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.

[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. 

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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

[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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

I get they are going from 60 million to 200 million, but they are also expanding so there are more teams with their hand in the pie. They have 13 this year with Golden State, but they are going up to 18 teams. More teams also means more travel, more refs, more everything, which also increases the expenses and may not increase revenue enough to make up for that more travel and all those new salaries from all those new teams.  And if the petty WNBA players keep injuring Clark, they may find out real fast that the alleged increase in viewership, merchandise, etc. all goes away.  Maybe it is more than Clark, but until the numbers really show that, it sure looks like Clark is the reason and Clark needs to stay healthy and on the floor.

[Donoghus]

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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

I get they are going from 60 million to 200 million, but they are also expanding so there are more teams with their hand in the pie. They have 13 this year with Golden State, but they are going up to 18 teams. More teams also means more travel, more refs, more everything, which also increases the expenses and may not increase revenue enough to make up for that more travel and all those new salaries from all those new teams.  And if the petty WNBA players keep injuring Clark, they may find out real fast that the alleged increase in viewership, merchandise, etc. all goes away.  Maybe it is more than Clark, but until the numbers really show that, it sure looks like Clark is the reason and Clark needs to stay healthy and on the floor.

An injured Clark will certainly affect ratings (see last weekend?s ASG) which might be a long term hypothetical concern but the league is also raking in money from expansion fees right now to the tune of $250 million a franchise.  Team valuations are exploding.  The league?s near term future is secure. 9.3% is ridiculous. The players deserve a lot more.

[Ilikesports17]

In truth, Ive historically kind of rolled my eyes at the grousing of WNBA players about salary. But I do think the players should get a lot more here.

Im guessing the owners will give them a much bigger chunk of the pie in exchange for no more moonlighting overseas.

[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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

I get they are going from 60 million to 200 million, but they are also expanding so there are more teams with their hand in the pie. They have 13 this year with Golden State, but they are going up to 18 teams. More teams also means more travel, more refs, more everything, which also increases the expenses and may not increase revenue enough to make up for that more travel and all those new salaries from all those new teams.  And if the petty WNBA players keep injuring Clark, they may find out real fast that the alleged increase in viewership, merchandise, etc. all goes away.  Maybe it is more than Clark, but until the numbers really show that, it sure looks like Clark is the reason and Clark needs to stay healthy and on the floor.

An injured Clark will certainly affect ratings (see last weekend?s ASG) which might be a long term hypothetical concern but the league is also raking in money from expansion fees right now to the tune of $250 million a franchise.  Team valuations are exploding.  The league?s near term future is secure. 9.3% is ridiculous. The players deserve a lot more.

expansion fees never count as revenue because they are one off payments.  Let's see if the league actual starts making money before we claim they deserve more.

[KeepBigAl]

Why not negotiate a deal in which after the NBA pulls all subsidies and the league actually profits in a season at a specific benchmark (post the completion of full season in which revenue is earned as a fully standalone business) then the players share of revenue rises.

It's awesome to see the league finally drawing some attention, but sustainability is a concern given the outsized impact of a single player.  TV ratings have fallen 50% since Clark's injury and the even the all star game with the other supposed draws was down 40%.   While there has clearly been improvement in interest, it's hard justify saying you are 'owed' NBA level salary percentages based on how the league performs now.

[gift]

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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

I get they are going from 60 million to 200 million, but they are also expanding so there are more teams with their hand in the pie. They have 13 this year with Golden State, but they are going up to 18 teams. More teams also means more travel, more refs, more everything, which also increases the expenses and may not increase revenue enough to make up for that more travel and all those new salaries from all those new teams.  And if the petty WNBA players keep injuring Clark, they may find out real fast that the alleged increase in viewership, merchandise, etc. all goes away.  Maybe it is more than Clark, but until the numbers really show that, it sure looks like Clark is the reason and Clark needs to stay healthy and on the floor.

An injured Clark will certainly affect ratings (see last weekend?s ASG) which might be a long term hypothetical concern but the league is also raking in money from expansion fees right now to the tune of $250 million a franchise.  Team valuations are exploding.  The league?s near term future is secure. 9.3% is ridiculous. The players deserve a lot more.

i'm not sure what justification was used to arrive at 9.3%. i assume it's merely a negotiated rate and doesn't have a ton of backstop. so if that's the case, i'm fine with the players demanding 50% as a negotiating tactic (assuming the justification is that "we're partners with the owners"). however, the reality is that even at a lower number, with the league finally making a little money, their pay will go up anyway.

if the league has been losing money for years, i don't completely blame the owners for some notion that this is their chance to recoup some money... finally.

it all comes down to leverage. i think the players definitely have the most they've ever had right now, with a super marketable star, interest at a high, expansion in the works and the narrative of profit turning to their side. but do they have more than the owners who still have by far the most invested in a league that is going from perennial losses to potentially razor thin margin for profitability? i'm not sure.

[Roy H.]

