Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
42 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Clark out for ASG weekend - will not be in the 3 point contest tonight 

Brittany Sykes from the Mystics will replace her in the game.   Not sure about of a replacement in the 3P contest yet.

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, d2o said:

Errbody pullin from the log with 4pt shots

You know when the men pull this no defense shit it’s pretty easy to watch.  This looks like the ymca out there. These girls don’t realize how awful they are do they?   
 

audio during the Glorilla concert was awful

Edited by Im_smarter_then_you
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

Technically they should all be paying in considering they don’t generate a profit or anywhere close. 

They hate Caitlin Clark but want more money.

Make it make sense to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

The t-shirt thing is fucking embarassing - I would have at least worded it differently or more tastefully - but I don't think they are totally unfounded in advocating for themselves during the infancy of a league that appears to be poised to make real money in the near future. 

Of course there are going to be a bunch of dumb takes made because they are female jocks at the end of the day - but you don't want to agree to a CBA under the logic of "well the league isn't even operating in the black yet" when it should be obvious that it will eventually - and likely sometime soon. I mean - I'm pretty fucking sure that the Indiana Fever aren't losing money this season. 

There's a lot of moving parts and grievances and uncertainty because we've never had a women's sports league become mainstream the way that the WNBA is trending. Women's tennis has been pretty big for awhile but it's a niche country-club audience and most people don't give a fuck. That's really the only female athletic competition (outside of the Olympics) that has seen a similar limelight. UFC too, maybe (but neither are team sports).

Edited by ztejas
Posted
8 hours ago, ztejas said:

The t-shirt thing is fucking embarassing - I would have at least worded it differently or more tastefully - but I don't think they are totally unfounded in advocating for themselves during the infancy of a league that appears to be poised to make real money in the near future. 

Of course there are going to be a bunch of dumb takes made because they are female jocks at the end of the day - but you don't want to agree to a CBA under the logic of "well the league isn't even operating in the black yet" when it should be obvious that it will eventually - and likely sometime soon. I mean - I'm pretty fucking sure that the Indiana Fever aren't losing money this season. 

There's a lot of moving parts and grievances and uncertainty because we've never had a women's sports league become mainstream the way that the WNBA is trending. Women's tennis has been pretty big for awhile but it's a niche country-club audience and most people don't give a fuck. That's really the only female athletic competition (outside of the Olympics) that has seen a similar limelight. UFC too, maybe (but neither are team sports).

What do you think they’re owed?  
 

because right now they’re a collection of actors that have lost money in every single movie r the hey make for the last 25 years.  

Posted
11 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

What do you think they’re owed?  
 

because right now they’re a collection of actors that have lost money in every single movie r the hey make for the last 25 years.  

The new TV deal is going to put them in the black 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The new TV deal is going to put them in the black 

Then pay them what they are owed after the owners are made whole for keeping the league running at a loss forever. 
 

Did they add WNBA to the NBA2k games as an excuse to divert some of the profits to women? I can’t imagine more than 5 people bought those games to play WNBA mode. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

That's a PR battle they will not win.

"Pay Us What You Owe Us"

It's like the player's association asked a PR firm for the 5 best and 5 worst slogan options for WNBA player promotion - and the player's association mixed up the lists. 

Group requests of "pay me what I am worth" have typically failed, largely because they are tone deaf.  They are getting paid between $80k-$250k per year for 40 games and playoffs - in a presently money-losing business.  Most (all?) finished 4 years of college; I would think at least one of them would have taken an economics or finance course.  That said, there is a very "with us or against us" mindset in the WNBA.  Economics be damned.

Details of the WNBA finances are difficult to find, either because it was not interesting before last year or they are so bad, the NBA does not want to share how much it is funding.  Some reports say 2024 revenue was $200mm, with a loss around $40mm.  The entire salary pool for WNBA players is presently near $19.5mm (13 teams * 1.5mm per team - cap is lower, but some go over cap).  That's about 1/12 of the overall costs using the revenue/loss numbers.  For reference, NBA players earn around $5B on NBA revenue of $11B - overall profit of $3B.

For the new CBA - here are some ideas...
Players: Baseline revenue of $200mm.  As revenue increases, so does our income.  Up to 10%, end of season bonuses for each player commensurate with delta between baseline and revenue.  Above 10%, salary cap, min salary, max salary increases.  Above 25% ($250mm revenue), renegotiation of CBA is triggered).
Owners: Revenue increases imply demand is increasing.  We need more games.  Salary cap increases will motivate game expansion.  2-4 more games per season (scheduling problems may occur).  

