Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
58 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Do you want a Deloitte-quality CEO or just some person

I'm sorry but what the fuck does this even mean?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the bulk of your post there, but this literally made me laugh out loud.

Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Women point guards do not have transferable skills they can take elsewhere. 

I agree with your overall point about league exec compensation but this isn’t true at all. Most of these girls have college degrees, for starters. Pretty much all of them could walk into any of the thousands of coaching jobs there are in this country or overseas for female basketball coaches. A lot of those jobs pay pretty well. There are also broadcasting opportunities. I don't know what Candace Parker is paid by TNT or Chiney is paid by ESPN but I'm assuming it's a lot of money. 

Playing in the WNBA is a big deal to have on your resume. It's not like being a pro disc-golf player or some shit. 

And there are obviously other leagues they can play in - despite the W being the most attractive option. There was that offseason (3 on 3 I think?) league that a bunch of them did this past year. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, ztejas said:

I agree with your overall point about league exec compensation but this isn’t true at all. Most of these girls have college degrees, for starters. Pretty much all of them could walk into any of the thousands of coaching jobs there are in this country or overseas for female basketball coaches. A lot of those jobs pay pretty well. There are also broadcasting opportunities. I don't know what Candace Parker is paid by TNT or Chiney is paid by ESPN but I'm assuming it's a lot of money. 

Playing in the WNBA is a big deal to have on your resume. It's not like being a pro disc-golf player or some shit. 

And there are obviously other leagues they can play in - despite the W being the most attractive option. There was that offseason (3 on 3 I think?) league that a bunch of them did this past year. 

Many of the players that participated in Unrivaled got paid as much or more than what they make in the W.   Unrivaled has a multi-yr TNT sponsorship already and is growing for the upcoming season.     There is also the Athletes Unlimited league that many others played in last offseason.    Both leagues are run by players (or former players).   

Posted
8 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I agree with your overall point about league exec compensation but this isn’t true at all. Most of these girls have college degrees, for starters. Pretty much all of them could walk into any of the thousands of coaching jobs there are in this country or overseas for female basketball coaches. A lot of those jobs pay pretty well. There are also broadcasting opportunities. I don't know what Candace Parker is paid by TNT or Chiney is paid by ESPN but I'm assuming it's a lot of money. 

Playing in the WNBA is a big deal to have on your resume. It's not like being a pro disc-golf player or some shit. 

And there are obviously other leagues they can play in - despite the W being the most attractive option. There was that offseason (3 on 3 I think?) league that a bunch of them did this past year. 

They have transferable skills to not play basketball.  That’s not a bargaining point for a CBA to play basketball. Completely different than being in PT or marketing where you are in a labor market to go do the same thing elsewhere. 
 

Unrivaled is a completely different business. One arena, one location, 36 players, one front office, no travel.  Nothing close to trying to run an actual league and so of course that affects the way the business works. 
 

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm sorry but what the fuck does this even mean?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the bulk of your post there, but this literally made me laugh out loud.

The point is that the former CEO of Deloitte has incredible options on the job market and if the WNBA wants a commissioner with that level  of acumen and ability, they have to pay for it. 

Posted
38 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I agree with your overall point about league exec compensation but this isn’t true at all. Most of these girls have college degrees, for starters. Pretty much all of them could walk into any of the thousands of coaching jobs there are in this country or overseas for female basketball coaches. A lot of those jobs pay pretty well. There are also broadcasting opportunities. I don't know what Candace Parker is paid by TNT or Chiney is paid by ESPN but I'm assuming it's a lot of money. 

Playing in the WNBA is a big deal to have on your resume. It's not like being a pro disc-golf player or some shit. 

And there are obviously other leagues they can play in - despite the W being the most attractive option. There was that offseason (3 on 3 I think?) league that a bunch of them did this past year. 

1.  Then do it.  Go try out for a broadcasting job.  But announcing jobs and coaching jobs are few and far between and only the great ones get paid.  Not every women’s cbb coach makes bank and not everyone gets to start at chuck or Candace’s level.  
2.  There are other leagues.  Kennedy Carter is playing in mexico.  Go and show us what we’re missing. 

Posted

FWIW, I think things like Unrivaled are a cool concept and support the money they are able pay.  
 

But they do illustrate the stark business differences:  Unrivaled slashed rosters, eliminated travel, eliminated all but one front office, eliminated all training staff save one team, cut venue costs down to one, dramatically shortened the season, and zeroed in on broadcast versus attendance at events. 
 

It’s a great thing for athletes and glad it exists— but it isn’t an actual sports league, it’s a tournament event.  The economics are completely different. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

FWIW, I think things like Unrivaled are a cool concept and support the money they are able pay.  
 

