WNBA Players Opt Out of Contract in Push for Higher Salaries

"No longer will the wealthy owners take advantage of their workers.
#1 | Posted by LampLighter"

What are you talking about? The WNBA lost $40M last year.

www.sportspromedia.com

Demanding owners pay even more money for a product that literally has only one player people actually want to see and is hemorrhaging money is ridiculous. Frankly, the NBA should give Caitlin Clark 30% of the league revenue and pay the rest about $20/hour. Yes, the Harlem Globetrotters have to pay someone, but no one is going to the games to see the Washington Generals. Same thing with the WNBA.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2024-10-20 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

The WNBA lost $40M last year.

Only because the owners are frigging idiots and deserve their stupid fate.

*ESPN had its best season yet, with the cable network averaging 1.19 million viewers (+170% from last season). ESPN also saw its seven best WNBA games ever this season. ABC had its two best games ever this season (led by 2.23 million for the Fever taking on the Seattle Storm on Aug. 18). ESPN2 had its best WNBA game ever as well (2.12 million for Fever and the Connecticut Sun on May 14).

*The eight WNBA games on CBS averaged 1.1 million viewers, a new record for CBS and up 86% from last year.
ION averaged 670,000 viewers in its second season with WNBA games, and that average for Friday night games was up 133% from Year 1. Almost half (45%) of the ION WNBA audience was female.

*On NBA TV, games averaged 240,000 viewers over 40 games (the bulk of WNBA national windows). That is NBA TV's best WNBA figure since 2011. A recent Aces-Fever game was NBA TV's best WNBA game ever with 678,000 viewers (NBA TV set a WNBA record eight times this season).

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

The league should have renegotiated all their media contracts before the start of season, or at minimum negotiated sweetners if certain levels of viewership were reached. No one should be bound by a contract that allows them to lose money when they're delivering outsized benefits to their partners which would allow everyone to benefit.

I guarantee you this: Once it became obvious that Caitlin Clark's popularity transferred from college to record viewership for WNBA broadcast partners (and delivered unheard of numbers of women in the most prized demographic) these outlets upped the price they charged for commercials, just like the arenas charged higher ticket prices for Fever games than for all the others, including last year's champion, Las Vegas with all-world A'ja Wilson.

And not to mention, teams like Dallas and Chicago didn't move their home games with CC to larger NBA arenas in their own cities, guaranteeing multi-million dollar single gates, that's on ownership, not the players. The W is only going to become more popular in the coming years with the continual influx of already-famous college talent (thanks NIL) heading to the league.

The only reason the W lost money this year is because of puny thinking by their owners and management. The money was there for the taking, and their tv partners were only happy to rake it up.

"Frankly, the NBA should give Caitlin Clark 30% of the league revenue and pay the rest about $20/hour."

A little harsh ... ...

Tony Roma,

It's a business. Extremely difficult to renegotiate terms, in advance of expiring co tracts, on the promise that Clark would drive ratings with no proven track record of having done so.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

There's a simple solution to this.

Inquire within.

They are still going to play next season so the owners can get it together prior to the following season.

They have time to get to terms.

The league should have renegotiated all their media contracts before the start of season, or at minimum negotiated sweetners if certain levels of viewership were reached.

They had no leverage. Clark hadn't played, and they don't play that many games.

Next year, I predict WNBA viewership will be 10-20% greater than what it was before Clark. People dropped off quickly.

WNBA blew it, they won't be able to parlay it into long term growth because the players, Olympics, didn't accept Clark.

Coulda been a contender.

No one should be bound by a contract that allows them to lose money when they're delivering outsized benefits to their partners which would allow everyone to benefit.

What? Should a homeowner not be bound by their mortgage contract because I am losing money? This is just a silly statement.

The outsized benefits of everyone getting out of their contracts.

Contracts are only as good as your lawyers.

-Extremely difficult to renegotiate terms,

The owners need to start getting the revenue the media is willing to pay.

They are still going to play next season so the owners can get it together prior to the following season.
They have time to get to terms.
#10 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The league has to wait to see viewship numbers. If I were the "media" I would wait to see if it sticks before signing a long term contract.

Maybe a one year contract. Other than that, prove Clark effect has legs.

What? Should a homeowner not be bound by their mortgage contract because I am losing money? This is just a silly statement.

Not at all. Go talk to Bally Sports Network/Fox Sports regionals or other networks having to bail on sports contracts every year, leaving teams and fans in a lurch.