Perhaps the reasons are obvious (like the finances really are a mess), but player's association should dive deep into the finances.  They may be willing to give up some of the "frills" that contribute to the $240mm expense - and to help the league become solvent.  Maybe not

Edited by boilerhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The new TV deal is going to put them in the black 

It will put the WNBA in the black, but that could be short-lived if the TV demand is not sustained.  If demand is not sustained or grown, they are just moving the losses from WNBA ownership/NBA over to the broadcasting companies.  Unless someone wants it as a loss leader to sell toilet paper and cheap electronics (Amazon)...

Posted

I know it’s taken as common knowledge that the league loses money, but do we know that for sure? Are we taking the League’s/Gov’s word as gospel? If it truly lost that much money, wouldn’t they have shut that shit down years ago? I’m not defending the players, but it is in the best interest of the league to cry poor in a contract negotiation. Professional sports has run this same play for years.

Posted

For those unaware - the WNBA just signed an 11yr 2.2 billion dollar TV deal that will likely grow to 3 billion once other TV partners are included. That will raise the TV revenue from the approx 60 million a year they get now to anywhere between 200-300 million a year starting next season.
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

For those unaware - the WNBA just signed an 11yr 2.2 billion dollar TV deal that will likely grow to 3 billion once other TV partners are included. That will raise the TV revenue from the approx 60 million a year they get now to anywhere between 200-300 million a year starting next season.
 

 

Sounds like there’s money for player comp increases.  Does that mean altering current contracts, or just new ones?  If there’s a league minimum and it gets increased, obviously those affected will have contracts altered but I’d guess most of those are annual deals anyway. 
 

if Indiana has a big financial advantage over others via larger gate because of Clark, they should be able to afford a higher payroll and thus a better roster in theory.  
 

how does their pay compare to peer pro league players?  Does it have peer leagues, either overseas bball or domestic other sports?

maybe euro women’s soccer leagues are the best comp?

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Posted

IIRC, the NBA owned and controlled the franchises 100%.  Over time, the WNBA franchises owned 40% and the NBA owned the remaining 60%.

As of 2022, an investment group seeded $75mm into expansion/solvency/whatever and was granted 16%.  The WNBA franchises owned 42% and the NBA owns 42%.  That puts the valuation at around $470mm.  Future expansion dilutes the 42% owned by WNBA franchises.

Good question @Kermit - is it a real loss or a "loss" that is purposeful and has long-term strategic advantages?  For franchisees and the NBA, a paper loss might be exactly what they want for this investment.

4 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

For those unaware - the WNBA just signed an 11yr 2.2 billion dollar TV deal that will likely grow to 3 billion once other TV partners are included. That will raise the TV revenue from the approx 60 million a year they get now to anywhere between 200-300 million a year starting next season.

I had forgotten about the details.

Let's use the $200mm number and assume $0 additional costs  and the present -$40mm run rate - the WNBA will be running at +160mm annually.  42% to NBA, 16% to investors, 42% to WNBA league means the WNBA league gets around $67mm to split among its teams.  They could easily double or triple the salary cap and stay in the black.  As I implied earlier, the "losses" might be transferred from the NBA/WNBA/investors to the media companies.  They are the ones who have to monetize to the tune of $200mm+ per year now.  WNBA has 11 years, though, on the new plan.  Expansion will limit how much they can pay players, as the expansion dilutes the WNBA share of overall league ownership and, hence, whatever "dividends" will come from league income.

PS - In 2022, the WNBA raised $75 million from a group of strategic investors including Nike, Michael Dell, Linda Henry, Dee Haslam, Condoleezza Rice, Micky Arison and Laurene Powell Jobs. Some, such as Ted Leonsis (Washington Mystics), Joe Tsai (New York Liberty) and Herb Simon (Indiana Fever), tripled down on the league by investing as part of the raise, owning WNBA teams and owning a stake in the league through their NBA team ownership.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

IIRC, the NBA owned and controlled the franchises 100%.  Over time, the WNBA franchises owned 40% and the NBA owned the remaining 60%.