But they do illustrate the stark business differences:  Unrivaled slashed rosters, eliminated travel, eliminated all but one front office, eliminated all training staff save one team, cut venue costs down to one, dramatically shortened the season, and zeroed in on broadcast versus attendance at events. 
 

It’s a great thing for athletes and glad it exists— but it isn’t an actual sports league, it’s a tournament event.  The economics are completely different. 

While I agree mostly, it was year 1 and it was a pretty big success.     I could see it going very much along the lines of what the Big 3 league is doing.    That league is moving more to individual franchises based in different cities.  Its not a rival to the NBA (no matter what Ice Cube says) and Unrivaled isnt a rival to the W.  It is a great starting point for that league and for players to have an option to earn good money while staying here in the US.   They can also have some input on how that league grows/changes going forward.

Edited by d2o
Posted
16 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

These women all have overseas options. Many of those teams pay better than the WNBA and include benefits such as housing and travel allowances.  
 

This is not true and for the reasons stated by 956. 

Posted (edited)

I do hope the players get a better CBA and it is awesome that the league is growing and attracting more eyeballs.  
 

My point here is simply that the “same percentage of revenue as the men” sounds reasonable until you pause and realize that the expenses don’t operate on that same sliding scale.  Charter jets cost the same no matter who is on them and $25 million per year is 1/8th of the new annual TV payout for the WNBA. The NBA’s TV deal is 7 billion per year. I guarantee that the NBA aviation budget is not $875,000,000.  I could bet it’s less than a quarter of that number. 

The other WNBA employees are needed and their costs don’t dramatically change. And so much of the other demands are wrapped up in spending the money it takes to be a “real” pro league.  The team doc, trainers, marketers, support staff can command close to the same amount no matter who they are working for. 
 

Venue fees and all that go into that don’t slide on a scale either.  They aren’t as much as an NBA game, but you’re still paying to open the arena, run crowd control, etc. The delta between NBA and  WNBA non-player and staff expenses per game isn’t pro-rated in line with the revenue difference.

They absolutely deserve a raise, I’m just pointing out that pushing it even to something like 30 percent of revenue likely means total league collapse.

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I do hope the players get a better CBA and it is awesome that the league is growing and attracting more eyeballs.  
 

My point here is simply that the “same percentage of revenue as the men” sounds reasonable until you pause and realize that the expenses don’t operate on that same sliding scale.  Charter jets cost the same no matter who is on them and $25 million per year is 1/8th of the new annual TV payout for the WNBA. The NBA’s TV deal is 7 billion per year. I guarantee that the NBA aviation budget is not $875,000,000.  I could bet it’s less than a quarter of that number. 

The other WNBA employees are needed and their costs don’t dramatically change. And so much of the other demands are wrapped up in spending the money it takes to be a “real” pro league.  The team doc, trainers, marketers, support staff can command close to the same amount no matter who they are working for. 
 

Venue fees and all that go into that don’t slide on a scale either.  They aren’t as much as an NBA game, but you’re still paying to open the arena, run crowd control, etc. The delta between NBA and  WNBA non-player and staff expenses per game isn’t pro-rated in line with the revenue difference.

They absolutely deserve a raise, I’m just pointing out that pushing it even to something like 30 percent of revenue likely means total league collapse.

I really havent heard anyone say they are in a position to get the same revenue share as the men, just that they should have a bigger share than the 9% that they currently get.      

Further we dont know what all goes into BRI in the W vs what it is in the NBA.  

Posted (edited)

Additionally, the current teams will divide the $750M from the 3 new expansion teams.   Players get none of that.   It is not considered BRI.   They just got $250M total from the Valkyries, Portland Fire and the Toronto Tempo franchises.

Edited by d2o
Posted
5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm sorry but what the fuck does this even mean?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the bulk of your post there, but this literally made me laugh out loud.

I would probably try and find anyone but a management consulting C-Suite exec. They are just going to want a lot of money in salary to make the difficult decisions of which of their management consulting contacts to blow money on. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

image.jpeg.133cd4d54fee0e065386e349f94f20a5.jpeg

Curious,  if I buy a stock for $20 a share and still own that stock when it is $300 a share I don't have anymore money in my bank account to pay my bills unless I either sell the stock or generate more income.

Additionally, one could argue that compared to teachers, the military, first responders, Caitlin is paid more which brings us back to the question is the league bringing in more revenue.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, d2o said:

Additionally, the current teams will divide the $750M from the 3 new expansion teams.   Players get none of that.   It is not considered BRI.   They just got $250M total from the Valkyries, Portland Fire and the Toronto Tempo franchises.

Don't think NBA, MLB, or NFL players received a penny of the expansion fees paid when their leagues added teams, but could be wrong on that.

Isn't that the advantage of actually owning the business versus being an employee of the business?

