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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Holy crap the men’s final wasn’t on CBS? That seems new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 looked at getting tickets to a Mystics game, specifically when the Fever comes here. However, the cheapest I could find was $299 per ticket. That’s too much for me to spend for my family of 4. I looked at tickets at Indiana and there were some as cheap as $15. I wish they could have moved the games against the Fever to Capital One arena. Maybe with cheaper tickets more people would/could attend.

Tickets for the Mystics against other teams were as cheap as $30-40, which I think is reasonable.

I went looking for tickets for when Chicago Sky plays Mystics at home and the price I’m seeing is $499+ and there are limited seats available. I can’t afford it! Guess I’ll buy a Reese jersey for my kid…that cost $122.

[Anonymous]

^$419+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Da hell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Bruh. You keep thoughts like that to yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

Because men have already saturated the US market. Exponential growth doesn't last for infinity. Plus you're wrong. NBA is massively popular in China while WNBA probably doesn't even register. US isn't the only market in the world. China LOVES NBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

The WNBA used to have much higher viewership when it started before it tailed off. The uptick you are describing is a recent phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

The WNBA used to have much higher viewership when it started before it tailed off. The uptick you are describing is a recent phenomenon.

Things that never happened for $500 Alex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

The WNBA used to have much higher viewership when it started before it tailed off. The uptick you are describing is a recent phenomenon.

Things that never happened for $500 Alex

Google is your friend, genius.

[Anonymous]

So where are all the "feminists" on here?
Are you not outraged that Antonio Brown called Caitlin Clark an ugly racial slur?

[Anonymous]

The media has to continue talking about this draft class when they begin playing in the WNBA. Sabrina Ionescu was talked about so much, especially in her senior year and the lead up to the draft. She was the number 1 draft for her class. She got a Nike shoe deal, she is still a special talent, she’s still playing great ball but it seems like the media stopped talking about her. For the league to grow the interest in players have to be sustained beyond draft night and the media has to play its part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One is growing exponentially and one is practically flatlining.

Men are so fragile when women are in their heals.

The WNBA used to have much higher viewership when it started before it tailed off. The uptick you are describing is a recent phenomenon.

Things that never happened for $500 Alex

Google is your friend, genius.

Googled it and you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be real: Caitlyn Clark would struggle even to get playing time on a decent boys high school team, and the WNBA is an entirely subsidized public relations exercise of the NBA. She’s fun to watch and I’m glad the WNBA exists, but the financial comparison posited by the OP is a absurd.

Ignorant, just ignorant.