Current Events > Gap between Caitlin Clark's WNBA salary and her male counterparts draws outrage

(+) Yeah! (+)

pauIie posted...

she should take up ice cube on his offer. 5 mil for a handful of games and it wouldn't get in the way of her season.

agreed.

she'd make up her salary a bunch of years over.

ClayGuida posted...

www.google.com

So no.

Tanthalas posted...

So no.

You want me to google something for you. That's not how things work.

This was gone over when the Women's Team fought for more money. Educate yourself if you don't understand subjects, but don't assume others will do it for you.

The WNBA is not profitable. It literally cannot afford to pay Clark even close to NBA salaries.

That said, the NBA needs to decide what they want to do with the WNBA. Because if they ever want to be WNBA to be anything more than a side-show money sink, they need to actually invest it it, even if it means losing more money in the short-term. The fact that top-tier athletic talent would be better off becoming an accountant than playing in the WNBA is not how you grow a league. This is a case where you do in fact have to spend money to make money.

So while it might not be reasonable for Clark to make NBA dollars, the NBA does need to open up their pocket books and pay players more than they are getting now if they ever want to be taken seriously.

She'll get tons of endorsements. She's then hottest thing going right now in basketball man or woman. But it really should be higher

ClayGuida posted...

The problem with that reasoning is that the US Mens team never drew a dime. It was playing various other nations teams that did. While the women's team drew ratings and money and never earned a pittance.

This is false, becasue USWNT and USMNT pay was based on the money generated across the World stage, not just nationally.

So the Men's team still pulled from a lager pie than the Women's team did, regardless of the team's successes on the World scale.

Women's soccer is no where near the money juggernaut that Men's soccer is on a world scale. And THAT's there the money disparity always came from.

ClayGuida posted...

You want me to google something for you. That's not how things work.

This was gone over when the Women's Team fought for more money. Educate yourself if you don't understand subjects, but don't assume others will do it for you.

Normally it's the people making the claim that should provide the info supporting it.

And the answer is that things just aren't that simple.

For example, contrary to your claim that the male team didn't earn any money, in most years both teams actually drew in similar amounts of revenue, some year the women earned more, some years the men. So, you know, you could have just said that instead of pretending that only the women's team was making money.

Tanthalas posted...

Normally it's the people making the claim that should provide the info supporting it.

And the answer is that things just aren't that simple.

For example, contrary to your claim that the male team didn't earn any money, in most years both teams actually drew in similar amounts of revenue, some year the women earned more, some years the men. So, you know, you could have just said that instead of pretending that only the women's team was making money.

Also, lets no sit here and pretend that the USWNT Player's Association isn't to blame for being terrible negotiators when it comes to the CBA. Becasue if you actually followed this story prior to it becoming a hot button issue, the Player's Association was constantly agreeing to terrible deals. up until around 2020, when they finally were generating enough money on their own, via endorsements and other avenues, to actually have negotiating power.

CADE_FOSTER posted...

If Cailtin doesnt get people to watch the WNBA is dead

Well the wnba shouldn't have Caitlin do it alone, need to create a strong rivalry/superstar duo like they did with angel Reese at LSU. Could be the magic vs bird rivalry/superstar they needed to save the league like the NBA and then hopefully a jordan type shows up later.

I can hear Bill Burr ranting in the distance.

Hopefully with her hitting the WNBA it will drive popularity to where they can afford to pay more. I think there's an incoming impact though, I've seen more than the typical number of friends and associates sharing posts and information about WNBA lately. She may end up being their MJ.

The WNBA season is 2.5 months. Shes making 75-100k for 2 months.

Shes not making regular people money. Stop comparing her pay to regular jobs that usually make less than that for 12 months of work.

I say this as this boards only genuine WNBA supporter.

Krojen posted...

I say this as this boards only genuine WNBA supporter.

Hey! I've been going to 2-3 Liberty games every year since the Teresa Weatherspoon days!

I'm no superfan, but I support the league more than 90% of the people that clamor online about player's pay.

That bill burr clip comes immediately to mind, and he was right.