As of 2022, an investment group seeded $75mm into expansion/solvency/whatever and was granted 16%.  The WNBA franchises owned 42% and the NBA owns 42%.  That puts the valuation at around $470mm.  Future expansion dilutes the 42% owned by WNBA franchises.

Good question @Kermit - is it a real loss or a "loss" that is purposeful and has long-term strategic advantages?  For franchisees and the NBA, a paper loss might be exactly what they want for this investment.

I had forgotten about the details.

Let's use the $200mm number and assume $0 additional costs  and the present -$40mm run rate - the WNBA will be running at +160mm annually.  42% to NBA, 16% to investors, 42% to WNBA league means the WNBA league gets around $67mm to split among its teams.  They could easily double or triple the salary cap and stay in the black.  As I implied earlier, the "losses" might be transferred from the NBA/WNBA/investors to the media companies.  They are the ones who have to monetize to the tune of $200mm+ per year now.  WNBA has 11 years, though, on the new plan.  Expansion will limit how much they can pay players, as the expansion dilutes the WNBA share of overall league ownership and, hence, whatever "dividends" will come from league income.

PS - In 2022, the WNBA raised $75 million from a group of strategic investors including Nike, Michael Dell, Linda Henry, Dee Haslam, Condoleezza Rice, Micky Arison and Laurene Powell Jobs. Some, such as Ted Leonsis (Washington Mystics), Joe Tsai (New York Liberty) and Herb Simon (Indiana Fever), tripled down on the league by investing as part of the raise, owning WNBA teams and owning a stake in the league through their NBA team ownership.

Expansion fees for each team were 250 million in this latest round of expansion (6 clubs total). That 1.5 billion should easily offset whatever dilution to TV revenue the original 12 are about to experience. 

Edited by Hiphopopotamos
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

When they speak of a loss of $40 million, will that be repaid?  Is the league in debt or are the investors just covering losses? If so, do the investors who have lost a quarter billion over the history of the league expect to recoup those losses or is this new TV deal in a vacuum that ignores prior losses and starts their balance sheet at zero each fiscal year? 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Expansion fees for each team were 250 million in this latest round of expansion (6 clubs total). That 1.5 billion should easily offset whatever dilution to TV revenue the original 12 are about to experience. 

I am picking nits, but Golden State and Toronto paid $50mm in 2023 and Portland paid $75mm in 2024.  The latest 3 were $250mm, so it is around $925mm.

Agree, though, the influx should offset the dilution.  To date, the business has been a financial loser, so a 3x increase in franchise fees, YoY seems high.  People far more in-tune and aware are putting money into it right now.  So, what do I know?

Posted
1 minute ago, boilerhorn said:

I am picking nits, but Golden State and Toronto paid $50mm in 2023 and Portland paid $75mm in 2024.  The latest 3 were $250mm, so it is around $925mm.

Agree, though, the influx should offset the dilution.  To date, the business has been a financial loser, so a 3x increase in franchise fees, YoY seems high.  People far more in-tune and aware are putting money into it right now.  So, what do I know?

Thanks - I tried to edit when I realized that 250 number was only for the most recent three but the edit timed out. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Kermit said:

I know it’s taken as common knowledge that the league loses money, but do we know that for sure? Are we taking the League’s/Gov’s word as gospel? If it truly lost that much money, wouldn’t they have shut that shit down years ago? I’m not defending the players, but it is in the best interest of the league to cry poor in a contract negotiation. Professional sports has run this same play for years.

Bingo!!!!  Owners always cry broke.   They've done it in the NFL and NBA for years despite all sorts of evidence that they arent losing money.   Further franchise values are growing very fast so if its so bad why aren't all the owners dumping their teams

Posted
3 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

What do you think they’re owed?  

I start my comment with "the t-shirt thing is fucking embarassing" and that's the question you ask me?

Posted
13 minutes ago, d2o said:

Bingo!!!!  Owners always cry broke.   They've done it in the NFL and NBA for years despite all sorts of evidence that they arent losing money.   Further franchise values are growing very fast so if its so bad why aren't all the owners dumping their teams

This is akin to a c list actor asking for tom cruise money because of tenure.  
 

Quick someone post the tv ratings with and without clark

Posted
13 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

When they speak of a loss of $40 million, will that be repaid?  Is the league in debt or are the investors just covering losses? If so, do the investors who have lost a quarter billion over the history of the league expect to recoup those losses or is this new TV deal in a vacuum that ignores prior losses and starts their balance sheet at zero each fiscal year? 