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.

hmmmm. you have missed that part of my post that mentioned the new TV deal with pushes the WNBA into the black, profitable mode. that might change your calculations and put you into the "pay them what they are worth" group. 

I get they are going from 60 million to 200 million, but they are also expanding so there are more teams with their hand in the pie. They have 13 this year with Golden State, but they are going up to 18 teams. More teams also means more travel, more refs, more everything, which also increases the expenses and may not increase revenue enough to make up for that more travel and all those new salaries from all those new teams.  And if the petty WNBA players keep injuring Clark, they may find out real fast that the alleged increase in viewership, merchandise, etc. all goes away.  Maybe it is more than Clark, but until the numbers really show that, it sure looks like Clark is the reason and Clark needs to stay healthy and on the floor.

An injured Clark will certainly affect ratings (see last weekend?s ASG) which might be a long term hypothetical concern but the league is also raking in money from expansion fees right now to the tune of $250 million a franchise.  Team valuations are exploding.  The league?s near term future is secure. 9.3% is ridiculous. The players deserve a lot more.

i'm not sure what justification was used to arrive at 9.3%. i assume it's merely a negotiated rate and doesn't have a ton of backstop. so if that's the case, i'm fine with the players demanding 50% as a negotiating tactic (assuming the justification is that "we're partners with the owners"). however, the reality is that even at a lower number, with the league finally making a little money, their pay will go up anyway.

if the league has been losing money for years, i don't completely blame the owners for some notion that this is their chance to recoup some money... finally.

it all comes down to leverage. i think the players definitely have the most they've ever had right now, with a super marketable star, interest at a high, expansion in the works and the narrative of profit turning to their side. but do they have more than the owners who still have by far the most invested in a league that is going from perennial losses to potentially razor thin margin for profitability? i'm not sure.

Yeah, I don't know what a fair percentage is.  I also don't know how you come up with a "fair" salary structure.  The fact is, Clark probably "deserves" a much higher salary than anybody else.  She's not the best player, but she's the biggest draw. 

I think that whatever deal they agree to, it should have opt outs for both sides within two years, to better track the health of the league.

[Moranis]

There is already an escalator in the 9.3% i.e. if cumulative revenue targets are met, the share increases. It goes the other way as well as the number used to be higher in 2019 for example it was 11.1%

Also, about 60% of the league revenue goes to thr NBA and other investors.  So 9.3% of 40% is about 25% of the available revenue.  Still not as much as other leagues, but a lot better when viewed in that context especially for a league that has never been profitable and whose investors continually lose money year after year (even with 60% going to them).  The only reason the league still exists is Silver wanting it to exist.  That is why all the competing leagues over the years failed i.e. they didn't have an investor that had to make money at some point.

[Roy H.]

There is already an escalator in the 9.3% i.e. if cumulative revenue targets are met, the share increases. It goes the other way as well as the number used to be higher in 2019 for example it was 11.1%

Also, about 60% of the league revenue goes to thr NBA and other investors.  So 9.3% of 40% is about 25% of the available revenue.  Still not as much as other leagues, but a lot better when viewed in that context especially for a league that has never been profitable and whose investors continually lose money year after year (even with 60% going to them).  The only reason the league still exists is Silver wanting it to exist.  That is why all the competing leagues over the years failed i.e. they didn't have an investor that had to make money at some point.

I get your point.  At the same time, a lot of very smart, wealthy people want to invest in the league.  Presumably those people don't enjoy burning money.  Apparently the expansion fees are now $250 million per franchise.  Nobody pays that, only to guarantee that they'll be losing money on their investment.  What are they seeing that you're not?

[Moranis]

There is already an escalator in the 9.3% i.e. if cumulative revenue targets are met, the share increases. It goes the other way as well as the number used to be higher in 2019 for example it was 11.1%

Also, about 60% of the league revenue goes to thr NBA and other investors.  So 9.3% of 40% is about 25% of the available revenue.  Still not as much as other leagues, but a lot better when viewed in that context especially for a league that has never been profitable and whose investors continually lose money year after year (even with 60% going to them).  The only reason the league still exists is Silver wanting it to exist.  That is why all the competing leagues over the years failed i.e. they didn't have an investor that had to make money at some point.

I get your point.  At the same time, a lot of very smart, wealthy people want to invest in the league.  Presumably those people don't enjoy burning money.  Apparently the expansion fees are now $250 million per franchise.  Nobody pays that, only to guarantee that they'll be losing money on their investment.  What are they seeing that you're not?

I think they believe that this is real growth and not just Clark oriented.  That while Clark is the catalyst, she is just that a catalyst and not the sole reason for growth.  And I do tend to lean that way as well, but so far it really has been Clark. The numbers have all plummeted with her injured again. Not to pre-Clark levels, but they are much lower.

I'm all for athletes making what they should, I just think the WNBA players are going about this all wrong and are probably a season or two too early. The league is projected to lose 50 million this year after all.