Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Tennis too. Serena would have been top 600-1000 in the world in the men’s game. 

I thought some guy ranked like 300 dusted her while barely trying. 

I don't know a lot about tennis so can't comment on that but it's always seemed to require pretty exceptional athleticism. 

Also Serena is one of the biggest outliers of all time. That's like saying girls aren't good at hockey because none of them could ever touch Wayne Gretzky. 

Edited by ztejas
Posted
3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I thought some guy ranked like 300 dusted her while barely trying. 

I don't know a lot about tennis so can't comment on that but it's always seemed to require pretty exceptional athleticism. 

Also Serena is one of the biggest outliers of all time. That's like saying girls aren't good at hockey because none of them could ever touch Wayne Gretzky. 

Drunk German guy.  Forgot his rank, but I think he beat Serena and Venus on the same night

Posted

I’m uninterested in how women would compare to men.  The same level of uninterested I am in Usyk vs Inoue in boxing; we divide athletes based on things like weight and body capabilities for a reason.  The fact that Inoue gets mauled by Usyk in no way changes my respect and appreciation for what the smaller fighter can do. 

What CC has shown is not that WNBA players can play with men. She’s shown that the WNBA can offer a fast, attractive, coordinated and athletic style of play that is fun to watch and skillful.  
 

Swimming is not a sport where men and women are particularly close.  The fastest man is over 2 seconds faster in the sprint 50 and that is an eternity.  In the 800, the men are close to 40 seconds faster— the percentage gap has dropped but for perspective, the men are getting up and on the deck by the time the fastest woman has started the last length. 
 

In both swimming and running the women do overtake the men at ultra long distances that aren’t part of the Olympics events. 

Posted

Why are some of y’all (MEN) so butthurt about them wanting to be paid more? It’s not coming out of your pocket. Unless you are season ticket holders and go to games and buy merch. In which case, why would you not want the players you support to be paid more? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, ztejas said:

I thought some guy ranked like 300 dusted her while barely trying. 

I don't know a lot about tennis so can't comment on that but it's always seemed to require pretty exceptional athleticism. 

Also Serena is one of the biggest outliers of all time. That's like saying girls aren't good at hockey because none of them could ever touch Wayne Gretzky. 

12 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Drunk German guy.  Forgot his rank, but I think he beat Serena and Venus on the same night

  

I had never heard of this. It certainly got less press than Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs' "Battle of the Sexes."

The Williams sisters were around 16 at the time.

https://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx

Quote

"I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's Tour and he got to them easily," Serena said afterward. "This time next year I'll beat him. I have to pump some weight."

Venus, who supported Serena from the stands, challenged Braasch immediately after the set to only a slightly better result. The German, who had a fondness for smoking Marlboros during some changeovers, extended rallies and deployed the same disorientating array of spins defeating Venus, 6-2.

"Both sisters are great tennis players and hit the ball extremely well," Braasch recalled in an account he wrote of the match for The Guardian titled How to Beat Both Williams Sisters. "However, if you've been playing on the men's tour there are certain shots you can play that are going to put them in difficulty.

"I was hitting the ball with a degree of spin they don't face week-in, week-out. Another key is to chase down every shot. In our match, they were putting shots into the corners that on the women's tour would be winners but I was able to return them. In the end I won, but neither myself, nor Venus or Serena took the game too seriously—we were just having a bit of fun."

"Apparently, after the game, Serena and Venus immediately told the press they wanted to challenge a male player again," Braasch said. "This time they revised the ranking of the man they wanted to face, to 350 in the world. I informed the journalist who told me this that in the next week I was set to lose a lot of ATP points and drop down to 350 in the rankings. I told him that if Venus and Serena waited just one week they could challenge me all over again!"

Braasch learned what happens in Melbourne, stays in Melbourne.

"That (rematch) never came about, but when I saw Venus a few months later at the French Open she came up to me with a big smile on her face and said, 'You know that thing in Australia—it never happened!' " Braasch recalled.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why are some of y’all (MEN) so butthurt about them wanting to be paid more? It’s not coming out of your pocket. Unless you are season ticket holders and go to games and buy merch. In which case, why would you not want the players you support to be paid more? 

