NIL vs WNBA money and extras

#26
#26
Amb3096 said:
Respectfully, I disagree with regards to the WNBA being held back by sexism/misogyny. I've given women's tennis as an example of a sport where the women are just as popular as the men. Then you have gymnastics and figure skating where the women are MORE popular then the men. Why is that?


BINGO! Because women support women's tennis, gymnastics and figure skating, but they don't support the WNBA in the same numbers. If you approached 100 women in LA and offered them either tickets to the Sparks or the Lakers, I'd wager that at least 3/4 (probably a lot more) would take the Lakers tickets.

The WNBA doesn't need male fans to make them successful. Women made the Kardashians into multi-millionaires, but they largely have no interest in doing the same for the WNBA. As long as the WNBA insists they are victims of "sexism!" "misogny!" "-isms!" then they will never be successful on their own because they have no idea how to grow their fanbase.

As far as homophobia, it's more complicated than that. Players like Becky Hammon, Breanna Steward, Candace Parker or Sue Bird aren't a turnoff because they are lesbians, but the reality is that more butch players aren't going to be as appealing to the majority of fans for several reasons. For me, they need to stop inviting comparisons to the men because it will just put under a spotlight that they are a less exciting (to most people) adaptation without the crazy athletic feats and dunks.
Click to expand...

I also think the WNBA's growth struggles can't be explained by any one factor-- including sexism. The growing popularity of the very proximate sport women's college basketball suggest some other factors are going on.

Forgetting my own caveat, a lot of this growth has to do with ESPN giving it more and more of a spotlight. They ended the aggravating whip around coverage for early rounds, featured game highlights more prominently on sportscenter and hyped big matchups and star players (Clark, Boston, Reeese Bueckers, etc) and of course moving the championship game to a bigger audience platform on ABC.

Ratings for the WNBA have been rising and lot of the reason the league operates at a loss is due to the $ generated through its television contract. In contrast, the NBA is not paying all those monster salaries on ticket sales--its the media rights.

The WCBB examples shows that networks can increase ratings (and ad revenue) by how the feature and cover the sport. The WNBA needs a better media deal that reflects it increased ratings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#27
#27
madtownvol said:
I also think the WNBA's growth struggles can't be explained by any one factor-- including sexism. The growing popularity of the very proximate sport women's college basketball suggest some other factors are going on.

Forgetting my own caveat, a lot of this growth has to do with ESPN giving it more and more of a spotlight. They ended the aggravating whip around coverage for early rounds, featured game highlights more prominently on sportscenter and hyped big matchups and star players (Clark, Boston, Reeese Bueckers, etc) and of course moving the championship game to a bigger audience platform on ABC.

Ratings for the WNBA have been rising and lot of the reason the league operates at a loss is due to the $ generated through its television contract. In contrast, the NBA is not paying all those monster salaries on ticket sales--its the media rights.

The WCBB examples shows that networks can increase ratings (and ad revenue) by how the feature and cover the sport. The WNBA needs a better media deal that reflects it increased ratings.
Click to expand...
I think they need to do a better job at promoting their stars, women’s Tennis, Gymnastics and Figure Skating are supported by women because of the individuals they support. Angel Reese is a good example of that, she had 70k followers last year, and now she has 1 million because of her promoting herself and going viral. Now if u ask the average female they will know who she is and that’s how u grow a sport.
 
#28
#28
That's the size of the WNBA fan base...

340086588_761084362296341_1272508342129848051_n.jpg
 
#29
#29
How do you explain Tennessee, UConn, South Carolina, and Iowa’s success at filling arenas? People pay to see their team win. There are a lot of options for people to spend their entertainment dollars on. The WNBA has to put out a product that people are willing to pay for. It is that simple.

I have heard every excuse as to why it has not been successful: misogyny, lack of media support, sexism, etc. The fact of the matter is they must put out a product that people are willing to take their time, their energy, their money, the inconveniences of attending live events and make it worthwhile.

I mentioned in another post, I have a female friend that played professional basketball in Europe after graduating from a North Carolina college, that once told me she has never watched a woman’s basketball game, she only watches men’s. I was at work recently arguing with a friend who graduated from SC, and everybody in the vicinity stated, “absolutely no one cares about women’s basketball except in Connecticut.” Obviously, the 9.9 million viewers for the Iowa game proves otherwise. However, that stigma is going to be very hard to overcome. I do not have a definite answer, but if you look at the big picture of where the NBA was 50 years ago, the WNBA might be on the same trajectory. The WNBA might be better served relocating to smaller markets, were they are not competing with NBA teams and fans, such as Nashville, Knoxville, Columbia, Ames, or Hartford (oh wait) with ready defined fan bases.

