Heaven forbid, but if Clark suffers a career-ending injury, the W will be in serious trouble. They've already overextended with expansion, adding 3 teams in 2 years, with more in the works. I don't see another high impact player coming along until Juju is eligible.

I don't think JuJu being a high profile player will matter. Buekers is a high profile player and she hasn't brought much in the form of new viewership. For whatever reason people everywhere tune in when Clark plays. When she doesn't the ratings and attendance are laughable.

https://babylonbee.com/news/uh-oh-wnba-players-demand-to-be-paid-what-theyre-worth-and-now-they-owe-the-nba-400-million

The NBA owns over half of the WNBA, subsidizing the W's losses. Other corporations like Nike have sponsorship deals, and streaming services have struck television deals, providing more revenue. This is not an uncommon business practice, especially if you want to grow a sector that has been traditionally underfunded and neglected.

Is there an argument to be made that the WNBA has operated at a loss for MUCH longer than what most subsidizing corporations would tolerate? Of course. But it can also be argued that the subsidies were token amounts in the early years, but recent investments have been far more substantial. And while the league DOES still operate at a loss, those recent investments have helped it make great strides toward profitability. It turns out that when you invest more, you increase the likelihood of returns. Who knew?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

“Pay us what you owe us”

“Im not kidding, we will sit out”~Angel Reese

For the love of God, PLEASE SIT OUT!😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
pic.twitter.com/fcOMQafhux

— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) July 20, 2025

---

Foot foul as well....

ctxbear said:

---

The NBA owns over half of the WNBA, subsidizing the W's losses. Other corporations like Nike have sponsorship deals, and streaming services have struck television deals, providing more revenue. This is not an uncommon business practice, especially if you want to grow a sector that has been traditionally underfunded and neglected.

Is there an argument to be made that the WNBA has operated at a loss for MUCH longer than what most subsidizing corporations would tolerate? Of course. But it can also be argued that the subsidies were token amounts in the early years, but recent investments have been far more substantial. And while the league DOES still operate at a loss, those recent investments have helped it make great strides toward profitability. It turns out that when you invest more, you increase the likelihood of returns. Who knew?

---

Q: Why did the baseball stars of the 30s, 40s and 50s live like the stars of today? It was America's pastime. Stadiums were packed.
A: they didn't have TV revenue

It would have been ludicrous for those stars to demand a portion of the money they had no idea might be coming in.

It's ludicrous for the WNBA players to be demanding money that they have no idea if it will be coming.

Outside of games with CC, what astronomical increases in attendance and viewership can the WNBA point to to show they are directionally sound?

Elon, you're successful at everything you do so I'm sure this new venture of yours will be just as successful. I'd like to be paid like it has already succeeded. If you can't pay me that, I will strike.

When they compare to the men, they just look ridiculous, but it's pretty obvious there is some money being made. Rich people don't spend $250M on things that won't earn money. When the value of a franchise has gone up 5X in just a few years, you know their poor mouthing is a bit of a joke.

Accountants can make the books look how they want but people are competing to become new owners and it's not like it's a prestige thing like the NFL. there is money available.

TechDawgMc said:

---

When they compare to the men, they just look ridiculous, but it's pretty obvious there is some money being made. Rich people don't spend $250M on things that won't earn money IN THE FUTURE OR POSITION THEM TO MAKE MONEY IN OTHER MARKETS THROUGH ESG SCORES. When the value of a franchise has gone up 5X in just a few years, you know their poor mouthing is a bit of a joke.

Accountants can make the books look how they want but people are competing to become new owners and it's not like it's a prestige thing like the NFL. there is money available.

---

nobody is turning a profit with space tourism but there are a growing number of investors banking on the………. FUTURE


" The space tourism market is projected to grow significantly in the coming years, with orbital flights expected to see the highest growth rate, according to Data Bridge Market Research. As technology advances and costs decrease, more companies are expected to enter the market, further driving innovation and competition."

Just like the WNBA, it's a developing market.

Slaves Dutifully Sew 'Pay Us What You Owe Us' On Shirts For Professional Athletes https://t.co/wlU0JrYbO4 pic.twitter.com/zwnKf3pLMF

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) July 23, 2025

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Imagine being an employee at a company that has NEVER turned a profit and showing up to work in these shirts. pic.twitter.com/eQuGjgLcvL

— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) July 20, 2025

---

Its negotiations. I'd not care. (I've worked in many union environments)

ctxbear said:

---

The NBA owns over half of the WNBA, subsidizing the W's losses. Other corporations like Nike have sponsorship deals, and streaming services have struck television deals, providing more revenue. This is not an uncommon business practice, especially if you want to grow a sector that has been traditionally underfunded and neglected.

Is there an argument to be made that the WNBA has operated at a loss for MUCH longer than what most subsidizing corporations would tolerate? Of course. But it can also be argued that the subsidies were token amounts in the early years, but recent investments have been far more substantial. And while the league DOES still operate at a loss, those recent investments have helped it make great strides toward profitability. It turns out that when you invest more, you increase the likelihood of returns. Who knew?

---

John D. Rockefeller would have agreed with that.

Threebears said:

---

ctxbear said:

---

The NBA owns over half of the WNBA, subsidizing the W's losses. Other corporations like Nike have sponsorship deals, and streaming services have struck television deals, providing more revenue. This is not an uncommon business practice, especially if you want to grow a sector that has been traditionally underfunded and neglected.

Is there an argument to be made that the WNBA has operated at a loss for MUCH longer than what most subsidizing corporations would tolerate? Of course. But it can also be argued that the subsidies were token amounts in the early years, but recent investments have been far more substantial. And while the league DOES still operate at a loss, those recent investments have helped it make great strides toward profitability. It turns out that when you invest more, you increase the likelihood of returns. Who knew?

---

John D. Rockefeller would have agreed with that.

---

Mr and Mrs Clark invested in summer basketball camps many years ago and THAT is what is providing the largest positive movement for the wnba