The Crane Pool Forum

Caitlin Clark, the #1 pick in the WNBA signed a contract worth $338,056. Not per year, that's for FOUR YEARS.

Victor Wembanyama, the #1 pick in the 2023 NBA draft, signed a contract that will pay him $55,174,766 over the same four years.

There's no good way to spin this. WNBA salaries are a joke.

No the NBA salaries are a joke

Or actually they are a bigger joke. Yeah she could make that money at a desk job

I don't mind players making a lot of money; they are the product after all. This is a multi-billion dollar industry, and players deserve their share. But that doesn't mean that some salaries aren't ridiculous. (I'm looking at Blake Snell right now, but there are many other examples.)

As for women's basketball, it's absurd to think that I'd have to take a pay cut to become a star in the WNBA. (Not that I'm receiving many offers to do that.)

It's the game. Our dollars chase the men's sports.

If we want her to get a better slice of the pie, we can either better support the WNBA, or start a new and better women's basketball league. But this is why Brittany Griner ended up in Russia.

Personally, I'd rather have a women's baseball league, but I suspect MLB would take control and ruin it pretty quickly.

Lefty Specialist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:12 am Caitlin Clark, the #1 pick in the WNBA signed a contract worth $338,056. Not per year, that's for FOUR YEARS.

Victor Wembanyama, the #1 pick in the 2023 NBA draft, signed a contract that will pay him $55,174,766 over the same four years.

There's no good way to spin this. WNBA salaries are a joke.

She's probably making more from her endorsements than from the league.

But here's a question. Have you ever attended a WNBA game, or watched one on television, or bought a New York Liberty t-shirt? I honestly have not. But if I, and a lot more of us, did those things the league would have more revenue to spend, and be able to pay players more. The top drawing team in the WNBA averaged 9,551 fans per game. The NBA average is 18,0000.

I'm not an economist, but I suspect the salaries of the WNBA players are in proportion to the league's revenue and Wembanyama's salary is proportional to the NBA's revenue. I don't know if there is some great conspiracy to suppress WNBA salaries.

Maybe Caitlin Clark will change that, grow interest in the league and in women's sports in general. That would be fantastic and I hope it happens.

On edit, Edgy got there before I did and makes good points.

The WNBA, all women's sports, really, would tell you that access to the game has been the issue. They've traditionally gotten worse TV spots (championship day games vs. prime time for men), on channels with lower viewership (raise you hand if you know what cannel Ion TV is), etc. Once more people actually see the games they will develop better followings is the thinking.

whippoorwill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:13 am Yeah she could make that money at a desk job

I'm admittedly very much out of touch with the current salary market, especially the entry-level salary market. But what kind of a desk job exists where Caitlin could make a starting salary of almost $90K a year on the merits and with her skill set? I know that some lawyers could make that dough coming straight out of school but Caitlin doesn't have that background or the degree she'd need for that gig.


BTW, I have no issues with the disparities between the salaries of NBA and WNBA players, unless there's some collusion or illegal activities going on. I assume that the NBA generates a heck of a lot more money than the WNBA does. By like many multiples. And that's why the men get paid more. Wembayama wouldn't have been offered a $55M contract if the Spurs couldn't have afforded to pay it.

the argument is that by not offering games in more prime spots, you don't have the opportunity to draw in the advertising revenue needed to support the bigger salaries.

is it true that, offered in more prime spots, the womens' games would draw enough viewers to merit the advertising revenue? that remains to be seen.

i will say that i watched more womens' college basketball (a few hours) this year than mens' (near-zero hours), and i also watched more womens' college basketball than NBA or WNBA (zero hours both). and, i daresay that i enjoyed those games more than most basketball games i've watched recently.

the mens game, and the NBA, looks too much like the old NBA Jam video game from back in the day, and so much less like basketball. i can't get into it. the womens' game looks like basketball. i dig it. but i really don't watch basketball

i don't know what caitlin clark's degree is, or what her academic aptitude is, but she could readily get that starting salary in an engineering field, no doubt, if that were her specialty. [OE: well, close to it, based on some additional research]

that she didn't pursue engineering needn't be evidence that she couldn't hack it, either. just that clearly, her interests lay elsewhere. googling tells me that she's an honors student in marketing, which doesn't pay quite as well as engineering. but it also indicates she's [oe: probably] no dummy.

metsmarathon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:29 pm the argument is that by not offering games in more prime spots, you don't have the opportunity to draw in the advertising revenue needed to support the bigger salaries.

is it true that, offered in more prime spots, the womens' games would draw enough viewers to merit the advertising revenue? that remains to be seen.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg argument. More Prime Time WNBA TV spots would bring the league more revenue. But those additional TV spots are probably not being offered in the first place because the networks believe that alternative programming would be more profitable than the WNBA.

