Long term return... And invest/invested accordingly. |
If that is the case, the NBA will turn them down and will not adjust their valuation. But as I noted before, I am pretty sure the NBA does see value in normalizing basketball for women as that is 50% of their potential market. And the WNBA is a powerful marketing tool for that. How much that is worth, is what the question becomes.
But most importantly, what I am trying to point out here is that the players seeking the NBA and others to define that value, whether the NBA ultimately would agree or not, is not an unreasonable position to take, and one that is actually quite common in the business world. Yet we get bogged down in so many of these other details that we ignore those factors and think "well how can they possibly expect more money when then league isn't more popular"?
And just to also point out: good PR also has a monetary value to a corporation. It all factors in. |
Agree.
I don't blame them for asking. But if the NBA sees great value why haven't they done all the things the players are asking for/about - because things seem pretty stagnent?
I also agree PR and goodwill have value - but likely result in a just enough investment vs the growth and nurture investment you see ina venture you expect to provide a positive return against a profit motive.
A pro sports league is a pro sports league - they are all the same in wanting to pay as little as possible and obfuscate as much as possible when it comes to the books.
I have no idea how much the NBA subsidizes the wnba at this point or if that differs where the teams are closy affiliated vs independent.
I have no idea what to REAL books look like.
I do think there is enough tangible evidence across the league to suggest the profits are not as high as some players believe or want them to be.
I would think there is enough to support some increase, larger differentiation at the top end, an injured reserve and some quality of life improvements. But not sure all teams are pulling enough to support 7 figures for their top players.
I definitely don't think they can pay enough to make most or just the top players wnba only. What would that even look like? If a team oversea will pay say 1M what would the w need to pay to make you forego that 1M? Obviously varies by person but the bigger the bank the tougher to resist doubling up.
Either way I'm glad it isn't my problem to solve - hope they come up with a good solution.
I will also add that Dee could replace the word player with employee and league with company x, y or z. Life is no different in the corporate world.
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 10:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The issues haven't changed from four years ago when Taurasi sat out because Ekat made her a better offer. The league has more money coming in, thanks to CBSSN and Twitter, but the players situation is the same.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/19 10:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Lindsay Whalen's Response (from Twitter):
I just finished Diana’s @espnW article. A few thoughts....
I came into the league in the same season as Diana 2004. Shoutout to the 04 class. 🙌🏻 A couple rings handed out to that draft class. Someone can research how many...
Your first years in the league you are bacially trying to “make” it. The players are so good, the schedule, learning how to be a pro, being really on your own are all huge challenges.
After a while though once you establish yourself you start to think of the players who came before you and those who are coming after you. As a player you very quickly realize if it wasn’t for Dawn, Lisa, Tina, Sheryl, Yo, Taj, Lobo, etc etc you wouldn’t be here.
As well as David Stern, Val Ackerman and all of the owners who invested in women’s basketball. And I am sure many, many more.
After you realize what an opportunity you have because of those amazing people you want to leave the league in a better place than you found it for the future players in the league.
I feel like players in our era are struggling with the fact that we left everything possible on the court to advance the game and we haven’t seen the same results off the court. I never expected to make a million dollars a season or even a half a million dollars a season.
But I sure hope that someday some young girl is able to make that kind of money playing basketball because we pushed the needle forward during our time in the WNBA. As a player in this era of the WNBA that is what my hope is!! That we moved the needle towards that!
As of this moment as a former player I hope we did move that needle forward. I hope that literally the blood, sweat and tears were for future players to make more money to be able to stay home to take care of their bodies and prevent injuries.
I hope we have @wnba teams in the 20s at some point. That way so many of these young players who are giving everything they have to the game have more opportunities to player professionally here at home.
Last tweet...I am so thankful to play in the era of the @wnba I was able to play in and wouldn’t change a thing. We need to do better for our current and future players so in honor of the WNBA’s first slogan we just want it to be better for who’s got next.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 2:54 am ::: Re: I Get It |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Likewise, the WNBA averages almost double the amount of viewers as the MLS and NHL averages about the same (around 400,00 viewers to the MLS 200,000) |
The WNBA has never averaged over 300,000 viewers on ESPN for the regular season. They hit their all-time low in 2017 at 171,000, but bounced back to 231,000 in 2018. The former ESPN ratings low was 180,000 in 2012. But in March of 2013 Adam Silver and Laurel Richie went to ESPN and got them to increase the amount of money they were paying the league. It was speculated that the increased payment right after record low ratings was related to the NBA TV contract negotiations that were coming up.
| Quote: |
Yet espn gave the NHL a 200 million
The MLS 75 million
The WNBA 25 million |
When the MLS/WNBA comparison came up before I looked at the games televised and posted the info here in a thread I can't find. The number of games (including playoffs) on MLS was much higher - something like 75 and I don't think that included the games being broadcast on a Spanish language version of ESPN. MLS viewers also likely have a higher percentage of 25-49 age viewers, particularly males in that category, which is the demographic that advertisers will pay more for.
| Quote: |
Salaries..