I (ME) am against the rampant sense of undeserved entitlement that permeates our society. There's nothing in my stance with regard to race, gender, orientation, or basketball. I apply the same standard to all.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
15 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

I (ME) am against the rampant sense of undeserved entitlement that permeates our society. There's nothing in my stance with regard to race, gender, orientation, or basketball. I apply the same standard to all.

So you think they dont deserve more than 9.5% of the revenue they help generate?   Its entitled to think they deserve more?

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, d2o said:

So you think they dont deserve more than 9.5% of the revenue they help generate?   Its entitled to think they deserve more?

 

It’s not his money! 

Posted
10 minutes ago, d2o said:

So you think they dont deserve more than 9.5% of the revenue they help generate?   Its entitled to think they deserve more?

 

So you believe a player wearing a shirt that says Pay Me What You Owe Me has an intricate understanding of the league economics. We differ on that opinion. I believe they expressed an economically ignorant and entitled position.

How about 9.5% of the net revenue and we can talk. Oh, wait that doesn't exist. So what is deserved for an employee of a money losing organization? You believe they deserve more despite providing a product that isn't profitable. My bosses have always thought different and no matter how much of a cunt they were, they were right. But I am all for everybody working the market to determine their worth. Strike and stop play and we'll see how that works out in the long run. Poke yourself in the eye, won't keep me from seeing the reality. Since I don't sit on an obscene pile of money, my long term economic opinions are irrelevant, and nobody has a clue how it would actually play out. But it sure seems like a poor choice to make right now and kill all the momentum of the last half decade. The general public fish is biting the bait but it ain't hooked yet.

Posted
Just now, Herpa Derpa said:

So you believe a player wearing a shirt that says Pay Me What You Owe Me has an intricate understanding of the league economics. We differ on that opinion. I believe they expressed an economically ignorant and entitled position.

How about 9.5% of the net revenue and we can talk. Oh, wait that doesn't exist. So what is deserved for an employee of a money losing organization? You believe they deserve more despite providing a product that isn't profitable. My bosses have always thought different and no matter how much of a cunt they were, they were right. But I am all for everybody working the market to determine their worth. Strike and stop play and we'll see how that works out in the long run. Poke yourself in the eye, won't keep me from seeing the reality. Since I don't sit on an obscene pile of money, my long term economic opinions are irrelevant, and nobody has a clue how it would actually play out. But it sure seems like a poor choice to make right now and kill all the momentum of the last half decade. The general public fish is biting the bait but it ain't hooked yet.

So how is it that you want operating losses to be passed on to the employees but massive franchise valuation growth and expansion income is "just a spoil of being an owner"?   

Posted
1 hour ago, d2o said:

So how is it that you want operating losses to be passed on to the employees but massive franchise valuation growth and expansion income is "just a spoil of being an owner"?   

I'm going to advocate for both owners and players in this post.

To the point above, no.  Players don't get the benefits of "massive franchise valuation growth" because 1) they didn't put up the money/risk buy the franchise, and 2) those are paper, not realized gains and could disappear tomorrow.

In the players favor however, it's a common talking point about how the WNBA "loses money," and as a result the players should be grateful to even have a job, it's subsidized by the NBA, etc etc.  All of that is only a partial truth.  I'm sure the WNBA does lose money, but it's not as much as people think.  First, the NBA has not (until recently) broken out the TV rights so they've under optimized the revenue generation piece.  Second, the cost side is warped and not in favor of the W.  Aside from personnel costs, their biggest costs are facilities.  Most of the facilities are owned by the same owner groups who own the franchises, who then get those franchises to pay their facilities.  They're paying themselves, and moving money around.  By suppressing revenue accounting and increasing cost accounting, there is definitely some tax loss harvesting going on.

On top of all that, the owners don't get to decide what the players are worth, the market does.  The owners just have to decide if they want to pay it.  Don't the players make multiples of their WNBA salaries playing in Europe or some of the other leagues?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
16 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

I'm going to advocate for both owners and players in this post.

To the point above, no.  Players don't get the benefits of "massive franchise valuation growth" because 1) they didn't put up the money/risk buy the franchise, and 2) those are paper, not realized gains and could disappear tomorrow.

