It shocks the hell out of me how major media outlets post hyperbolic articles based on incomplete information that is readily available.

#8

See post 4. It's simple economics, not gender bias.

And because actual operating costs between the leagues aren't as disparate as are the differences in revenues generated, currently the WNBA players make far less of an overall percentage than do NBA players. Also the calculation of what qualifies as league-wide, player shareable revenue is different as well.

As mentioned above, this is likely to change when a new CBA is negotiated after this season.

#11

I don't know any other way for it to be read/understood. He's saying "Maybe the NBA's problem is that they pay too much."

The NBA pays 50% of it's defined revenues in salaries to its players as negotiated in the CBA. Franchise values continue to rise as do overall revenues making the owners even more wealthy than the billionaires they all happen to be.

In 1983, Mel and Herb Simon - shopping center magnates - paid $10.5 million. Today the team is rated by Forbes to be worth right at $3 billion - though always gauge current values to whatever was paid when the last francise was sold. Obviously, debt (if any), player valuations, arena contracts/maintenance costs, andlocal broadcasting contracts impact current values among other factors.

13

That was in reference to the Indiana Pacers. Herb Simon - his brother Mel is now deceased - also owns the Indiana Fever.

#12

I can't think of a fairer way to divide revenue between employees and employers than a negotiated 50/50 split. There have been years where revenue targets were not reached and the players were required to giveback money to the owners that was placed in escrow and work under a lowered salary cap.

Ten years ago, NBA players received 57% of defined revenues. In the last CBA, players actually took a haircut - though it hardly seems like it as today's top players will make $50+ million per season.

#16

All American major sports players associations have implimented required fiscal educational programs and employ personnel to assist and keep players informed on managing their income as do their agents, should they retain one.

But again, some players will ignore sound advice and end up broke or in debt after making millions during their careers, especially shorter careers.

OT

OT

Just off the top of my head, I'd say the W (that's what the hip kids are calling it... /s) commish underestimated the next media rights deal by magnitudes of 100s of Million$. This story is full of viewership numbers which have never been reached by any female athlete and her sport that are higher than every sport other than the NFL.

But the absolute proof that Caitlin will usher in a new era of womens basketball viewers from all key demographics and one very special demographic - the NBA can't match and would like more eyes from to view its games too - : Women 18 - 54.

And with bettors interested in everything she does (there's a bet site ad with Caitlin prop odds for her entire first season's totals shown in the story), bet sites themselves will likely sign onto W partnerships as the increasing popularity of the league will add to their own bottom lines with increased nightly handles.

And because of - and fueled by - betting, men basketball fans are definitely planning to tune in and watch this basketball savant move to the next level and then find themselves hooked by the competitiveness and talent of all the W's best players. Above, some were asking why the NBA is more lucrative than the W. It's percentage growth in value from here on out will dwarf the NBA's - maybe until a day comes where they become nearly equivalent?

The money is already being spent and the numbers of eyeballs wanting to see Caitlin keep on increasing. I live in Indianapolis. People here already realize that Elvis is entering the building and she plays a game that everyone wants to see, watch and enjoy. That last word is key: Everyone seems to enjoy watching Caitlin do her thing, and that is a power few individuals engender on the scale that she does. I'm calling it right now. Caitlin Clark will be the first female athlete billionaire - and it won't take her as long to get there as it did Tiger Woods.(Thanks inflation!)

Or LeBron.

Who actually watches the WNBA?

"The finals averaged 728,000 viewers across ABC and ESPN..."

2.45 million watched the WNBA draft two nights ago where Clark was chosen first. 18.9 million watched Caitlin play with her team in the NCAA Championship game two weeks ago. I think that interest in her has been both confirmed and substantiated and is only growing at the moment.

Hence, this thread.

36

I spent 20 minutes composing my post and watching tonight's play-in game, so I didn't see your post with the same information. I wasn't intentionally trying to be redundant.

For instance I looked for a team to go see games and root for.

For the majority of Americans that isn't a realistic possibility, even for millions who do live in cities with teams. Generations have been born and died without ever attending a game of the teams they were obsessed with their entire lives.

That's why viewership is one of the most important metrics of any professional sport's popularity and profitability. And today's paradigm acknowledges the importance of being on non-traditional media as well as terrestrial tv and radio. Again, more possible streams of income than ever before.

