Pay us what you owe us.

[gift]

perhaps a deal could be struck whereby the players contribute (via lower salaries) to future equity (not real equity in the franchises, but equity in future royalties).

this way, the players can take on some of the "investment" which justifies manageable current salaries and also justifies automatic increases in their profit share if certain growth is attained.

[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.

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.

Yeah that's fair - the shirts are obviously designed for the optics of the discussion, and to influence the ongoing conversations here and elsewhere - but that's true of every aspect of the conversation, as bdm points out.

I'm not up-to-date on who owns which franchise, but I think most of the WNBA ownership groups/individuals are holding these businesses as a piece of their portfolios, which makes me less sympathetic to their position of needing to balance the budget.

[Donoghus]

9.3% is utterly insane.

[Moranis]

If you are going to wear those shirts, you can't approach the actual all star game like the NBA players.  You can't have players give live in game interviews calling the product on the floor garbage.  I mean this is a direct quote

"Just plain terrible. A disturbing display of basketball on both ends of the court."

That is from Page Bueckers. 

Sabrina Ionescu - "I think it probably would be more competitive if teams didn't play in such a short amount of days. And I think that's somethingbas we're talking obviously into our CBA and understanding that All-Stara don't really have a break. We finish, we get on a flight the next day, we're here, jam-packed weekend, wanting to pour into fans, show up to events, do 3 contests, skills contests, and then play in a game and fly right back to practice and play in three days.'

There you have it 2 stars of the game acknowledging they didn't try at all while begging for more money.  All the while they are live streaming drunk on Twitch.  And apparently Team Clark didn't even know about the shirts until just before warmup because no Team Clark members were in the planning meetings.  Seems to me they need an adult in the room because there clearly isnt one that understands optics.