The leverage is just what I stated: The WNBA has a valuable property that just exploded in popularity and brought ION network its largest audiences ever - full of women who weren't watching that network before. Sports rights are truly partnerships, and when one side brings an enhanced value to the table, it's not wrong to expect that to be recognized.

At the end of the day, the networks want and need the eyeballs the WNBA delivered to them beyond what was thought possible when the current contracts were signed. It's called leverage, and it's no different than players holding out while they're still under contract. There isn't another show that can replace the eyeballs the W is now bringing, especially with Caitlin Clark and the other hyper-popular players. When a player outplays his/her contract, oftentimes owners will rip up the old and give them a new one. This is not unusual for generational talents.

Well, these were all-time record ratings, something equally similar. Don't think for a second that there aren't other networks willing to pay more than the current partners are - even if litigation takes place over contract breeches. But I get good faith partnerships and that's the way business should be run. But no intelligent businessperson should stand by and lose tens of millions while watching partners make even more off the backs of those losing so much. It's simply bad business. And if things drop off, then the reverse should be true as well. Both sides should get what they deserve based on the success or lack thereof of the entire enterprise itself.

If I were the "media" I would wait to see if it sticks before signing a long term contract.

They already did - again, at a number I think favors the media and not the league. Starting with the 2026 season, rights will increase to $220 million per season from $60 million. While that sounds like a lot of money, it isn't in context. The NBA stands to make $76 BILLION over the next 11 years, almost $7 billion annually.

Caitlin Clark outdrew college football on ESPN, and she drew over a million viewers going straight up against an NFL Sunday afternoon slate of games. No programming before has done this. Her games set viewership records on multiple platforms and if you actually knew anything about anything, nothing is going to change unless she gets injured. She is the unicorn networks have always wanted. She draws fans from 4 to 94 and the highest women's demographics for the number of viewers - the most coveted demo in all of television since women inform 80% of purchase decisions.

ESPN isn't getting that from UFC fights and ESPN Bets.

CC games have gotten higher ratings than NBA games on the same platforms (ESPN/ABC/NBA TV), so except that the W plays fewer games than the NBA, it's absurd to think that its rights are only worth 3% compared to the NBA's. The W underestimated its own value - and I hope the players drive this home by the time the CBA negotiations are over.

on the promise that Clark would drive ratings with no proven track record of having done so.

No track record? Just how ignorant are you?

2024 Final - S Car-Iowa: 18.7 million (ABC)
2024 Final Four - Iowa-UConn: 14.2 million (ESPN)
2024 Elite Eight - Iowa-LSU: 12.3 million (ESPN)
2023 Final - LSU-Iowa: 9.9 million (ABC)

www.forbes.com

"We know Caitlin Clark is a phenomenon on the court, but CSI has worked hard to quantify her star power off the court," added Josh Schamberger, president of Think Iowa City and the Iowa City Area Sports Commission. "Her impact on Iowa's economy has been significant in generating an estimated $82.5 million in increased community and state consumer spending," said.

corridorbusiness.com

Yeah, no one could have known.

Jezzus, you're a dumbazz ignoramus.

Tony Roma,

No guarantee that would have translated to the WNBA. Further, she had yet to play against professional level competition. In hindsight maybe it was predictable. But the business world, especially pro sports doesn't always work that way. Sure, teams will take a gamble drafting players but we are talking about the entire league negotiating off the hype of one rookie and even now no guarantee her hype and interest is sustainable. Further, the ratings boost mostly came from games when the Fever was playing, not the entire league. What if next year she suffers a season-ending injury or worse? Sound businesses rarely put all of their eggs into one basket.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

There's a simple solution to this.

Inquire within.

No guarantee that would have translated to the WNBA. Further, she had yet to play against professional level competition.

Why do you keep saying entirely ignorant things? Just WHERE do you think most of the WNBA players came from? They came from COLLEGES here in the US, except for a few foreign players that didn't go to US schools.

Let's do a quick thought experiment. The 4 leading all-time scorers in women's college basketball are Kelsey Plum, Dyashia Fair, Kelsey Mitchell, and #1 Caitlin Clark. What do all 4 have in common? They're all WNBA players - 3 of them being All-Stars and CC being 1st team All WNBA. But you think anyone paying attention didn't believe she'd succeed? Are you Gino Auriemma?

