I believe it is now set for November 19.Some of our alums may be in play.I read that Kalani Brown may be unprotected and a good choice for the new franchise.As stated in another thread,I wonder if N. Smith will be protected by the Fever.What are your thoughts about our former players?

I believe Queen, Odyssey, and Bickle had to-end-of-season contracts with their respective teams ( Aces, Sparks, Sun). There was chatter about Wings hoping to bring Odyssey back. Didi was on IR with Mystics. Will be interesting to see how expansion draft plays out.

And adding 3 more teams in the next two years? Who thought that was a good idea?

Who cares...they killed their golden goose.

bawitdaball said:

---

And their players are looking to negate their current salary agreement to go back to the table - there is a dillusianal approach to the sport from many - including the players and the media. If it was a normal business, it would have been shut down years ago.

---

They officially opted out this morning. I don't see how there isn't at least some of next season missed. They seem to not understand business finances or the reality that they work for an organization that has yet to yield anything remotely close to a profit. And the veiwesrhip that would be required to get to profit is immensly out of reach in the current climate.

"Pay us more" ....from what? The $40M profit loss??!!

I don't think it's unfair for the players to want their hard work reflected through their salary. More people need to show up to games and support the league. There's been a lot of "protect women's sports" chatter lately, but no real follow through.

HoustonBear15 said:

---

I don't think it's unfair for the players to want their hard work reflected through their salary. More people need to show up to games and support the league. There's been a lot of "protect women's sports" chatter lately, but no real follow through.

---

While I agree with you - I think we all want to be respected and paid a fair wage. But we also understand that when the company is losing money to the level of the WNBA, you don't really have the leverage to say that you are worth more. They are putting you in a position to show your value and there isn't a positive monetary response, Angel Reese can complain all day long that playing bal doesn't pay her bills, but without her skillset she is looking at a ton of school debt and an entry level position in corporate America, which is currently seeing quite a few layoffs, depending on the industry. The mindset is just way off and they don't deserve special treatment just because they are household names. If the league isn't making money with a huge increase in eyeballs, then it likely is closer to being shut down than many realize - at least if it operates as a traditional business would be required to do. Okay, rant over.

bawitdaball said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

I don't think it's unfair for the players to want their hard work reflected through their salary. More people need to show up to games and support the league. There's been a lot of "protect women's sports" chatter lately, but no real follow through.

---

While I agree with you - I think we all want to be respected and paid a fair wage. But we also understand that when the company is losing money to the level of the WNBA, you don't really have the leverage to say that you are worth more. They are putting you in a position to show your value and there isn't a positive monetary response, Angel Reese can complain all day long that playing bal doesn't pay her bills, but without her skillset she is looking at a ton of school debt and an entry level position in corporate America, which is currently seeing quite a few layoffs, depending on the industry. The mindset is just way off and they don't deserve special treatment just because they are household names. If the league isn't making money with a huge increase in eyeballs, then it likely is closer to being shut down than many realize - at least if it operates as a traditional business would be required to do. Okay, rant over.

---

Where are you getting your numbers from? Just curious. The article from the NY Post?

I chuckle at the rants about the NBA propping up the WNBA in order to be "woke." The NBA and its owners are savvy businessmen and you can bet they see a benefit for themselves or they wouldn't be involved.

I think there was originally some pressure on NBA owners to invest in a WNBA team, but obviously not much, as there were only eight initial teams, and quite a few of those don't exist any longer, or like the Liberty, are no longer under ownership of an NBA team owner.

In the original model, the thought was the games would be in the off seasons, scheduled in between summer concerts and traveling entertainment like circuses, etc. This kept a stream of incoming money to pay venue staff and kept the venues from being idle for lengths of time.

As far as operating at a loss, many of those owners were making a ton of money through other streams. Maybe not in yours and my world, but there are times when losses can be actual gains to bottom lines.

In fact, there was a push back in the women's league a decade or so ago, that some of the NBA owners were actually inhibiting the growth of the women's game because they really were not interested in making a profit and were not willing to make necessary investments to grow the game.