She'll make most of her money on sponsorships anyways. It baffles me that somehow people STILL don't understand simple economics... The WNBA isn't bringing in the same type of money and ratings the NBA is lol, I don't see how people don't understand something so simplistic. OBVIOUSLY their pay isn't going to be the same.

Tanthalas posted...

Normally it's the people making the claim that should provide the info supporting it.

And the answer is that things just aren't that simple.

For example, contrary to your claim that the male team didn't earn any money, in most years both teams actually drew in similar amounts of revenue, some year the women earned more, some years the men. So, you know, you could have just said that instead of pretending that only the women's team was making money.

So you chose not to google it? Okay, your loss.

hyperskate65 posted...

Unpopular opinion: all pro sports players should make around that much.

yeah man let's just have all the money go to the billionaire owners instead

stupid fucking post

A yearly article where people pretend they don't understand why men's and women's sports pay differently. They ARE NOT equal, that's the point.

You can think she could be paid more relative to her sport without literally thinking her pay should be anywhere near an NBA players. While revenue was $200M, the year before that it was just $60M.

To pay her the same as the #1 rookie from the NBA would literally bankrupt the WNBA on the spot. It's a simple numbers game, this shit ain't hard. And I never even heard of this person.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

A yearly article where people pretend they don't understand why men's and women's sports pay differently. They ARE NOT equal, that's the point.

You can think she could be paid more relative to her sport without literally thinking her pay should be anywhere near an NBA players. While revenue was $200M, the year before that it was just $60M.

To pay her the same as the #1 rookie from the NBA would literally bankrupt the WNBA on the spot. It's a simple numbers game, this shit ain't hard. And I never even heard of this person.

How do you feel about Brock Purdy, QB in the most profitable league in the country only making a few hundred thousand a year?

Let me guess, you'll make more excuses? "Well that's his contract" or "He was the last pick of the draft" or some other nonsense.

The point of this post is that people like you will constantly make excuses in instances like this.

ClayGuida posted...

How do you feel about Brock Purdy, QB in the most profitable league in the country only making a few hundred thousand a year?

Let me guess, you'll make more excuses? "Well that's his contract" or "He was the last pick of the draft" or some other nonsense.

The point of this post is that people like you will constantly make excuses in instances like this.

... this is an asinine attempt at a gotcha, lol. There are no "excuses" needed to understand an end-of-the-draft rookie signing a multi-year minimum-salary contract (which will give him just over $1M next season, not "a few hundred thousand" - minimum for a rookie is now $750k).

It's not a gotcha, it's the point that many people are simply pro corporation/billionaire and anti workers rights.

These are the same people who whine about McDonalds employees making $15 an hour or claim that athletes make too much money.

The simple fact is all of these people should be making tens of millions annually because of what they provide. For Purdy it's being one of the best players in his draft, no matter the position, and for Clark, instantly bringing in millions in revenue the moment she qualified for the draft.

Contracts, CBA, whatever shouldn't matter in instances like this, because sometimes there needs to be exceptions. Clark should be making max and Purdy should have been eligible for a pay increase after the season.

"Rules are rules" only seems to apply when it's stifling wages. These teams have no issue cutting players and backing out of contracts.

The problem with that reasoning is that the US Mens team never drew a dime. It was playing various other nations teams that did. While the women's team drew ratings and money and never earned a pittance.

You mean the women's team -- the best women's team in the world -- that got trounced by a team of 14- and 15-year-old boys? Face it: Women's sports are never going to bring in the same money or revenue because the product just isn't that good. Switch back and forth between the men's NCAA basketball tournament and the women's one sometime and you'll see the difference. It's blatantly obvious.

AssassinFox posted...

You mean the women's team -- the best women's team in the world -- that got trounced by a team of 14- and 15-year-old boys? Face it: Women's sports are never going to bring in the same money or revenue because the product just isn't that good. Switch back and forth between the men's NCAA basketball tournament and the women's one sometime and you'll see the difference. It's blatantly obvious.

This post thinks it's relevant at all to this topic.

It's not.

bigblu89 posted...

Hey! I've been going to 2-3 Liberty games every year since the Teresa Weatherspoon days!