In the players favor however, it's a common talking point about how the WNBA "loses money," and as a result the players should be grateful to even have a job, it's subsidized by the NBA, etc etc.  All of that is only a partial truth.  I'm sure the WNBA does lose money, but it's not as much as people think.  First, the NBA has not (until recently) broken out the TV rights so they've under optimized the revenue generation piece.  Second, the cost side is warped and not in favor of the W.  Aside from personnel costs, their biggest costs are facilities.  Most of the facilities are owned by the same owner groups who own the franchises, who then get those franchises to pay their facilities.  They're paying themselves, and moving money around.  By suppressing revenue accounting and increasing cost accounting, there is definitely some tax loss harvesting going on.

On top of all that, the owners don't get to decide what the players are worth, the market does.  The owners just have to decide if they want to pay it.  Don't the players make multiples of their WNBA salaries playing in Europe or some of the other leagues?

Good points.   Particularly on the "losses"      Sports owners have been creating losses when there are little to none forever with creative accounting.   The W money is not public info which makes it even easier to allow that "not profitable" bit go on for public negotiating purposes.

I get that the players dont put up the risk but with so many advocating for them to foot the bill for losses why wouldnt they advocate for them to get some of the value that they are adding?   The Liberty just sold a 20% stake at a $450M valuation.  The 20% stake is almost 10 times what Tsai paid for the whole team just 5 yrs before.   Did the players not have any role in creating that value?

The players can make a living playing overseas.   Not all make large salaries.   Then they have to deal with all of the other "costs" of playing in other countries.   Being away from family, cultural differences, etc.

Posted
24 minutes ago, d2o said:

Good points.   Particularly on the "losses"      Sports owners have been creating losses when there are little to none forever with creative accounting.   The W money is not public info which makes it even easier to allow that "not profitable" bit go on for public negotiating purposes.

I get that the players dont put up the risk but with so many advocating for them to foot the bill for losses why wouldnt they advocate for them to get some of the value that they are adding?   The Liberty just sold a 20% stake at a $450M valuation.  The 20% stake is almost 10 times what Tsai paid for the whole team just 5 yrs before.   Did the players not have any role in creating that value?

The players can make a living playing overseas.   Not all make large salaries.   Then they have to deal with all of the other "costs" of playing in other countries.   Being away from family, cultural differences, etc.

The chance of being arrested or detained as a political donkey show. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, d2o said:

I get that the players dont put up the risk but with so many advocating for them to foot the bill for losses why wouldnt they advocate for them to get some of the value that they are adding?   The Liberty just sold a 20% stake at a $450M valuation.  The 20% stake is almost 10 times what Tsai paid for the whole team just 5 yrs before.   Did the players not have any role in creating that value?

The players can make a living playing overseas.   Not all make large salaries.   Then they have to deal with all of the other "costs" of playing in other countries.   Being away from family, cultural differences, etc.

A forward-thinking, creative and smart players union might attempt to negotiate not just higher salaries but for % ownership in the W-franchises.  It could even be structured smartly to not dilute the current owners by saying "If we take the value of the Indiana Fever as $75MM today, as part of the next CBA grant the players ownership pool will get 10% of the increase in value at the time of the sale of the franchise, to go into a pool for the players and then distributed to the players by a formula accounting for tenure, games played, etc."  Now when an owner buys in for $20MM and sells for $400MM, the players would get 10% of $380MM or $38MM into their pool.  Multiply this by all the franchises and you've now tightly aligned the goals of both players and owners: to grow the value of the WNBA.  As the W gets to 16 teams with a roster of 12* (really 11) that makes about 192 players in the W.  If one of those franchises sells every other year, and generates $40MM to the pool, that's about $100K average upside per player per year.

Of course the owners would immediately reject this because they're not idiots and billionaires didn't get that way by giving away their upside to employees.  They know that their payout comes from the value growth of the franchise not the year-to-year revenues.  However, putting this offer out there in lieu of higher salaries would be smarter than printing t-shirts saying "Pay us what you owe us," because it would force the owners to reject the offer and then that would create leverage for the higher salaries conversation.

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...