The top for NHL is 8.7 million
The top for MLS 4.5 million
The top for WNBA 100K |
The NHL had announced average attendance last year of 17,377 for 41 home games, versus the 17 the WNBA has. The MLS had average announced attendance in 2018 of 21,873 for an identical 17 home games. It is likely that with more attendance comes more sponsorship/advertisement money and higher ticket prices.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 3:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| One thing, though: Comparing the NBA to the WNBA makes little sense. The NBA is the most popular league in the world, and though basketball is a common denominator, the game the men play is much different, much more athletic, than the women's game. |
The NBA didn't make Larry Bird an icon based on his athleticism |
Larry Bird was no Kevin Garnett, but he averaged a 24.3 points and 10 rebounds a game for his career. And his playoff averages were similar - 23.8 points and 10.3 rebounds a game. Seems like it would hard to do that without good athleticism. He didn't jump like Michael Jordan, etc., but his measured standing vertical leap was 28 inches. But if Larry Bird is unathletic, Griner and Cambage, who are listed an inch shorter, would be even less so. So the point would still stand regarding relative athleticism in both leagues.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 9:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't feel the NBA looks at the WNBA as a potential profit center. It's been 20+ years and the franchises have no value.
But the NBA does have a couple of very good reasons to help the league survive:
1) Virtue signalling. The existence of the women's league gives the NBA social credit.
2) Protecting the monopoly. The worst thing that can happen to a professional sports league is a competing league, because that drives salaries up to at least their true market value, if not well beyond. A women's professional basketball league could become the platform on which a competing men's league could be built. That other league, however improbable, could literally cost the NBA billions, so an investment of several million a year in the WNBA is, in essence, insurance. But the NBA doesn't need to pay any more than a minimum for insurance.
Finally, WNBA players earn at least $41,965 for, at most, five months work. This is a very nice salary, and the women get to play basketball for a living. (I just made my "Playing basketball is a privilege" speech to middle school girls last night -- it was 103 outside and at least 90 inside but still, those girls are lucky to be able to participate, and not just because of their skill level.)
Do they deserve more? Sure -- but so do I, and so does everyone else on this board, most likely. Americans work hard, and most of them don't make $41,965 in five months. In 2016, the median individual income (over 1 in the United States was $31,000.
To me, this sounds suspiciously like whining. "How sad -- you have to go to Europe and work 12 months a year and make double the average individual income."
Again, I would love to see these highly skilled, hard-working women make more money. But I would also like to see all hard-working people make more money ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 10:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| As long as the NBA is in charge, there will be no franchise value. They don't want the W to be too successful. They keep the W around for the reasons Clay stated, not because they're actually interested in WBB. It's the same reason the USTA held women's tournaments back in the day. Unfortunately, we don't have a Billie Jean King to lead the players out from under the thumb of the men.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 10:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
To me, this sounds suspiciously like whining. "How sad -- you have to go to Europe and work 12 months a year and make double the average individual income."
Again, I would love to see these highly skilled, hard-working women make more money. But I would also like to see all hard-working people make more money ... |
Active WNBA players are more or less the top 144 people in the world of their specific field (I say more or less because of the foreign players who choose not to come over but likely could displace some of them).
Comparing them to the "average worker" is not really apples to apples. What is the median income of the universally recognized top 144 people in the world for each field that requires a 4 year degree? These aren't "average workers". These are the elite of the elite, the fortune 500 CEOs.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 11:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
But the NBA does have a couple of very good reasons to help the league survive:
1) Virtue signalling. The existence of the women's league gives the NBA social credit.
2) Protecting the monopoly. The worst thing that can happen to a professional sports league is a competing league, because that drives salaries up to at least their true market value, if not well beyond. A women's professional basketball league could become the platform on which a competing men's league could be built. That other league, however improbable, could literally cost the NBA billions, so an investment of several million a year in the WNBA is, in essence, insurance. But the NBA doesn't need to pay any more than a minimum for insurance. |
While I personally find the term "virtue signalling" to be distasteful (and tend to question the ulterior motives of anyone who uses the term unironically), I generally agree with the premise of your first two points. Your third point is just petty meat-peeping.
| Quote: |
I just made my "Playing basketball is a privilege" speech to middle school girls last night... |
Of course you did.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 12:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's a business and the NBA are filled will a bunch of billionaires who--for the most part--became that because they are good at business.