I do not believe that there is one set answer, but I do know it is going to involve putting a quality entertainment value on the floor, because this is the belief for many people. (sorry, bad cuss word in the clip) even after watching clips like this, of which I’ve seen many, I do not believe the issue is sexism. It still comes down to putting out a product that people are willing to pay to see. And, regardless of who won the championship, I believe many people turned out to see Caitlyn Clark, because she was the buzz all week long from talk show hosts, NBA players, etc. That is the type of push that the WNBA needs. They cannot compete with the athleticism of the NBA, but if they can harness some of the excitement that we saw in the tournament, that would be a good start.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, chuckiepoo and Blueconn
#30
#30
lvocd said:
Sadly, sexism and homophobia (and, yes, outright misogyny) will always be major factors in why the WNBA is unlikely to ever grow its audience much bigger than it is now.
Click to expand...
Amazing how did conversation go from salaries to sexism unreal lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: sisaq
#31
#31
ncteacher88 said:
How do you explain Tennessee, UConn, South Carolina, and Iowa’s success at filling arenas? People pay to see their team win. There are a lot of options for people to spend their entertainment dollars on. The WNBA has to put out a product that people are willing to pay for. It is that simple.

I have heard every excuse as to why it has not been successful: misogyny, lack of media support, sexism, etc. The fact of the matter is they must put out a product that people are willing to take their time, their energy, their money, the inconveniences of attending live events and make it worthwhile.

I mentioned in another post, I have a female friend that played professional basketball in Europe after graduating from a North Carolina college, that once told me she has never watched a woman’s basketball game, she only watches men’s. I was at work recently arguing with a friend who graduated from SC, and everybody in the vicinity stated, “absolutely no one cares about women’s basketball except in Connecticut.” Obviously, the 9.9 million viewers for the Iowa game proves otherwise. However, that stigma is going to be very hard to overcome. I do not have a definite answer, but if you look at the big picture of where the NBA was 50 years ago, the WNBA might be on the same trajectory. The WNBA might be better served relocating to smaller markets, were they are not competing with NBA teams and fans, such as Nashville, Knoxville, Columbia, Ames, or Hartford (oh wait) with a ready defined fan bases.

I do not believe that there is one set answer, but I do know it is going to involve putting a quality entertainment value on the floor, because this is the belief for many people. (sorry, bad cuss word in the clip)

Click to expand...


*9.9 million viewers for the Lsu game.
 
#34
#34
ncteacher88 said:
How do you explain Tennessee, UConn, South Carolina, and Iowa’s success at filling arenas? People pay to see their team win. There are a lot of options for people to spend their entertainment dollars on. The WNBA has to put out a product that people are willing to pay for. It is that simple.

I have heard every excuse as to why it has not been successful: misogyny, lack of media support, sexism, etc. The fact of the matter is they must put out a product that people are willing to take their time, their energy, their money, the inconveniences of attending live events and make it worthwhile.

I mentioned in another post, I have a female friend that played professional basketball in Europe after graduating from a North Carolina college, that once told me she has never watched a woman’s basketball game, she only watches men’s. I was at work recently arguing with a friend who graduated from SC, and everybody in the vicinity stated, “absolutely no one cares about women’s basketball except in Connecticut.” Obviously, the 9.9 million viewers for the Iowa game proves otherwise. However, that stigma is going to be very hard to overcome. I do not have a definite answer, but if you look at the big picture of where the NBA was 50 years ago, the WNBA might be on the same trajectory. The WNBA might be better served relocating to smaller markets, were they are not competing with NBA teams and fans, such as Nashville, Knoxville, Columbia, Ames, or Hartford (oh wait) with ready defined fan bases.

I do not believe that there is one set answer, but I do know it is going to involve putting a quality entertainment value on the floor, because this is the belief for many people. (sorry, bad cuss word in the clip) even after watching clips like this, of which I’ve seen many, I do not believe the issue is sexism. It still comes down to putting out a product that people are willing to pay to see. And, regardless of who won the championship, I believe many people turned out to see Caitlyn Clark, because she was the buzz all week long from talk show hosts, NBA players, etc. That is the type of push that the WNBA needs. They cannot compete with the athleticism of the NBA, but if they can harness some of the excitement that we saw in the tournament, that would be a good start.

Click to expand...



Basically, if the WNBA builds a better mousetrap they will come. I mean, it is a reasonable argument but it gets tricky when you start to specify what is "better." The Sky played really entertaining ball in their run to a championship as the did the ACES (and storm) in this year's final.