To be honest, I am still trying to understand all the money flowing into commercialized sports.

I do not understand it. Or why it occurs.

It's simply entertainment, that's it. No different than events in the Roman colleseums.

We enjoy watching our gladiators - the elitest of athletes - doing things we only wish we could do or used to be able to do.

And we're entertained. And for that, billions of us will spend our discretionary time and/or money to witness these contests as they occur, sharing in a communal experience with those there in attendance and those who aren't through electronic media.

Why is it allowed?

Deregulation.

#49

Your apple/oranges comparison of sports shows you have little idea how things really work. The largest NBA arena seats 23K. Some football stadiums can seat 100K+, but most NFL stadiums are between 60/80 thousand. Baseball stadiums are typically between 40-50K and they play 81 home games per season.

The W plays 40 games per season in the summertime, a non-traditional time for the sport.

No one is making any claims that women's sports is poised to dominate television ratings. The point being made is that interest in Caitlin Clark has been outsized compared to the numbers you noted when compared to ALL sports viewing combined. More people watched her, her team, and competitors in the NCAA tournament (18.9M) than ANY OTHER TELEVISED SPORTING EVENT since 2019 besides top NFL games and Olympic coverage.

The fact that 2.45 million people watched a DRAFT when the actual W Finals competition only averaged 1/3 the eyeballs proves that her presence is peaking public interest in numbers never seen before.

The comparison isn't against other non-sports programming, it's about how she's bringing eyeballs on tvs and putting butts into seats in unprecedented numbers. Those numbers are going to translate into a spike in revenues for all those who stand to profit from the wave she's riding.

Am I certain the viewership numbers will remain at the NCAA tournament level? Highly unlikely. But what is almost a lock to happen is an increase in viewership related to her in multiples of current norms which in turn will help popularize the other teams and opponents within their own cities and regions brought to the game through their interest in her.

So, attendance is headed towards new records and it's likely the Fever will sell out every game they play this season, home or road; television ratings will hit new highs for WNBA viewership on all the network's platforms; and she'll continue to reap larger and larger personal endorsement contracts as companies will want to tie themselves to this popular comet that only comes around once or twice in a generation.

CC is simply the perfect storm of marketing opportunity meeting otherworldly skill, desire, and talent that will drive billions of dollars in revenues for those fortunate enough to be in her wake.

The NBA record attendance is 100k.

That's a one off, not a venue where an NBA team plays 41 home games each year.

And what's your obsession with attendance? Most teams (especially in major media markets) make the bulk of their money from television/media deals these days. Most professional sports could be played on studio sets without fans and the enterprise would still be worth billions.

Need I remind you of the Bubble just 4 years ago with zero fans? The in-arena/stadium fan experience can be wonderful, but it's increasingly priced out of most American's budgets.

#55

No, we're having a "look at the trajectory of what's happening" moment and realizing when a transcendent talent - like Tiger - emerges and captures the masses' attention, and then extrapolating what that means as it regards all the business related to that dynamic.

Your bigoted remark looks foolish based on the history of Tiger Woods and how he changed professional golf. Her talent makes her popular in its own right. And of course, it doesn't hurt that she looks like the girl next door for quite a lot of people.

But most of this is based on what CC means for all the others who also stand to profit from her ability to draw crowds and perform her sport in a manner that is both unique, attractive, and entertaining to the point people are willing to pay top dollar for the privilege of watching her do her thing.

Making sure she became the 1st female player to make
over 100k per year.

Most of the top WNBA players make far more than $100K per year. It's documented above in one of the first posts.

The WNBA can't pay money that they don't yet have. Salaries will balloon as soon as popularity does - hence the underlying dynamics of this thread.

Really?

Yes really. But why do you keep trying to conflate economics with other factors? Of course she's not going to have the cultural/social impact just like Tiger, but she's already having a cultural impact by attracting both young and old to watch her play that weren't interested in womens basketball before.

Where she's like Tiger will be her economic impact on the league and other players and enterprises tied into both. She's getting ready to sign the most lucrative shoe contract in woman's history with Nike. Sound familiar? Tiger did the same thing for golfers with his initial contracts, and his bending of the curve in popularity/marketability began long before he joined the PGA. CC is heading into economic-impact territory that no woman has occupied before.

A single CC game can be worth millions to the city where it's played. This is already quantified by her college journey. And the W's placement in the sports calender and its lack of competitors will only enhance the effect her popularity has already established.