Did any of those all-time leading scorers generate anything close to the ratings Clark has generated?

"CC games have gotten higher ratings than NBA games on the same platforms (ESPN/ABC/NBA TV), so except that the W plays fewer games than the NBA, it's absurd to think that its rights are only worth 3% compared to the NBA's.
#15 | Posted by tonyroma"

It is when you take into account that the only team/player people actually want to see is Caitlin Clark. Maybe the Fever should negotiate vs. the rest of the league for a higher % payout on the gate when they play Indiana and do their own TV deal.

Now, I don't like the NBA and it is actually a dying league, but their 2024 finals drew ~6M people a game (and this was down from 11M in 2023) vs. the WNBA at 1.1ish - and the playoffs is the only time worth watching the NBA.

Further, with 12 teams and 40 games, vs. the NBA's 30 teams and 82 games, the NBA offers 5x more games per year. So, 5x the number of games and 5-10x the viewership in the peak season and the NBA's TV rights should be worth 25-50x more than the WNBA TV rights. Further, if Caitlin Clark gets injured of pregnant, it is likely that the WNBA falls off the face of the earth again.

Also for comparison, WWE Monday Night Raw draws about 1.5M viewers despite being on USA Network and USA Network only pays $25M/year for the broadcast rights. So, I would argue that the WNBA is way overpaid now and the league losses only solidify that.

Now, I don't like the NBA and it is actually a dying league,

What a moron like you fails to recognize is that both the NBA and WNBA aren't just USA-based properties, they're global! And the W draws more female viewers in the most prized demographic than any other sport on television.

Sports viewing is bifurcated today due to streaming and narrow-casting unlike earlier days when it was primarily seen on major networks and cable outlets. And it takes a particular type of stupidity to call a league that just signed a $76 billion rights deal as 'dying'. They don't want nor need ignorant pinhead moron viewers like you - which is likely why you choose not to watch.

As I stated, some of the W's games on the same platforms as the NBA outdrew the senior league in viewership. And the women's NCAA basketball championship outdrew the men's championship game. What does that tell you?

WWE annual revenue is $1.3 billion, the NBA's is $10.58 billion as of the 2023 season. USA is not trying to draw the demographic that the W delivers its advertising partners - again, something you apparently failed to consider as part of the overall calculation. Women's eyeballs are simply worth more than men's for the very reason I noted above: "Over 80 percent of purchases and purchase influence are made by women."

The ONLY reason sports are valued by broadcast outlets are for the amounts and types of eyeballs they bring to a singular event that advertisers can market their products to. You woefully underestimate the value the W delivers that men's sports do not for the most prized demographic of all in marketing.

"What a moron like you fails to recognize is that both the NBA and WNBA aren't just USA-based properties, they're global!"

The NBA has been global for 2 decades since Yao Ming. This is nothing new and will not stop the long term trend of audience decreasing. NBA finals viewership has fallen by 40-50% over the last decade. That is a dying league.

"And the W draws more female viewers in the most prized demographic than any other sport on television."

Is this a joke? The NBA televised games averaged under 700,000 viewers last year even with the Caitlin Clark effect. The NFL averages 10-20M per game and nearly half their audience is female. Are you bad at math of something?

"As I stated, some of the W's games on the same platforms as the NBA outdrew the senior league in viewership. And the women's NCAA basketball championship outdrew the men's championship game. What does that tell you?"

It tells me that basketball at both the pro and college level is dying and there is unprecedented demand to watch CAITLIN CLARK. Let's see where their ratings are this year. In 2022, the Women's championship game drew 4.5M people - last year was an anomaly and not the new normal.

"You woefully underestimate the value the W delivers that men's sports do not for the most prized demographic of all in marketing.
#22 | Posted by tonyroma"

Vs. the dying NBA, yes, the WNBA is holding its own for games featuring Caitlin Clark, they are murked whenever it is any other team. And vs. NFL or college football, they are simply not in the same league.

"WWE annual revenue is $1.3 billion
#22 | Posted by tonyroma"

That was in 2022. WWE just signed a deal with Netflix to carry Monday Night Raw for the next 10 years at $500M per year.

The entire WNBA generates about $200M per year. Even with the new TV deal, the WNBA is still peanuts compared to the WWE. So, tell me again about how much advertisers want those WNBA eyeballs.