I'm no superfan, but I support the league more than 90% of the people that clamor online about player's pay.

Wow respect! You absolutely do.

No team here so havent been to a game in a long time, but I own various merch of every team. I also buy the increasingly useless league pass.

Compsognathus posted...

The WNBA is not profitable. It literally cannot afford to pay Clark even close to NBA salaries.

That said, the NBA needs to decide what they want to do with the WNBA. Because if they ever want to be WNBA to be anything more than a side-show money sink, they need to actually invest it it, even if it means losing more money in the short-term. The fact that top-tier athletic talent would be better off becoming an accountant than playing in the WNBA is not how you grow a league. This is a case where you do in fact have to spend money to make money.

So while it might not be reasonable for Clark to make NBA dollars, the NBA does need to open up their pocket books and pay players more than they are getting now if they ever want to be taken seriously.

when yall say stuff like this it makes it painfully obvious yall dont know what youre talking about.

The WNBA has been profitable for a few years now which is why theyre going into the massive expansion plan with one team already announced with a second third and possibly fourth to come in the near future.

They also have a new tv deal after next year. Which is going to massively change the amount of money they make.

unless something catastrophic happens the WNBA will be thing million dollar contract within the next five years.

Theyve already been doing the investing your asking for.

ClayGuida posted...

This post thinks it's relevant at all to this topic.

It's not.

Here, I'll explain how it's relevant because you're apparently incapable of understanding the very simple points I made. Women's sports bring in less money because they're less entertaining. They're less entertaining because the quality of play even at the professional/international level is, at best, on par with that of junior high or high school boys' sports. Therefore, it's unreasonable to expect the WNBA to bring in even a fraction of the NBA's revenue, and WNBA players should not expect to be paid as much as top-tier male athletes.

ClayGuida posted...

How do you feel about Brock Purdy, QB in the most profitable league in the country only making a few hundred thousand a year?

Who gives a shit what I think? This is a failed gotcha wrapped in a moving the goalposts all at once, and has nothing to do with the fact that there's no controversy on WNBA vs NBA pay. It's virtue signaling and arguing in bad taste.

Mizznox posted...

... this is an asinine attempt at a gotcha, lol. There are no "excuses" needed to understand an end-of-the-draft rookie signing a multi-year minimum-salary contract (which will give him just over $1M next season, not "a few hundred thousand" - minimum for a rookie is now $750k).

Yeah, not sure what his point even is. Rookie deals are rookie deals for a reason. He's the last pick of the draft which 99% of the time never amounts to anything. He'll get a multi-million dollar deal soon enough. Where's the controversy?
ClayGuida posted...

This post thinks it's relevant at all to this topic.

It's not.

Now that's irony.

Much how you pivoted into making this some sort of class warfare take after you got taken to task for actually trying to defend the silly article.

Just take the L.

ClayGuida posted...

"Rules are rules" only seems to apply when it's stifling wages. These teams have no issue cutting players and backing out of contracts.

And players have no issue holding out of training camp and actual games (Like Chris Jones did with the KC Chiefs this season) becasue they feel they are being underpaid.

gamepimp12 posted...

when yall say stuff like this it makes it painfully obvious yall dont know what youre talking about.

The WNBA has been profitable for a few years now which is why theyre going into the massive expansion plan with one team already announced with a second third and possibly fourth to come in the near future.

They also have a new tv deal after next year. Which is going to massively change the amount of money they make.

unless something catastrophic happens the WNBA will be thing million dollar contract within the next five years.

Theyve already been doing the investing your asking for.

So, in other words...

A league that is only 27 years old, which is still considered to be in it's infancy compared to the NBA (72 years), NFL (104 years), NHL (107 years), and MLB (123 years) is JUST starting to turn a profit and reinvesting in the league.

That's how business works.

bigblu89 posted...

So, in other words...

A league that is only 27 years old, which is still considered to be in it's infancy compared to the NBA (72 years), NFL (104 years), NHL (107 years), and MLB (123 years) is JUST starting to turn a profit and reinvesting in the league.

That's how business works.

.. yeah thats what I said.

my post is in reply to the people thinking the wnba is still a failed business.