The blooper reel you posted is misogynous because you can do that for any men's sport but you don't see that kind of framing, most particularly when players are talking about equity and respect issues.

But, you can take any sample of bungled plays set to the Benny Hill theme and make the "game" and players look bad. My God, who would pay money to see this guy play? {Imagine the Benny Hill clown music in your head when you watch]



No sport sells it itself. The marketing of players, the marketing of team rivalries, increased exposure all help to sell the better mousetrap.

If it was just the WNBA's product, it would be hard to explain why pro women's ball has been fairly successful in Europe, which also has a gamut of entertainment and sports options.

Like WCBB, the WNBA is starting to trend in the right direction. Women's soccer has finally broken through as a pro sport in the US but it took a long time.

In five to ten years, I don't think we will be having this conversation. The Caitlin Clark phenomenon, which has taken off in a way that Ionescu, Stewart, or Griner, or Parker, or Taurasi among many others never did, shows the tipping point is happening
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
Is the money made from Nil available to the players while still in school or is the money held in an account for the player until they leave the program? Wonder how much Horston made in Nil. Enough to get her started post college?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and Raebo
#36
#36
mike099 said:
Is the money made from Nil available to the players while still in school or is the money held in an account for the player until they leave the program? Wonder how much Horston made in Nil. Enough to get her started post college?
Click to expand...

Depends on the contracts. Some contracts may be for 1 year (or less) requiring athlete to attend x number of local events or it may cover several years including after college where the business just uses their name or picture in advertisements.
I have no idea how much JH made. Could be a few thousand or 10s of thousands. If I were to take a VERY WILD GUESS, I would say 15,000-20,000 last year but that could be way off.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
DarkPhoenix said:
I don’t know about that, I don’t see many women supporting the WNBA, if more women supported I think it would be more successful. Even women that don’t like sports will go to an nba game.
Click to expand...
Women, men, kids, corporations, advertisement/marketing…for as long as it’s been around it seems like an equality league for the NBA to say they did it.
 
#38
#38
Majors said:
Women, men, kids, corporations, advertisement/marketing…for as long as it’s been around it seems like an equality league for the NBA to say they did it.
Click to expand...
That is weird women love football and baseball and men's basketball but when it comes to their own women's league crickets
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcannon1 and Majors
#41
#41
knoxvol52 said:
That is weird women love football and baseball and men's basketball but when it comes to their own women's league crickets
Click to expand...
Good portion of women and men enjoy football for the social aspect. Take away tailgating and you lose a big portion of the casual fan.
 
#43
#43
NIL and transfer portal has really upped the ante.

As far as I know, there's never been any NCAA rule that prevents any university from assembling a superteam made up of the best talent. And now with NIL in the mix, it's basically like unrestricted free agency with no salary cap. I suppose the only limit would NCAA rules limiting the number of times a player can transfer without having to sit out.

Of course, natural factors still apply. There are many factors other than money or championship rings that influence choice of colleges, not least a desire for immediate and plentiful playing time. But colleges really have a big advantage over pro teams.

I do wonder if there will be a challenge to the WNBA rules that don't allow for early entry into the pros the way that men can do. NIL money makes it even less likely that exceptional, pro-ready players will be in a big hurry to leave before their eligibilty is up, anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, Volfan1000 and chuckiepoo
#44
#44
Voltopia said:
I've been thinking this for some time, especially in the wake of NIL, and I don't think it's either a mystery or a surprise. The reality is that the money and exposure of college athletics, and the investment of college donors and fans, far outstrips the WNBA's resources. And while some continue to bash the schools for not sharing this or giving that, the reality is that almost eveything the schools make in profit is reinvested into the system, through facilities, marketing, treatment, and support staff (and also scholarhips for other sports). Once upon a time, it was frowned up to think of playing players, so the schools competed the only way they could - building lavish support systems and beyond first class experiences for their student-athletes. (This also spilled over into coaching salaries, but even coaches are, at a fundamental level, just another benefit schools obtain to improve their team's odds of success).

Nutritional needs? Totally covered, and far better than average students. Tutoring and scholarship? You'll get every sort of help the school can afford under the sun. Place to live? You'll get that too. College education? Free of charge. The schools don't hoard any of that cash away, they take it in, turn around, and spend it on the sports programs.

Now you take all those things, and add the ability to get even some money through NIL? Even if it's only a small amount per month? You're probably far, far ahead of whatever the WNBA can afford. And that's not going to change, I don't think.
Click to expand...
Really comes down to T-Bone steak in college,Canned Ravioli on the road in a hotel in the WNBA..
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, chuckiepoo, ATLVOLFAN01 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top