Famous ex-jocks who end up in the corporate world tend to do really well, and climb the ladder really fast. A real-estate syndicate or a mutual fund or a digital brand licensing agency closes a lot more deals when one of the suits at the closing table is Rex Chapman or Michael Phelps or Picabo Street.

I was at a job once and we had our retirement plan reps in the building paying us their annual or semi-annual visit, and an e-mail went around asking if we had any questions about our plan to come to the conference room. No traffic seemed to be moving in that direction, because those questions come up when they come up, and then you dial the 800 number on your card and wait for a rep.

But then about 45 minutes later, a second e-mail went out letting us know that their Corporate Vice President of Sales Dick Butkus was part of the visiting party, and he'll be answering questions and signing shit, and maybe posing for photos if there was enough time, and things changed real fast. And when we had a chance to switch our account holder, we renewed with the same retirement fund.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:38 pm

metsmarathon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:29 pm the argument is that by not offering games in more prime spots, you don't have the opportunity to draw in the advertising revenue needed to support the bigger salaries.

is it true that, offered in more prime spots, the womens' games would draw enough viewers to merit the advertising revenue? that remains to be seen.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg argument. More Prime Time WNBA TV spots would bring the league more revenue. But those additional TV spots are probably not being offered in the first place because the networks believe that alternative programming would be more profitable than the WNBA.

Let's put it this way, CHiPs didn't have to work its way from a 3 pm Sunday airing to make it into prime time. No, sir. kablamm--it debuted Thursday night at 8.pm. and on a big network which promoted it so it was rewarded for a few years anyway. That hasn't been the case with women's sports. There's always been the assumption it was because people didn't want to watch it, but no one has ever really tested it with big channels, the right times and the right promotion.

I think there's something to having their shit together as a league that helps too, and the WNBA (part of the high-flying NBA) is getting there too.

I don't know how popular women's tennis was before Billie Jean King, but I think she raised awareness and opened the doors - or at least widened the opening -- for Chris Evert, Martina and the others who followed and became well known. Maybe Caitlin Clark can have that kind of impact on women's basketball, or at least accelerate it. .

I watch a lot of men's college basketball. It's a by-product of living in the town with America's largest D1 arena and a historically competitive team.

Having said that, we tried watching Syracuse's women's team tournament game, and my wife and I were bored in minutes. It's fully under the rim. There's no dunking. And it makes it dull.

I will confess that I have not watched any WNBA but I assume it's dull for the same reason. Fundies and 3 pointers will only get you so far.

Who do you think is better: a good women's college basketball team or a good boy's/men's high school basketball team?

Almost always the latter.

It's getting closer, probably, but for most of women's basketball history, the general attitude was that a good men's high school team could beat any pro team. I don't think that's true anymore, although the change in the size of the ball has made it much more difficult to test, now that it's literally a different game.

Just the last 10 years, though, the game has really come foreward. There were terrific athletes, and terrifically skilled players, and now both virtues are starting to find their way into the same players. And it's probably because the NCAA has found the game to be a revenue generator, and while the women's NCAA champ always seemed to be one of four schools, now there are dozens of contenders.

metsmarathon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:29 pm the argument is that by not offering games in more prime spots, you don't have the opportunity to draw in the advertising revenue needed to support the bigger salaries.

is it true that, offered in more prime spots, the womens' games would draw enough viewers to merit the advertising revenue? that remains to be seen.

i will say that i watched more womens' college basketball (a few hours) this year than mens' (near-zero hours), and i also watched more womens' college basketball than NBA or WNBA (zero hours both). and, i daresay that i enjoyed those games more than most basketball games i've watched recently.

the mens game, and the NBA, looks too much like the old NBA Jam video game from back in the day, and so much less like basketball. i can't get into it. the womens' game looks like basketball. i dig it. but i really don't watch basketball

i don't know what caitlin clark's degree is, or what her academic aptitude is, but she could readily get that starting salary in an engineering field, no doubt, if that were her specialty. [OE: well, close to it, based on some additional research]

that she didn't pursue engineering needn't be evidence that she couldn't hack it, either. just that clearly, her interests lay elsewhere. googling tells me that she's an honors student in marketing, which doesn't pay quite as well as engineering. but it also indicates she's [oe: probably] no dummy.