Posted
7 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

Don't think NBA, MLB, or NFL players received a penny of the expansion fees paid when their leagues added teams, but could be wrong on that.

Isn't that the advantage of actually owning the business versus being an employee of the business?

Nope, players dont get that in any of the other sports but I dont want to hear about how much they are losing if they are getting a 1B windfall over a 5 yr period

Posted (edited)

The expansion fees go to make up for the dilution that owners suffer when teams are added. The WNBA is 42 percent owned by the NBA, 42 percent owned by team owners, and 16 percent by an outside consortium of investors. Each individual team owner’s stake in the league falls when a new team is added. 

One thing that is also missing in the revenue sharing discussion is the difference in roster size: 450 players vice 170 NBA vs. WNBA. Bumping up the revenue share to about 20 would mean that per player, the share is roughly equal to the men in the NBA.  I think they get there with the 200 million deal.

Fun fact: WNBA players already take home a much larger share of revenue per player than NFL players.  1600 players dividing up 50 percent vice 169 players dividing up 10 percent. 
 

I will never criticize labor for pushing for more but at the same time there has to be a realization than making the pie larger has to be the long-term goal. 

 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

They have transferable skills to not play basketball.  That’s not a bargaining point for a CBA to play basketball. Completely different than being in PT or marketing where you are in a labor market to go do the same thing elsewhere. 
 

Unrivaled is a completely different business. One arena, one location, 36 players, one front office, no travel.  Nothing close to trying to run an actual league and so of course that affects the way the business works. 
 

 

I mean - they have much more bargaining leverage than someone in marketing or whatever. There are thousands of people in marketing that can do basically the same shit. There are not multiple Caitlin Clark or A'Ja Wilson's.

The street you're talking about goes both ways. If I'm Caitlin Clark and you're telling me "what are you going to do, go play basketball somewhere else?" I'm saying "Bitch I might - what are you going to do, find another Caitlin Clark?" 

The only reason these ladies don't have (or haven't had) as much leverage as NBA or MLB players is because the financials are a lot messier and the league isn't as profitable. As the money shoots up and the league becomes profitable or even breaks even (which I'm betting it's close to already) so does the bargaining power that the players have. 

19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

They absolutely deserve a raise, I’m just pointing out that pushing it even to something like 30 percent of revenue likely means total league collapse.

Sure - but there are a lot of numbers between 9 and 30 😉

I would assume they get more than they financially "deserve" because they are already dragging this out into a PR mess that a fairly infant league isn't going to want to deal with. 

Edited by ztejas
Posted
19 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I mean - they have much more bargaining leverage than someone in marketing or whatever. There are thousands of people in marketing that can do basically the same shit. There are not multiple Caitlin Clark or A'Ja Wilson's.

The street you're talking about goes both ways. If I'm Caitlin Clark and you're telling me "what are you going to do, go play basketball somewhere else?" I'm saying "Bitch I might - what are you going to do, find another Caitlin Clark?" 

The only reason these ladies don't have (or haven't had) as much leverage as NBA or MLB players is because the financials are a lot messier and the league isn't as profitable. As the money shoots up and the league becomes profitable or even breaks even (which I'm betting it's close to already) so does the bargaining power that the players have. 

Sure - but there are a lot of numbers between 9 and 30 😉

I would assume they get more than they financially "deserve" because they are already dragging this out into a PR mess that a fairly infant league isn't going to want to deal with. 

The WNBA is not a fairly infant league, especially when you consider with the "help" of the NBA they had access to the media coverage from the jump.

They are 29 years old and just now are getting to a point where they have growth potential.  

What are the players willing to give up to get a bigger piece of the pie?  Seriously had this conversation before with a friend who is black and grew up in Alabama in the 60's. He remembers seeing people from the neighborhood getting the shit beat out of them for what they believed in and the friend laughs at the protestors of today.

NFL, NBA, and MLB never got dogs turned loose on them,  beaten, and sprayed with fire houses, but a number of those did walk on during a time they were having to work two jobs to make ends meet for their families.  

They need to be willing to go a bit beyond t-shirts and social media campaigns so walk the fuck out or shut up about not getting your cut. 

Posted
1 hour ago, ztejas said:

I mean - they have much more bargaining leverage than someone in marketing or whatever. There are thousands of people in marketing that can do basically the same shit. There are not multiple Caitlin Clark or A'Ja Wilson's.

The street you're talking about goes both ways. If I'm Caitlin Clark and you're telling me "what are you going to do, go play basketball somewhere else?" I'm saying "Bitch I might - what are you going to do, find another Caitlin Clark?" 

The only reason these ladies don't have (or haven't had) as much leverage as NBA or MLB players is because the financials are a lot messier and the league isn't as profitable. As the money shoots up and the league becomes profitable or even breaks even (which I'm betting it's close to already) so does the bargaining power that the players have. 