I expect that will be the owners/investors argument in this CBA negotiation.  But if we're looking at it honestly - I assume that 40 million was nothing more than a line item in the NBA's marketing budget.  The NBA wasn't supporting the WNBA out of a sense of altruism or because of a deep love for their mother.  The WNBA was a tool to grow the game for a demographic that represents just under 50% of the population.  I think the NBA has definitely been reaping the benefits of growing that group of fans.  Totally anecdotal - but my daughter became a huge NBA fan by first being interested in, and attending, WNBA games. 

And to put that 40 million into perspective.  That is a little over 10% of what one single team in the NBA makes in revenue in one season (on average NBA teams make approx 353 million per year in revenue per Forbes).  10 years of WNBA losses equates to half of what the Golden State Warriors made in revenue last leason.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

This is akin to a c list actor asking for tom cruise money because of tenure.  
 

Quick someone post the tv ratings with and without clark

That's an incredibly shitty, and not true, analogy.

A more accurate analogy would be a C-list actor on a low budget TV show asking for a raise after the show he's on gets syndicated and the revenues go up 400% overnight.

WNBA players get anywhere between 9% and 20% of league revenue (depending on source).  NBA players get 50% (as do MLB, NFL players get 48%).  It is my understanding that WNBA players are asking for the similar % of revenue as these other leagues.  Obviously their salaries will be much lower - but they wound be earning the same % as their NBA counterparts.

Posted

I think the difference in total revenue, and more accurately the revenue/expense ratio, is what drives the lower comp%.  One would think that expenses will be more static so as revenue increases, a larger share should be available for salary. 
 

unless things like travel and arena rental are somehow subsidized or offered at a discounted rate, which will go away as revenue can cover it. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

That's an incredibly shitty, and not true, analogy.

A more accurate analogy would be a C-list actor on a low budget TV show asking for a raise after the show he's on gets syndicated and the revenues go up 400% overnight.

WNBA players get anywhere between 9% and 20% of league revenue (depending on source).  NBA players get 50% (as do MLB, NFL players get 48%).  It is my understanding that WNBA players are asking for the similar % of revenue as these other leagues.  Obviously their salaries will be much lower - but they wound be earning the same % as their NBA counterparts.

Let’s flip it. If tom cruises films consistently loses money for the last 25 years, he wouldn’t have any leverage to ask for more money.   Of course his movies actually make money. 
 

this league is only relevant because of Caitlin Clark and even with her it is still losing money. You brought up the warriors, you’re not the golden state warriors.  People actually want to watch them

 

more power to the ladies.  I hope they do get a raise but the business case makes no sense at all.  Been losing money for 20+ years.   

Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I think the difference in total revenue, and more accurately the revenue/expense ratio, is what drives the lower comp%.  One would think that expenses will be more static so as revenue increases, a larger share should be available for salary. 

 

6 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

WNBA players get anywhere between 9% and 20% of league revenue (depending on source).  NBA players get 50% (as do MLB, NFL players get 48%).  It is my understanding that WNBA players are asking for the similar % of revenue as these other leagues.  Obviously their salaries will be much lower - but they wound be earning the same % as their NBA counterparts.

 

The NFL has existed for over 100 years.  The NBA has been around for 75 years.    As recently as the early-to-mid 1980s, some NFL players had offseason jobs to supplement their pay.  Today, the average NFL player makes $3.2mm.  In 1985 it was $160k.  Players claimed it was 28% of revenue; owners claimed it was 44%.  Regardless, they NFL was making a profit.

Right now, the WNBA is 27 years old and (allegedly) loses $40mm on $200mm in revenue (2023).  Revenue is clearly rising, as it was $102mm in 2019.  In 2019, they were paid around 17% of league revenue and now around 10%.  When costs are 120% of revenue, it is difficult to justify giving everyone a raise, but (as already noted before) we really do not know how the WNBA manages its P&L.

NBA's CBA has players at 49%-51% of BRI (Basketball Related Income).  WNBA should strive for that.  The real problem is how is "income" calculated?  Is it gross?  Is it net?  If net, they get nothing.  The WNBAPA will need a really capable negotiator and financier on their side for the next few rounds of CBA negotiations.  And clarity in how they report and manage P&L.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...