For the record, up until Caitlin Clark joined the WNBA, the viewership was mainly male. I believe even now the NBA has less than 50% of the viewers as females. Shockingly, not even women wanted to watch non-athletic, tall, lesbians miss layups and shoot 3pt airballs.

Savannah Bananas gear is now in major sporting goods stores, they have 4x more social media on just the team page and players with 10x more followers than CC. It's 16x more than the Fever. With no TV deals.

WNBA and the players are bad at marketing.

WNBA?

The not-quite-as-corrupt version that is also merely a streetball shooting contest with no defense played, and with a smaller basketball?

Good luck with that.

I heard about the Caitlin Clark bandwagon. So, I did something I never would have done before and watched some of the WNBA finals, and man, it was bad. It was a very close, decisive Game 5, won by the Liberty, but the play was about what'd you expect to see from a first-round game in the ACC Tournament, with the number eleven and 14 seeds futilely battling it out. It was technically basketball, but it's women's basketball.

Instead of paying players exorbitant compensation the teams should be paying for stadiums and all the security and other maintenance and other misc costs paid by taxpayers..

The entire WNBA generates about $200M per year.

I don't know why I keep kicking your --- all over this thread with your ignorant comments.

Business of Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) Report Overview

The total sponsorship revenue in the Business of WNBA is estimated at $671.5 million in 2024.

www.globaldata.com

WNBA merchandise sales for the 2024 season were up a massive 601% compared to 2023, the league said. Sales were calculated from the WNBA's website as well as the NBA store in New York City. reported that its WNBA merchandise saw a year-over-year sales increase of 233%.

www.marketwatch.com

Keep looking backwards Deadman, that's what idiots always do. You can't see the future because you're constantly looking backwards.

Wanna doubt the popularity of the W? Without Caitlin Clark the W Finals Game 5 - going against Sunday Night Football did this:

WNBA Finals Game 5 draws highest viewership in 25 years

The fifth game of this year's WNBA Finals between the Minnesota Lynx and the New York Liberty was the most-viewed WNBA finals game in 25 years across all networks, according to ESPN, citing Nielsen data. The game aired on ESPN and topped out at 3.3 million viewers.

The viewership for Game 5 is especially impressive considering the competition for attention Sunday night. Both the National Football League's "Sunday Night Football" and Major League Baseball's National League Championship Series aired at the same time.

The WNBA set viewership records in nearly every category this year. WNBA games on ESPN averaged 1.2 million viewers per broadcast, a 170% increase from last season.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/22/wnba-championship-game-viewership.html

And that increase in gear sales goes straight to the owners off the general revenue sheet because of cumulative revenue sharing, which increases the targeted revenue trigger by 20% annually each year. Look it up.

Long story short, the players don't get a dime from gear sales with their own names on the jerseys because of their current deal with the league. And the league doesn't publicly disclose gear revenue figures, adding insult to injury. The loss figures are bogus. It's the same thing the NBA used to do year after year during it's growth in the 90s. Current owners are furious at Adam Silver because the league mixes revenue figures between the league making it impossible to accurately calculate profits and losses. The players are only paid 9.3% of W revenue in salaries per the old agreement. The NBA players make 50%.

And the league is adding a new San Francisco team next season and only charged $25 million to the Warrior's owner. Toronto is getting a team in 2026, and their entry fee is $125 million. Currently the Las Vegas Aces are the most valuable team at $140 million and the least valuable franchise is the Atlanta Dream, worth $55 million. Why in the world would the league lowball franchise fees? And currently, the owners don't get any cut of expansion franchise fees.

Don't believe the lowball numbers you're spoon-fed about the W being a revenue loser. They aren't, and since most of the owners paid pittances for their franchises, they've made out like bandits during this spike. And also, owners can take out loans against their team's value, so yes, they can be monetized without selling the teams.

Everything to know about tomorrow's ticker-tape parade for New York Liberty
www.nbcnewyork.com

... There have been more than 200 ticker-tape parades in New York City. The most recent one celebrating a sports team came prior to the pandemic, when the U.S. women's soccer team won the World Cup in 2019 ...

We've got less than 24 hours until what's sure to be an epic ticker-tape parade fting the New York Liberty following their first-ever WNBA championship, an overtime conquest that made all sorts of history.

City Hall released details on the parade, including timing and route, earlier this week. Thursday's ticker-tape parade will mark the third time the honor is bestowed upon a women's sports team in New York City.

It's the first such parade the city has held in years.

Here are the details. ...