Pay us what you owe us.

[OnPoint]

WNBA players, currently in the middle of CBA negotiations, wore "pay us what you owe us" t-shirts for warm ups at the All-Star game.

The league is about to turn a profit with their new TV deal. The players want a bigger chunk of that money.

[Jiri Welsch]

Hopefully they keep making money. Don?t really know the intricacies of the bargaining but am all for players getting more money as opposed to owners.

[Roy H.]

What are they worth?  And what should that be based upon?

[Goldstar88]

What are they worth?  And what should that be based upon?

Probably quite a bit more than they are making now. Due to Clark.


Revenue Increase:
A finance expert estimated that Clark was responsible for 26.5% of the WNBA's total economic activity in her rookie year, including ticket sales, merchandise, and television revenue, according to Yahoo Sports.

Specific Examples:
Tickets: One in six tickets sold at WNBA arenas can be attributed to Clark.

TV Viewership: Total WNBA viewership is up 300% due to Clark, with Fever games accounting for 45% of the broadcast value.

Merchandise: WNBA merchandise sales have increased by 500%, with Clark-related items ranking first in sales.

Attendance: The Indiana Fever's regular-season attendance reached a record average of 17,036 per game, according to Yahoo Finance.

Team Valuation: The Indiana Fever's franchise value has reportedly quadrupled due to Clark's presence, according to WCNC.

Projected Impact:
With the WNBA season now longer and more popular, her overall economic impact could reach $1 billion in 2025, according to WCNC.

[MattyIce]

Hopefully they keep making money. Don?t really know the intricacies of the bargaining but am all for players getting more money as opposed to owners.

are you familiar with the intricacies of profit/loss?  how many wnba owners do you think are making $?

[hwangjini_1]

the WNBA current arrangement has the players receiving 9.3% of the revenue.

NBA, NFL and NHL shares are closer to 49-51%. The minimum WNBA salary this year is $66,000. yes, the WNBA lost money last year, but that was before this new TV deal, which will clearly pull the WNBA from red to green ink. and this is not counting merch and ticket sales.

the league also expanded the number of games to 44 and extended the finals from 5 to 7 games.

I understand those t-shirts. the players want a more equitable share of the revenue they generate. hopefully the owners do the right thing and keep the WNBA growing.

[Csfan1984]

Hasn't the WNBA been operating at a loss most of their seasons? It seems like a bad slogan choice if the question's answer is yes.

The league needs to operate at a certain threshold to increase profit sharing as the owners are looking to recoup past losses and secure future salary cushions or even expansion.

[Moranis]

9.3% on a loss of 40 million seems about right.  The league has lost like a half a billion dollars and has never been profitable in any season.  Maybe start making some money before you claim you aren't paid properly.

[hwangjini_1]

Hasn't the WNBA been operating at a loss most of their seasons? It seems like a bad slogan choice if the question's answer is yes.

The league needs to operate at a certain threshold to increase profit sharing as the owners are looking to recoup past losses and secure future salary cushions or even expansion.

see the post above yours. 

[hwangjini_1]

9.3% on a loss of 40 million seems about right.  The league has lost like a half a billion dollars and has never been profitable in any season.  Maybe start making some money before you claim you aren't paid properly.

see two posts above yours. 

[Moranis]

9.3% on a loss of 40 million seems about right.  The league has lost like a half a billion dollars and has never been profitable in any season.  Maybe start making some money before you claim you aren't paid properly.

see two posts above yours. 

I saw your post, I disagree.  Until the league makes money, the players don't deserve more.  The extra games (and already increased salaries, charter flights, etc.) has significantly increased the loss as most years the WNBA lost only about 10 million a year (it was about 40 million last year and projected in that same range for this year).  It is yet to be seen if the league is going to make that money back, especially because employee salaries are a very large part of whether a company makes money.  Even if the revenue increases a lot on the tv deal, even a small percentage increase in employee salary can mean that league doesn't make any money.

The NBA, NFL, MLB all make a lot of money.  They have done so for years.  That is why they can pay the percentage they can pay because they can do that and still make money.  The WNBA hasn't made money a single season.  And the interest right now really is just Clark.  She is the only one that would deserve more money.  The numbers bear that out.  The Fever and Clark are what are driving ticket sales and viewership, and it is basically almost entirely in Fever games that Clark plays. 