Teams are trending toward moving out from under NBA ownership, and some franchises are looking at nonNBA locations. The growth of tv coverage for the women's game is helpful. Hard to identify with players you've never seen. Clark was huge not just because she was a phenomenal player, but because people got to see and experience her play. Cheryl Miller was a phenomenal player, as well, and certainly the public heard stories about that, but with limited exposure, how many saw and experienced her game?

I would also point out that most WNBA teams are also being supported by corporate sponsorship, and those companies are CHOOSING to do so. Again, as you point out in your arguments above, businesses should (and do) work to make a profit. Why is sponsorship growing if that is a losing proposition? I think there is a disconnect there between the numbers we keep hearing and the growth and expansion and increased sponsorship, and I ask myself, whom do I believe more? Why would savvy business people invest in corporate sponsorship, why would tv carry more games, why would number of franchises and games increase, if business didn't at least see a potential for profit, and the reasons I can come up with make a lot less sense than the ones I can come up with for, "Why might the numbers around profitability of WNBA be misrepresented or 'fudged' to look less desirable than perhaps it is? Hmmmm. Who benefits from saying a product is less desirable or profitable than it is in reality? The answers I come up with there seem a lot more likely than all business people associated with this league now (after 28 seasons) are just plain clueless.

As has been discussed on the football board so often, live content is a hot commodity as streaming explodes. There is an audience for WNBA games, as evidenced by the numbers for both live and tv viewership. They may not be stunning numbers currently, but the game is growing thanks to the increased visibility of female athletes at the college level and the development of the game due to better coaching at all levels and role models for younger players who find a home in the sport.

I watched a documentary ages ago, about the evolution of men's professional basketball in the US, and was struck by the growth similarities, with the exception of how quickly the NBA evolved. The women have taken longer and I don't think the money will ever be in the WNBA like in the NBA, but perhaps that is not a bad thing. I think if the women could get to a place where they don't have to go overseas or have second jobs and can concentrate solely on basketball while making a decent living salary, that would be sufficient. That won't happen without the conversation at least taking place. I say "Good luck, ladies!"

Chibears2 said:

---

bawitdaball said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

I don't think it's unfair for the players to want their hard work reflected through their salary. More people need to show up to games and support the league. There's been a lot of "protect women's sports" chatter lately, but no real follow through.

---

While I agree with you - I think we all want to be respected and paid a fair wage. But we also understand that when the company is losing money to the level of the WNBA, you don't really have the leverage to say that you are worth more. They are putting you in a position to show your value and there isn't a positive monetary response, Angel Reese can complain all day long that playing bal doesn't pay her bills, but without her skillset she is looking at a ton of school debt and an entry level position in corporate America, which is currently seeing quite a few layoffs, depending on the industry. The mindset is just way off and they don't deserve special treatment just because they are household names. If the league isn't making money with a huge increase in eyeballs, then it likely is closer to being shut down than many realize - at least if it operates as a traditional business would be required to do. Okay, rant over.

---

Where are you getting your numbers from? Just curious. The article from the NY Post?

I chuckle at the rants about the NBA propping up the WNBA in order to be "woke." The NBA and its owners are savvy businessmen and you can bet they see a benefit for themselves or they wouldn't be involved.

I think there was originally some pressure on NBA owners to invest in a WNBA team, but obviously not much, as there were only eight initial teams, and quite a few of those don't exist any longer, or like the Liberty, are no longer under ownership of an NBA team owner.

In the original model, the thought was the games would be in the off seasons, scheduled in between summer concerts and traveling entertainment like circuses, etc. This kept a stream of incoming money to pay venue staff and kept the venues from being idle for lengths of time.

As far as operating at a loss, many of those owners were making a ton of money through other streams. Maybe not in yours and my world, but there are times when losses can be actual gains to bottom lines.

In fact, there was a push back in the women's league a decade or so ago, that some of the NBA owners were actually inhibiting the growth of the women's game because they really were not interested in making a profit and were not willing to make necessary investments to grow the game.

