Sfdebris.net

I know some of you don't follow sports but I am sure most have heard about the controversy about Caitlyn Clark's rookie contract with the WNBA. She is set to make $76.5k which obviously sounds incredibly low.

I feel the need to set the record straight why she is being paid so low compared to her male counterparts. This isn't some sort of patriarchy scheme to severely underpay the women in the sport. This is not the same as the soccer issue from a couple of years ago where the winning female US soccer team was paid less than the losing male US soccer team.

The WNBA is the women's league of the NBA. Has been around for about 30 years and has certainly been building up but it is still far cry from what the NBA brings. WNBA brings in between 60-200 million a year compared to the NBA bringing in 10 billion. In fact the NBA subsidies the WNBA by $15 million a year and that is because the WNBA operates at a loss.

The WNBA draws in less viewers and crowds. Not many buy the merchandise of the WNBA either. Also just like their male counterparts, there is a rookie scale in place. I won't go too much in detail about that but, rookies for awhile make far less than they could due to a collective player agreement with the owners.

All of this factors in what the rookie super star Caitlyn Clark makes as a rookie. It really is economics and I hate that too many sports fans who try to explain this is being called names and manplaining it all.

In the end, you want women to be paid more in sports? Watch their games. Attend their games. Buy their jerseys and team associated merchandise because that is what fans male and female does for their favorite male sports team.

In fact the NBA subsidies the WNBA by $15 million a year and that is because the WNBA operates at a loss.

I don't know why this keeps getting repeated when it's not true. The NBA stopped subsidizing the WNBA many years ago.

It's a fake controversy. The wage scale was agreed to by the players in collective bargaining. That's no reason to add more falsehoods.

pilight wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 5:38 pm

In fact the NBA subsidies the WNBA by $15 million a year and that is because the WNBA operates at a loss.

I don't know why this keeps getting repeated when it's not true. The NBA stopped subsidizing the WNBA many years ago.

It's a fake controversy. The wage scale was agreed to by the players in collective bargaining. That's no reason to add more falsehoods.

Yes and no. When originally founded in 1996-1997 each WNBA team was in fact partially funded by NBA teams and that eventually went away. However the NBA does endow (perhaps a better word) the WNBA with $15 million a year for operating costs. Nothing to do with salary. Also the NBA owns half of the WNBA and WNBA owns the other half. Give or take. Some WNBA teams do end up being in the positive though. But the NBA does in fact should there be a shortfall, they will cover that.

The league isn't exactly a profitable one but something the NBA itself believes in. The WNBA did raise money a few years ago from private investors and can't remember the amount but it was a decent chunk of change. I think maybe $50 million.

But you are correct. Collective player agreement was done years ago which did also bump up the average salary and it was agreed to by the players.

Now if Caitlyn Clark is as big as she being hyped up to be, then they can revisit the rookie scale contracts later, but Clark herself is stuck with what she got. Not like she won't make millions off of endorsements from Nike Reebok or some auto insurance company as campaign.

It is a fake outrage, but I just see too many people who know nothing about the WNBA acting like Caitlyn Clark should make as much as her male counterparts.