[bdm860]

I've come around on the WNBA.

I have no doubts on the validity of the "they've never made a profit" thing before last year. But with Caitlin Clark, the Valkyries, rapid expansion, and even other leagues (like Unrivalved) coming around, ownership's claims of "not profitable" aren't making a lot of sense to me.

So we all know about the Caitlin Clark impact (Goldstar88 just posted some facts), and those numbers appear to be before the Valkyries existed, and the Valkyries have sold out every game this year, selling more tickets than the Fever (at least to their home games). League ratings and attendance continue to rise in Clark's 2nd season, despite her missing almost half her games so far. Multiple shoe companies (Nike, Puma, Reebok) are giving WNBA players signature shoes. The WNBA All Star game sold out. The TD Garden has sold out 2 years in a row for a visiting WNBA game, etc. This all points to a positive money making situation.

Then you have to consider Unrivaled. According to Unrivaled execs, they "almost broke even" in their first season, and expect to be profitable in their second season. If a start up women's league, paying higher salaries, can achieve profitability so quickly, what does that say about the WNBA?

I think the biggest argument for profitability is the investment dollars fighting to come in. The Valkyries paid $50m to enter the league and are already estimated to be worth $500m in their first season (though I always take those valuations with a grain of salt, plus the Valkyries are an outlier because of their arena situation, but league average value is still reported at $269m, with the lowest being $165m). On top of that, 11 cities just bid for expansion teams. Cities that previously had WNBA teams (Cleveland, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston) want to bring them back. That doesn't really depict a poor current financial situation.

Then there's Hollywood accounting. Now there's no verified "league lost money" numbers out there, only what league ownership has put out there, and league ownership has every reason to claim they're not making money, but profitability is really a complicated thing, and profitable companies can be made to look unprofitable. Probably a better number to be looking at is operating cash flow. For profitability, the league could be carrying losses on their books from previous years, or be using the increase in capital expenditures (several teams have or are planning to open dedicated WNBA practice facilities) or having parent NBA charging their WNBA subsidiary teams some weird fees or high loan rates to themselves, etc. Show me their current cash flow numbers, and I bet they're positive.

But even if the WNBA is currently losing money (which I'm very skeptical of), they could shut it all down tomorrow and there would be a ton of investors ready to jump in and pick things up. The money train has just started leaving the station, no way the owners are willing to shut it down now. And that shows that the players deserve a lot more money. The owners can claim poverty all they want, but I don't believe they're willing to give up the money the WNBA is now making them.

[tenn_smoothie]

Did the NBA provide the money to get the WNBA started the first year and has it been continuing to provide financial support since then ?

[Kernewek]

I've come around on the WNBA.

I have no doubts on the validity of the "they've never made a profit" thing before last year. But with Caitlin Clark, the Valkyries, rapid expansion, and even other leagues (like Unrivalved) coming around, ownership's claims of "not profitable" aren't making a lot of sense to me.

So we all know about the Caitlin Clark impact (Goldstar88 just posted some facts), and those numbers appear to be before the Valkyries existed, and the Valkyries have sold out every game this year, selling more tickets than the Fever (at least to their home games). League ratings and attendance continue to rise in Clark's 2nd season, despite her missing almost half her games so far. Multiple shoe companies (Nike, Puma, Reebok) are giving WNBA players signature shoes. The WNBA All Star game sold out. The TD Garden has sold out 2 years in a row for a visiting WNBA game, etc. This all points to a positive money making situation.

Then you have to consider Unrivaled. According to Unrivaled execs, they "almost broke even" in their first season, and expect to be profitable in their second season. If a start up women's league, paying higher salaries, can achieve profitability so quickly, what does that say about the WNBA?

I think the biggest argument for profitability is the investment dollars fighting to come in. The Valkyries paid $50m to enter the league and are already estimated to be worth $500m in their first season (though I always take those valuations with a grain of salt, plus the Valkyries are an outlier because of their arena situation, but league average value is still reported at $269m, with the lowest being $165m). On top of that, 11 cities just bid for expansion teams. Cities that previously had WNBA teams (Cleveland, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston) want to bring them back. That doesn't really depict a poor current financial situation.