Teams are trending toward moving out from under NBA ownership, and some franchises are looking at nonNBA locations. The growth of tv coverage for the women's game is helpful. Hard to identify with players you've never seen. Clark was huge not just because she was a phenomenal player, but because people got to see and experience her play. Cheryl Miller was a phenomenal player, as well, and certainly the public heard stories about that, but with limited exposure, how many saw and experienced her game?

I would also point out that most WNBA teams are also being supported by corporate sponsorship, and those companies are CHOOSING to do so. Again, as you point out in your arguments above, businesses should (and do) work to make a profit. Why is sponsorship growing if that is a losing proposition? I think there is a disconnect there between the numbers we keep hearing and the growth and expansion and increased sponsorship, and I ask myself, whom do I believe more? Why would savvy business people invest in corporate sponsorship, why would tv carry more games, why would number of franchises and games increase, if business didn't at least see a potential for profit, and the reasons I can come up with make a lot less sense than the ones I can come up with for, "Why might the numbers around profitability of WNBA be misrepresented or 'fudged' to look less desirable than perhaps it is? Hmmmm. Who benefits from saying a product is less desirable or profitable than it is in reality? The answers I come up with there seem a lot more likely than all business people associated with this league now (after 28 seasons) are just plain clueless.

As has been discussed on the football board so often, live content is a hot commodity as streaming explodes. There is an audience for WNBA games, as evidenced by the numbers for both live and tv viewership. They may not be stunning numbers currently, but the game is growing thanks to the increased visibility of female athletes at the college level and the development of the game due to better coaching at all levels and role models for younger players who find a home in the sport.

I watched a documentary ages ago, about the evolution of men's professional basketball in the US, and was struck by the growth similarities, with the exception of how quickly the NBA evolved. The women have taken longer and I don't think the money will ever be in the WNBA like in the NBA, but perhaps that is not a bad thing. I think if the women could get to a place where they don't have to go overseas or have second jobs and can concentrate solely on basketball while making a decent living salary, that would be sufficient. That won't happen without the conversation at least taking place. I say "Good luck, ladies!"

---

The amount of wrong opinions in one post is staggering.

Perpetual losses as a pathway to bottom line gains is utter nonsense. Businesses will tolerate startup losses to reach maturity but every business being operated as a business [and not for political theatre] demands profitability at venture maturity. No exceptions. The WNBA is long past the venture maturity date.

Sponsorship and venture viability are not directly connected.

Streaming as a basis for value is head scratching. In the long term streaming only matters to the extent it increases [or decreases] total viewership. Streaming initially overcommitted to content creation to build a library of inventory [to add to licensed properties]. But anyone watching [even casually] knows that both Netflix and Amazon have massively downsized their content creation efforts. Disney/Paramount/Peacock simply move content creation from one avenue to another, it isn't growth.
Sports were important over the last two years [as has historically been the case] as a counterbalance to scripted content [keeps pressure on SAG and the writers when they threaten to/do strike]. As soon as the recent strike was settled, the scramble for "other content" dropped back to normal levels. Note: same reason that "reality tv" is prized……..it is a programming counterbalance. Note: foreign programming is quickly becoming another counterbalance.

Sports is not some great programming prize. Is it valuable? Yes. A one time value. Scripted programming from past decades still rakes in big $. Old sports content has negligible value. Sports is a distant third in long term value…..scripted, reality, and then [miles behind] sports.

At some point the political theatre ends and the WNBA franchises go bankrupt overnight.

Shaq tells Angel Reese that, unless certain players are playing, watching a WNBA game is like watching a high school game, and says the WNBA needs to lower the hoop so women can dunk, and then they will get paid like NBA players.

(🎥 Unapologetically Angel/YouTube) pic.twitter.com/mtYycR4Wct

— The Art Of Dialogue (@ArtOfDialogue_) October 25, 2024

40 million is the annual salary of only a portion of one NBA player. If they can do a whole women's league and lose that little it is a remarkable bargain! Play on ladies! I had no idea the W.N.B.A. was now that self sustaining.