And in business you are not going to invest more than you have to in order to secure your interests. That is the point of the negotiations. The key is for the WNBA players to identify that there is an interest in the NBA keeping the WNBA alive beyond P&L. Up to this point they have subsidized at a certain amount because it has worked. The league has existed for 20 years, and while I am sure the NBA would love for it to take off and really become a true profit generator, they also probably don't see where an infusion of capital would cause this to happen.
So what does this mean? It means that the NBA has no motivation of their own accord to increase their stake in the WNBA. As long as the league can survive, it is meeting their long term investment needs. However, does not mean that they would be unwilling to do so if required. Remember, this is a very deep pocket league. For the cost of one max pay NBA contract you could pretty much end the need for the entire league to have to go overseas. So, it comes down to if the players can pose this pay situation to the league as an existential threat to it, and if they do, what is that worth?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 2:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| And in business you are not going to invest more than you have to in order to secure your interests. That is the point of the negotiations. The key is for the WNBA players to identify that there is an interest in the NBA keeping the WNBA alive beyond P&L. Up to this point they have subsidized at a certain amount because it has worked. The league has existed for 20 years, and while I am sure the NBA would love for it to take off and really become a true profit generator, they also probably don't see where an infusion of capital would cause this to happen. |
Here's the thing, though, and this may come across as a little CT-ish: I'm not sure that they actually would. My wild-ass theory is that the NBA wants the WNBA to not lose money, but actively doesn't want the league to become profitable. If the league actually starts to make some real money, then they'll acquire more agency, more power. They'll have the leverage to do something that they should have done, ever since the NBA sold NBA TV to Turner Sports, which has made it clear for years now that they want nothing to do with women's basketball, and negotiate their own TV contracts.
The NBA is talking out of both sides of its proverbial mouth, when it comes to the WNBA, anyway. You can't try to tell consumers that they should take the league seriously, while also not treating your players like they're really professional athletes. Forget about pay, for a second: at a minimum, they should make a good-faith effort to market the league.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
To me, this sounds suspiciously like whining. "How sad -- you have to go to Europe and work 12 months a year and make double the average individual income."
Again, I would love to see these highly skilled, hard-working women make more money. But I would also like to see all hard-working people make more money ... |
Active WNBA players are more or less the top 144 people in the world of their specific field (I say more or less because of the foreign players who choose not to come over but likely could displace some of them). |
They are only "144 best" if we say their field is professional women's basketball. It isn't typical to divide a field into male and female sections. If the field is professional basketball they are below the G-league players and we could find thousands of amateur males in the USA who are better basketball players than them (which is why I am surprised people are concerned with WNBA talent level after expansion - WNBA fans have already committed to watching noticeably less pro basketball athleticism. Athleticism is not what is driving their viewing).
But they are in the entertainment business. So their worth is determined by how much people want to watch it. If teams in New York and Los Angeles, our two largest cities, can't make a profit, how and why are the teams supposed to pay the players more? I don't think the owners can ignore the fact that attendance and TV viewing have both hit all-time lows after the 20th season of the league. But if the super-rich NBA wants to add money for WNBA salaries because the league fulfills other goals, that's fine. I actually think a better model would be to pay less so these teams make money - go with players who get cut from teams if existing players would not play in that circumstance. I would be as happy to watch Tori Jankowski as Sue Bird and I suspect that would be felt by a large majority of WNBA fans, even if the 50 regulars on this board would be very unhappy.
Last edited by tfan on 07/25/19 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/19 4:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
To me, this sounds suspiciously like whining. "How sad -- you have to go to Europe and work 12 months a year and make double the average individual income."
Again, I would love to see these highly skilled, hard-working women make more money. But I would also like to see all hard-working people make more money ... |
Active WNBA players are more or less the top 144 people in the world of their specific field (I say more or less because of the foreign players who choose not to come over but likely could displace some of them). |
They are only "144 best" if we say their field is professional women's basketball. It isn't typical to divide a field into male and female sections. If the field is professional basketball they are below the G-league players and we could find thousands of amateur males in the USA who are better basketball players than them (which is why I am surprised people are concerned with WNBA talent level after expansion - WNBA fans have already committed to watching noticeably less pro basketball athleticism. Athleticism is not what is driving their viewing).
|
Their field is Women's Basketball. Why add in things that they are not? They are not Men's Basketball players. They are not brain surgeons either. Or plumbers.
The reason the WNBA is the pinnacle of the craft is that they have pushed themselves to the extent of the human condition. We have weight classes in boxing and in wrestling. Do we diminish the abilities of the welterweight champion because they are not the heavyweight? Do we worry that a less skilled heavyweight wrestler could probably mop up the floor with the very best featherweight? Do we say, hmm, we should just get rid of all of these other weight classes because they are meaningless?
Or is it the competition of people who are the very best at what they do once put on an even playing field?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|
