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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure about that?

Don't be that dick that trashes a talented athlete based on her looks. It's mean. And it's sexist.

She is not a pretty girl. That was what was challenged.
It is not sexist.

That' is an irrelevant opinion to the discussion. And it is sexist when there is not that sort of focus on appearance on male athletes and their worth. That IS sexist.

Yes, David Beckham is still relevant today as a male athlete because he was just SO good, even though he retired over 10 years ago. Nothing to do with his looks

[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.

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.

For softball, the NCAA decided to use that sport as a study to see if they could increase viewership by putting money into marketing.

Sounds like a study seeing if water is wet, but it worked.

Pro sports Have not the same.

But there are a few women’s pros force that people would rather watch like tennis

Maybe. It also helped that Alo was just freaking incredible during that same period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to look at viewership and game attendance and compare the two. Salaries for any players is dependent on income brought in, with a few standouts making (significantly) more.

Viewership and attendance to the WNBA is far less.

This.

When the WNBA is bringing in as many viewers and attendance is as good as the NBA and the merch is flying off the shelves, salaries will increase.

If anyone can help increase viewership in the the WNBA, it would be Caitlin Clark.

WNBA hasn't been promoted or invested in nearly as much as the men's side. So the "they don't bring in viewers" line becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Completely false. ESPN has tried to jam the WNBA down our throats for years. They air WNBA during fantastic hours on major networks and have so for years, yet hardly anyone watches.

The women's game just sucks. They chuck 3s and do layups. No dunking. Less physical. And their free throwing is often atrocious.

Women's tennis, in contrast, is good to watch because they can rally very well and don't see so hard like the men do that your just not watching ace after ace.

League wide, the NBA free throw percentage is 77.8%. League wide, the WNBA is 79.4%. I guess you should avoid the WNBA if you hate threes and layups- I'm just wondering what league you've found that still values the midrange?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure about that?

Don't be that dick that trashes a talented athlete based on her looks. It's mean. And it's sexist.

She is not a pretty girl. That was what was challenged.
It is not sexist.

She doesn’t need to be pretty to get a lot of deals. Look at some of the male NBA players with massive contracts.

Plus she has her hair back in an unflattering pony tail with no makeup. She’s attractive just doesn’t try.

[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.

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.

For softball, the NCAA decided to use that sport as a study to see if they could increase viewership by putting money into marketing.

Sounds like a study seeing if water is wet, but it worked.

Pro sports Have not the same.

But there are a few women’s pros force that people would rather watch like tennis

I can’t imagine anyone but the team’s family members would want to watch softball.

[Anonymous]

She is pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to look at viewership and game attendance and compare the two. Salaries for any players is dependent on income brought in, with a few standouts making (significantly) more.

Viewership and attendance to the WNBA is far less.

This.

When the WNBA is bringing in as many viewers and attendance is as good as the NBA and the merch is flying off the shelves, salaries will increase.

If anyone can help increase viewership in the the WNBA, it would be Caitlin Clark.

WNBA hasn't been promoted or invested in nearly as much as the men's side. So the "they don't bring in viewers" line becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Completely false. ESPN has tried to jam the WNBA down our throats for years. They air WNBA during fantastic hours on major networks and have so for years, yet hardly anyone watches.

The women's game just sucks. They chuck 3s and do layups. No dunking. Less physical. And their free throwing is often atrocious.

Women's tennis, in contrast, is good to watch because they can rally very well and don't see so hard like the men do that your just not watching ace after ace.

WNBA viewership is up 21%. The reason the WNBA is not making money is because they’re in a s****y contract with the media companies Who are making money off the WNBA. The contact ends in a year and they can renegotiate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

For softball, the NCAA decided to use that sport as a study to see if they could increase viewership by putting money into marketing.

Sounds like a study seeing if water is wet, but it worked.

Pro sports Have not the same.

But there are a few women’s pros force that people would rather watch like tennis

I can’t imagine anyone but the team’s family members would want to watch softball.

Well you are wrong and men’s baseball makes only about $500K more than softball… and softball is riding at a faster rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

That's because they made the men's game much harder to access and also a crappier time slot.

