Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
81
I called bull on your statement but there was nothing personal in what I said.
You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. They got a $2.2 Billion for 11 years beginning in 2026.
The only comparison I made to NBA is that the WNBA players want and likely deserve a better percentage of the WNBA revenue pie. A larger percentage of a smaller pie, in other words. I said an equivalent percentage to what the NBA gets but of the much smaller WNBA revenues. Here is an explanation and comparison of the revenue share across leagues.
As I mentioned earlier, some are opining on something they haven’t spent even 2 minutes looking into.
It’s fine to not understand what’s going on. I didn’t either until I kept seeing people talking about it and wanted to see what was really going on. But it’s not a good look when you throw out opinions not based in fact or any understanding of the issue.
2 Likes
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
86
I think I said it before but I find it interesting how some of the people with very strong opinions on this also claim not to watch the WNBA, which makes me wonder why do they care enough to have such strong opinions.
I make some jokes about the WNBA but I’ll make my actual position clear I will never disagree with labor trying to get more money from management, ever. Should they probably be reasonable? Yes, but all workers should always try to get as much money from management as possible.
Curious about the definition of revenue sharing in this instance…
I certainly understand getting a larger piece of the pie based on the work/ product being put out there.
What I can’t seem to find a clear answer on is if the NBA subsidies are counted by the league as “revenue”. I would think money coming in, from whatever source, would be counted. That said, I believe NBA groups or owners own 40-50% of the league, the tv contract makes no clear distinction between how much is for which league and generally, it’s messy.
So on that count, I can understand the owners low-balling revenue sharing for this deal, and seeing if the league continues to grow and gains the ability to stand on it’s own before opening the wallet for a more league-equitable profit sharing.
Of course, that profit sharing also depends on the owners being compeltely transparent with the books, which I wouldn’t hold my breath for, as I think that’s still an issue in MLB, NFL, etc…
Freakin’ accountants, man.
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
96
I would venture to guess that they aren’t. It very likely is some sort of “Hollywood accounting” like you hear about on movies that supposedly never make a profit for the profit participants. I would venture to guess the revenue sharing agreement specifically defines what is revenue and what isn’t.
I doubt they’d ever put out real numbers. Every sports league that ever existed has cried poverty to the players, until they could no longer do so with a straight face.
Current players should be paid on current revenue, not historic losses.
Also when I asked women at work why they watched the Astros and they said they liked the guy’s hot bodies.
So even women do what we do to a certain degree.
So the solution is for the wnba to get more caitin Clark’s that are great shooters and some more Sophie ones bc they created some hype. Other than this it’s like a like of sports like track that I like, the numbers aren’t there ticketwise or ratings for them to get more money.
