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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol @ no one watches womens sports so its ok to pay them worse

Caitlin Clarks most recent games have had more viewership than any basketball game in the last 5 years - including every single game in the NBA during that time.

There is literally no excuse to pay her less. She will be rolling in it with her sponsorships though.

Sure there is. The WNBA earns a teeny tiny fraction of what the NBA does. Hopefully Clark and the other star players can change that so all the women get better salaries. In the meantime, marketing will bring the top players loads of cash, while the rank and file struggle along.

Add to that, the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. I'll say that again - the WNBA doesn't bring in enough revenue to pay even the meager salaries it offers now.

[Anonymous]

I wish they could have moved the games against the Fever to Capital One arena. Maybe with cheaper tickets more people would/could attend.

That prospect is already being raised in the media.

[Anonymous]

But also, as we’ve seen with college basketball, until the WNBA gets equal coverage in terms of their games being on TV, coverage on sports center/ESPN etc, things don’t change.

this needs to happen to give the WNBA a fair shot at getting more interest in terms of viewing and attending games.

[Anonymous]

My DH just told me that Griener basketball player made 1 million a year in Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we are going to the Washington Mystics games this year? The interest in WNBA has to be sustained; it must be reflected in game attendance, merchandise sale etc., if we want to see the women’s salary increase.

I just bought ticket for when Caitlin Clark plays the Mystics in June. They were $175 for upper deck tickets! We normally go to 1-2 Mystics games a year and are used to paying $50 for lower level tickets. Crazy upcharge but that's the way it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro pickleball players make significantly more.

Sure they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t watch any sports, but even I know who this girl is. I assume (?) and hope she will get some big endorsements. She is a pretty girl and that will help her—think volleyballer Gabby Reese.

- my .02 which means nothing.

Interestingly enough, she's a woman.
I know what's confusing, but they try to help you out by naming the league the Women's National
Basketball
Association.

[Anonymous]

People don’t watch women’s sports except perhaps tennis. So I think this is fair. Professional sports are a business, not an entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol @ no one watches womens sports so its ok to pay them worse

Caitlin Clarks most recent games have had more viewership than any basketball game in the last 5 years - including every single game in the NBA during that time.

There is literally no excuse to pay her less. She will be rolling in it with her sponsorships though.

Sure there is. The WNBA earns a teeny tiny fraction of what the NBA does. Hopefully Clark and the other star players can change that so all the women get better salaries. In the meantime, marketing will bring the top players loads of cash, while the rank and file struggle along.

Add to that, the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. I'll say that again - the WNBA doesn't bring in enough revenue to pay even the meager salaries it offers now.

Don’t you dare say that again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we are going to the Washington Mystics games this year? The interest in WNBA has to be sustained; it must be reflected in game attendance, merchandise sale etc., if we want to see the women’s salary increase.

+1. If you want thinks to change people have to start buying tickets and merchandise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t watch women’s sports except perhaps tennis. So I think this is fair. Professional sports are a business, not an entitlement.

The NCAA men’s basketball championship (Purdue-UConn) drew a smaller TV crowd than the women’s final for the first time ever.

The men’s final on Monday (primetime): 14.82 million viewers.

The women’s final (Iowa-South Carolina) on Sunday (not in primetime): 18.87 million.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/womens-ncaa-final-bigger-tv-ratings-than-mens-first-time-1235870291/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH just told me that Griener basketball player made 1 million a year in Russia.

Well - we all know what happened to her for the price of 1 million a year. Go to Russia and find out if it’s worth it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t watch women’s sports except perhaps tennis. So I think this is fair. Professional sports are a business, not an entitlement.

The NCAA men’s basketball championship (Purdue-UConn) drew a smaller TV crowd than the women’s final for the first time ever.

The men’s final on Monday (primetime): 14.82 million viewers.

The women’s final (Iowa-South Carolina) on Sunday (not in primetime): 18.87 million.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/womens-ncaa-final-bigger-tv-ratings-than-mens-first-time-1235870291/

Now do every other game in the season and the pro games.

The number of watch-hours per player is far higher for men's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol @ no one watches womens sports so its ok to pay them worse

Caitlin Clarks most recent games have had more viewership than any basketball game in the last 5 years - including every single game in the NBA during that time.

There is literally no excuse to pay her less. She will be rolling in it with her sponsorships though.

For some reason (I'm not honestly not sure why), people love to watch women's college sports but not women's professional sports.

It happens with softball too. the NCAA softball championships gets good viewership and is super fun to watch

But nobody watches the pro leagues. My family included. We hunker down and watch as much of the women's college world series as possible. but we tried to watch the pro games and ended up turning it off.