Until we know, we're not going to know, but that's how I see it for the reasons I've listed ad nauseum. We'll all see what happens within the next handful of months. But I'm watching what's happening every single day already, which is why I feel so strongly about my predictions. They're not as much forward looking as they are historically based. This is what happens to America's sports darlings (both male and female) when they transcend their sports and become singular celebrities and marketing juggernauts in their own right.

#62 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2024-04-18 10:11 AM | FLAG: (CHOOSE) | FUNNY: 1

I love it when I present people with accurate information and then they want to make that presentation about me. I'm not "invested" in anything but gathering and analyzing information as it's presented to me.

She wants Liv Golf money,

You don't even know what the issue is. CC doesn't WANT anything. It's about what she's bringing to the table and how she will be the economic tide to lift all boats - meaning both the WBNA and her fellow players.

and we definitely do not agree on fundamentals of tv ad sales.

It's not just about tv "sales", it's about global marketing potential on all platforms, not just tv. CC will bring eyeballs to WNBA games and she'll spur sales of the products she's paid to represent. Again, this isn't conjecture, it's reality.

Sitz, if you use Google you can find hundreds of stories in financial and popular media trying to speculate about all the things I've mentioned far beyond what's been posted. You literally have a trodlodytic view of what's about to happen as it regards the economics of CC than it already has over the last few years.

The Tiger Woods analogy is apt. CC will drive interest in her sport just like Tiger did for the PGA. More interest, means more advertisers and sponsors, higher tv ratings and ultimately much higher revenues than ever before. It's only a matter of days before this rocket takes off, so it's not going to be long for this to manifest itself.

Did you bother to note the ticket sales and prices she's driving? CC is a game changer and the other star female basketball players will also benefit from the focus she's bringing to herself and the game so many enjoy watching her play.

It would have boosted sales, attendance, interest even farther...
it certainly would not have been 'out of line', for her projected impact.

As I showed you earlier, Clark will not make $75K from the WNBA this season, she'll make another $250K due to the league's Player Marketing Agreements.

I can't think of a single person who's NOT going to watch Clark because of the predetermined WNBA's salary structure. It's existed for 25 years under various iterations. No one can pay someone based on the future in the present. Not to mention the fact the other players would rightly revolt if the league decided to pay one player more than the others, especially veterans.

The earnings gap between W and NBA players will start to shrink as soon as the next WNBA player's CBA is negotiated at the end of the 2025 season. Simply demanding more for one person is not how union bargaining works.

It would have boosted sales, attendance, interest even farther...

Almost all her games are nearing sellouts for the entire season as it is, and the average ticket price to see the Fever play is hundreds of dollars higher than with any other WNBA team. So how could the above be true?

If anything, people are going to start complaining of being priced out of being able to see her in person. Even here in Indianapolis with 21 upcoming games, the upper deck seats that were $5 are now $55, and on the resale market some are priced at $160+. Other cities ticket prices AVERAGE $500+ for Fever games and these are arenas with upwards of 20,000 seats.

What the W pays Clark is really irrelevant to those interested in seeing her and her team play.

78 cont.

2 tickets 3 rows off the floor in front of the visitor's bench are going for $1900 apiece for a Fever game here in Indy.

2 floor tickets next to the bench in Brooklyn when the Fever play the NY Liberty on going for $7155 apiece. Tickets 4 rows back are $2355 apiece.

NBA rookie salary is $10M.

Only for the number 1 pick. No other rookie makes that amount.

My prediction is that by the next CBA we'll see the top players salaries between $500K - $1M.

The discrepancy exists not due to sexism. It exists because of the difference between revenues.

If the W's viewership numbers even reach 50% of what the NCAA tournament saw, the next W contract will also rise exponentially, probably into the low billions from today's around $60 million.

#81

You're not paying attention. Soccer is still a foreign sport trying to make inroads in the US. Basketball is quinessential heartland passion. It's popularity is not going to phase itself out anymore than our other seasonal sports do.

And CC is already becoming a national pitchman for products Americans already use and consume daily. When her shoe comes out, it will break all existing records possibly reaching Jordan status over time. EVERY kid can wear CC shoes. Women's soccer had/has no game related product to market other than jerseys and those are licensed to USWNT not the individual players themselves.