The men’s final, although I was also annoyed that it started after 9 pm, was in prime time, and the women’s final was not. They call it “prime time” because there are more viewers available. Also, the women’s final is on Sunday afternoon and the men’s final is on Monday night every year, so why the difference this time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

For softball, the NCAA decided to use that sport as a study to see if they could increase viewership by putting money into marketing.

Sounds like a study seeing if water is wet, but it worked.

Pro sports Have not the same.

But there are a few women’s pros force that people would rather watch like tennis

I can’t imagine anyone but the team’s family members would want to watch softball.

The championship game drew well over 2 million viewers. It's SUCH a fun spectator sport. The women are so fast and such great athletes. And you combine that with the smaller field and every play is bang-bang

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, $338K for four years?

I knew there was a gap, but that is pretty eye opening.

Total revenue for the WNBA is $60 million, and that's with the NBA requiring WNBA games be broadcast, giving them venues, etc. NBA revenue is $8-9 billion, so even with the subsidies, implicit and explicit, total WNBA revenue is less than a percent. Maybe Caitlin will help change it. But the league has been on life support from the NBA throughout its existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

That's because they made the men's game much harder to access and also a crappier time slot.

The men’s final, although I was also annoyed that it started after 9 pm, was in prime time, and the women’s final was not. They call it “prime time” because there are more viewers available. Also, the women’s final is on Sunday afternoon and the men’s final is on Monday night every year, so why the difference this time?

The men's game aired on difficult to access networks. It's much easier to watch games on a weekend than a late Monday night too. The NFL is evidence beyond belief that more people watch sports on a Sunday afternoon than a late Monday night. You can call it prime time all you want. Sunday afternoon sports will always get watched more.

They aired the Men's game on HBO max, TBS, TNT, and TruTV vs . It might as well been broadcast on channel 392...lol. They aired the women's on ESPN and ABC, that's why there was a difference this time. I can get ABC via antenna for free like everyone in the country. I cannot get TBS, TNT, TruTV, or HBO Max without significantly more hurdles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to look at viewership and game attendance and compare the two. Salaries for any players is dependent on income brought in, with a few standouts making (significantly) more.

Viewership and attendance to the WNBA is far less.

This.

When the WNBA is bringing in as many viewers and attendance is as good as the NBA and the merch is flying off the shelves, salaries will increase.

If anyone can help increase viewership in the the WNBA, it would be Caitlin Clark.

WNBA hasn't been promoted or invested in nearly as much as the men's side. So the "they don't bring in viewers" line becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Completely false. ESPN has tried to jam the WNBA down our throats for years. They air WNBA during fantastic hours on major networks and have so for years, yet hardly anyone watches.

The women's game just sucks. They chuck 3s and do layups. No dunking. Less physical. And their free throwing is often atrocious.

Women's tennis, in contrast, is good to watch because they can rally very well and don't see so hard like the men do that your just not watching ace after ace.

WNBA viewership is up 21%. The reason the WNBA is not making money is because they’re in a s****y contract with the media companies Who are making money off the WNBA. The contact ends in a year and they can renegotiate.

Percent changes are relative to baselines. If my baseline is low, a 21% change could be economically meaningless.

If I have 100 people watch wnba watch one year and 121 the next, wow big whoop 21% increase!!!

Meanwhile, if 1 million watch NBA one year and 1.05 million watch the next, it's only a 5% increase yet 50,000 more people watching NBA is much more important for a marketer than 21 people more watching the wnba. Percent changes need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure about that?

Don't be that dick that trashes a talented athlete based on her looks. It's mean. And it's sexist.

She is not a pretty girl. That was what was challenged.
It is not sexist.

DP but it wasn't worth commenting on. You don't need to comment on her looks at all, no one does. You are in fact a d!ck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure about that?

Don't be that dick that trashes a talented athlete based on her looks. It's mean. And it's sexist.

She is not a pretty girl. That was what was challenged.
It is not sexist.

DP but it wasn't worth commenting on. You don't need to comment on her looks at all, no one does. You are in fact a d!ck.

She looks good to me