Thanks mm; my point obviously.
I don’t know what her degree is either but there are desk jobs she could make that much if she had the right skill set.

Or maybe the NBA front office…

As our former president has shown, skill set is not necessary to executive advancement.

That’s for sure!

We have watched women's basketball for years, going back about 20 years when a girl from our high school, Jenn Rizzotti, starred at UCONN. And I have followed many UCONN Women's players into the WNBA. So have many fans and The Connecticut Sun has filled the arena since the start of the league.
As for the boy/ girl thing. The son of our HS coach lived on our block. He starred on the HS basketball team and then went to UCONN. He played on a boys squad the scrimmaged/ practiced with the women's team. He said they could hold their own with the men when it came to ball handling and shooting but could not contend against men's teams with strong inside players.(that's kinda intuitive)
The recent NCAA Women's final four games out drew the men's games (and many recent NBA games) in terms of tv viewership. The networks took notice, and WNBA games will be nationally televised starting next year in hopefully better time slots. It is no doubt (to me) that increased exposure > increased viewership > increased revenue > increased player salaries. It will be interesting to see what happens if the ratings for WNBA games start beating those for the men.

And, raising my hand, I know where ION is and watch shows on it.
Later

Did you guys watch Caitlin Clark? Hits 3s from practically half-court while running. It's pretty amazing.

Women's hoops also benefitting from globalization of basketball, with players from New Zealand and Brazil among this year's top draft picks.

I am considering giving the NBA a try maybe next year, there is something fun to the culture of it. WNBA is against baseball season, hard to do both

This year's NCAA women's semis/finals out-drew the men's draw for the first time ever due to several factors.
- a dominant team (S Carolina) trying for a repeat - always a good TV draw despite how many people claim they like upsets and upstarts.
Yes, UCONN was the same on the men's side although they haven't been nearly as dominant as USC in recent years and the women's side
had several rematches from last season (Iowa/LSU, USC vs everyone) which drew interest as well.
- several star players, not solely Clark, even if predominantly her, who brought not only skill but recognition as they had built their reputations
over the previous few years. Male stars of a comparable stature often bolt after one season and some are now skipping college ball entirely.
- star coaches. This may sound silly but in a sport where even players who 'stay' stay relatively briefly where coaches often hang around for
decades to the point where they are the real stars. Hey it's Coach Cal vs Rick tonight, Coach K vs Dean. John Thompson and Jim Boeheim are
locking horns tonight. But the men's side doesn't even have that anymore: K. Roy Williams, Boeheim, Villanova guy, Thompson, Dean Smith,
Carnaseca, etc. are all retired and/or dead. I'm sure I heard more about Bobby Hurley this year than every other coach combined and at least
as much about him as any other single player (except maybe that 7' 4" Edney guy from Perdue). That's very little star/drawing power.

So the women's side is growing just as the men's side is starting to shrink. Maybe this is a trend, maybe it's more like a one-off.



The numbers I read recently cited WNBA revenue at about 2% that of the NBA ($200 million vs $10 billion) and that the WNBA has always
been a money losing operation. But the NBA parent is in it for the long haul so maybe this new crop of stars about to enter gives the league a
jolt. In the meantime they've got twice as many potential jersey buyers.


Biden chimed in on this the other day because, well because of course he did. He used phrases like "unfair" and for the need to pay these
women "what they're worth". But worth according to who Joe? He did the same a few weeks back when he discovered (or more likely was
told about) shrink-flation implying, as he did in the WNBA case, that maybe something needed to be done about it. But aside from believing
that the federal gov't can and should decide on the 'correct' size and price for each bag of snack chips sold in this country I'm not sure
what he thinks he can do about either situation.

8 years/$28 million for Caitlin Clark for a shoe deal with Nike

A fun thing about Clark is that she's also third all-time in assists among NCAA women.

She pulls up so far away. The defense has to pick her up at half-court, and that spreads everything wide open.

Frayed Knot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 9:14 pm 8 years/$28 million for Caitlin Clark for a shoe deal with Nike

that seems a little light, too.

I'd suggest that the key to women's basketball and any upstart sports leagues is to get out of the gravity well of the dominant leagues and make your own way.

Also, trash drafts and let players play where they want. Let them start their own teams if they want.