Then there's Hollywood accounting. Now there's no verified "league lost money" numbers out there, only what league ownership has put out there, and league ownership has every reason to claim they're not making money, but profitability is really a complicated thing, and profitable companies can be made to look unprofitable. Probably a better number to be looking at is operating cash flow. For profitability, the league could be carrying losses on their books from previous years, or be using the increase in capital expenditures (several teams have or are planning to open dedicated WNBA practice facilities) or having parent NBA charging their WNBA subsidiary teams some weird fees or high loan rates to themselves, etc. Show me their current cash flow numbers, and I bet they're positive.

But even if the WNBA is currently losing money (which I'm very skeptical of), they could shut it all down tomorrow and there would be a ton of investors ready to jump in and pick things up. The money train has just started leaving the station, no way the owners are willing to shut it down now. And that shows that the players deserve a lot more money. The owners can claim poverty all they want, but I don't believe they're willing to give up the money the WNBA is now making them.

This is it. I also think it would be weird if the WNBA players weren't advocating for more money during the CBA negotiations - that's kind of the whole point.

[tazzmaniac]

I've come around on the WNBA.

I have no doubts on the validity of the "they've never made a profit" thing before last year. But with Caitlin Clark, the Valkyries, rapid expansion, and even other leagues (like Unrivalved) coming around, ownership's claims of "not profitable" aren't making a lot of sense to me.

So we all know about the Caitlin Clark impact (Goldstar88 just posted some facts), and those numbers appear to be before the Valkyries existed, and the Valkyries have sold out every game this year, selling more tickets than the Fever (at least to their home games). League ratings and attendance continue to rise in Clark's 2nd season, despite her missing almost half her games so far. Multiple shoe companies (Nike, Puma, Reebok) are giving WNBA players signature shoes. The WNBA All Star game sold out. The TD Garden has sold out 2 years in a row for a visiting WNBA game, etc. This all points to a positive money making situation.

Then you have to consider Unrivaled. According to Unrivaled execs, they "almost broke even" in their first season, and expect to be profitable in their second season. If a start up women's league, paying higher salaries, can achieve profitability so quickly, what does that say about the WNBA?

I think the biggest argument for profitability is the investment dollars fighting to come in. The Valkyries paid $50m to enter the league and are already estimated to be worth $500m in their first season (though I always take those valuations with a grain of salt, plus the Valkyries are an outlier because of their arena situation, but league average value is still reported at $269m, with the lowest being $165m). On top of that, 11 cities just bid for expansion teams. Cities that previously had WNBA teams (Cleveland, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston) want to bring them back. That doesn't really depict a poor current financial situation.

Then there's Hollywood accounting. Now there's no verified "league lost money" numbers out there, only what league ownership has put out there, and league ownership has every reason to claim they're not making money, but profitability is really a complicated thing, and profitable companies can be made to look unprofitable. Probably a better number to be looking at is operating cash flow. For profitability, the league could be carrying losses on their books from previous years, or be using the increase in capital expenditures (several teams have or are planning to open dedicated WNBA practice facilities) or having parent NBA charging their WNBA subsidiary teams some weird fees or high loan rates to themselves, etc. Show me their current cash flow numbers, and I bet they're positive.

But even if the WNBA is currently losing money (which I'm very skeptical of), they could shut it all down tomorrow and there would be a ton of investors ready to jump in and pick things up. The money train has just started leaving the station, no way the owners are willing to shut it down now. And that shows that the players deserve a lot more money. The owners can claim poverty all they want, but I don't believe they're willing to give up the money the WNBA is now making them.

This is it. I also think it would be weird if the WNBA players weren't advocating for more money during the CBA negotiations - that's kind of the whole point.

Of course and it would be weird if ownership weren't looking to restrain spending (salary increases, etc) especially when the league has lost money for so long.  I haven't read any specifics about the ownership offer and player demands so it is hard to know how reasonable both sides are being. 

As for the shirts, the players are being paid what they are owed based on their current contract.  The owners won't owe they anything more until a new contract is signed.