Sure - but there are a lot of numbers between 9 and 30 😉

I would assume they get more than they financially "deserve" because they are already dragging this out into a PR mess that a fairly infant league isn't going to want to deal with. 

For marketers or accountants or whatever, there isn’t collective bargaining or payment based on revenue. Those are transportable marketable skills.  Teams have a choice— hire an accountant within the local pay band, or don’t. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to compare the salaries of a WNBA player to WNBA admin employee. Those salaries are based on local labor conditions and basically are what they are. 
 

Clark and Wilson are not the examples here and a future CBA isn’t about them.  There are 170 (maybe?) WNBA players.  If anyone between number 50-170 (I am being generous) tell a front office owner “I can make more as a teacher or accountant using my degree” the owner can absolutely give them a handshake and go grab someone from a developmental league or one of the undrafted players.  170 is a tiny pool and because of title IX we fortunately have plenty of D1 colleague athletes to vie for those spots. 
 

You are absolutely correct that the ladies have more bargaining power if the league makes money. That’s kind of at the heart of the whole system.  
 

None of this is unique to women’s basketball. U.S. olympians in multiple sports are among the best in the world at their craft and the vast majority of them are faced with tough decisions about finances and when you go get a real world job.  Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky has Caitlin Clark-like leverage and bargaining.  The fourth place finisher is likely more marketable outside the pool. 
 

For most of its existence the WNBA has been closer to “Olympic sport” level interest than it has been to major professional level interest from the viewing public and the salaries have reflected that.  It’s in a weird growing era. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

For marketers or accountants or whatever, there isn’t collective bargaining or payment based on revenue. Those are transportable marketable skills.  Teams have a choice— hire an accountant within the local pay band, or don’t. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to compare the salaries of a WNBA player to WNBA admin employee. Those salaries are based on local labor conditions and basically are what they are. 
 

Clark and Wilson are not the examples here and a future CBA isn’t about them.  There are 170 (maybe?) WNBA players.  If anyone between number 50-170 (I am being generous) tell a front office owner “I can make more as a teacher or accountant using my degree” the owner can absolutely give them a handshake and go grab someone from a developmental league or one of the undrafted players.  170 is a tiny pool and because of title IX we fortunately have plenty of D1 colleague athletes to vie for those spots. 
 

You are absolutely correct that the ladies have more bargaining power if the league makes money. That’s kind of at the heart of the whole system.  
 

None of this is unique to women’s basketball. U.S. olympians in multiple sports are among the best in the world at their craft and the vast majority of them are faced with tough decisions about finances and when you go get a real world job.  Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky has Caitlin Clark-like leverage and bargaining.  The fourth place finisher is likely more marketable outside the pool. 
 

For most of its existence the WNBA has been closer to “Olympic sport” level interest than it has been to major professional level interest from the viewing public and the salaries have reflected that.  It’s in a weird growing era. 

Everyone is replaceable.  Well maybe not Clark but everyone else.  

Posted
2 hours ago, PGFrog said:

The WNBA is not a fairly infant league, especially when you consider with the "help" of the NBA they had access to the media coverage from the jump.

They are 29 years old and just now are getting to a point where they have growth potential.  

 

30 years after the NBA started they were airing the Finals on tape delay.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

30 years after the NBA started they were airing the Finals on tape delay.

Damn right, because for most of America our choices for tv were ABC, CBS, NBC,  maybe a PBS station depending upon where you lived, and 1-2 UHF stations depending upon where you lived.

There are more variations of ESPN today than  major networks when I grew up in Dallas during the time period you referenced and the networks weren't scrambling to fill timeslots with content.

Seriously, what the FUCK else does ESPN have to show besides the WNBA on their multiple platforms? Axe throwing? Dodge ball? Old 30 for 30's and SEC Stories?  

Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

But of a difference in eras don’t you think?  

Of course.  It was meant tongue-in-cheek.  That said - there were plenty of people wondering about the viability of the league - Magic/Bird and then a few years later Jordan changed all of that.

Posted
3 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

Damn right, because for most of America our choices for tv were ABC, CBS, NBC,  maybe a PBS station depending upon where you lived, and 1-2 UHF stations depending upon where you lived.

There are more variations of ESPN today than  major networks when I grew up in Dallas during the time period you referenced and the networks weren't scrambling to fill timeslots with content.

Seriously, what the FUCK else does ESPN have to show besides the WNBA on their multiple platforms? Axe throwing? Dodge ball? Old 30 for 30's and SEC Stories?  

A lot of axe throwing.  I also once saw several hours dedicated to a bunch of people tossing a football around a vent pipe on a roof.

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...