Caitlin Clark’s rookie salary is $76,000 (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

 

[Hawks64]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

We'll find out, the majority of Indiana's games will be on TV this season.

 

[timschochet]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

We'll find out, the majority of Indiana's games will be on TV this season.

National TV?
If so I’ll probably watch a few. I’m not sure I’ve ever watched a WNBA game before.

 

[wlwiles]

I know absolutely zero about the WNBA. Last night I was getting ESPN alerts on my phone as the picks were chosen, but I noticed they stopped after about the first dozen or so. I was surprised to learn that after googling that's because there's only 12 teams in the league, so the first round was over. And there's only 36 players chosen total.

As to Clark - she must really want to continue to be ambassador for women's hoops because didn't she turn down millions to play in the Big3 league...

 

[Hawks64]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

We'll find out, the majority of Indiana's games will be on TV this season.

National TV?
If so I’ll probably watch a few. I’m not sure I’ve ever watched a WNBA game before.

Yep, TV Schedule

 

[Hawks64]

I know absolutely zero about the WNBA. Last night I was getting ESPN alerts on my phone as the picks were chosen, but I noticed they stopped after about the first dozen or so. I was surprised to learn that after googling that's because there's only 12 teams in the league, so the first round was over. And there's only 36 players chosen total.

As to Clark - she must really want to continue to be ambassador for women's hoops because didn't she turn down millions to play in the Big3 league...

BIG3's contract wouldn't have impacted her ability to play in the WNBA, they explicitly said that she wouldn't have to choose between the leagues, she could play in both.

 

[The General]

Quick Google says that the NBA brings in 10 billion and WNBA brings in about 200 million.

Pay seems about right.

She is going to clean up in endorsements, a very fun player to watch. Rest of WNBA I'm not so sure. Personally watched a few of her college games, I don't think I will make a point to watch her as a pro but is the first player in that league that I would consider checking out.

 

[timschochet]

Clark is that rare athlete who has caused me to tune in to a sporting event that I normally would not be watching: the other two that I can think of were Wayne Gretzky when he came to the Kings (I was a teenager) and Tiger Woods during his heyday.

But in neither example was the effect long lasting. Gretzky didn’t turn me into an NHL fan, and Tiger didn’t make me a rabid golf fan. In both incidences my interest in the sport did not last much after their big splashes. So I doubt that Clark will turn me into a women’s basketball fan long term but we’ll see.

 

[Gally]

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

Why aren't people complaining that the UFL players aren't making as much as NFL players? It is basically the same concept. As you said, economics. When you don't bring in money it's hard to pay money out.

 

[TLEF316]

By all accounts, WNBA players actually take a HIGHER percentage of their league's revenue than their NBA counterparts.

The NBA subsidizes the league as a PR play. My understanding is that it has run DEEP in the red every year of its existence. (apparently they lose about 10-13M a year)

Clark is an incredible player and she'll obviously continue to do well via endorsements. But I don't think she's going to raise the profile of the league enough (long term) to drastically increase player compensation.

 

[-OZ-]

this is simply a matter of economics

Yep. This isn’t some conspiracy. Or flat out sexism. If you want WNBA players to make more, attend their games, subscribe and buy merch.
Personally I don’t watch the NBA or WNBA. Or any other pro sports other than the NFL and an occasional hockey game.

 

[Desert_Power]

Good to see you around Tim.

Caitlin will definitely get there on endorsements. A lot of talent has come into the women's game in recent years and coming ones. I think the league will need to expand further and get more viewership.

Boston and Clark on the Fever going up against Wilson with the back to back champs in Vegas should draw some eyeballs.

 

[Gally]

Clark is that rare athlete who has caused me to tune in to a sporting event that I normally would not be watching: the other two that I can think of were Wayne Gretzky when he came to the Kings (I was a teenager) and Tiger Woods during his heyday.

But in neither example was the effect long lasting. Gretzky didn’t turn me into an NHL fan, and Tiger didn’t make me a rabid golf fan. In both incidences my interest in the sport did not last much after their big splashes. So I doubt that Clark will turn me into a women’s basketball fan long term but we’ll see.

What about Clark is causing you to tune into womens basketball? Is it her, or the publicity that she has garnered in the media and elsewhere? My guess is that you heard all this talk about her so you decided to check her out. It really wasn't her per say as much as it was the media pumping her up.

 

[timschochet]

The NBA subsidizes the league as a PR play. My understanding is that it has run DEEP in the red every year of its existence. (apparently they lose about 10-13M a year)

I had no idea this was true. Wow.

 

[timschochet]

Clark is that rare athlete who has caused me to tune in to a sporting event that I normally would not be watching: the other two that I can think of were Wayne Gretzky when he came to the Kings (I was a teenager) and Tiger Woods during his heyday.

But in neither example was the effect long lasting. Gretzky didn’t turn me into an NHL fan, and Tiger didn’t make me a rabid golf fan. In both incidences my interest in the sport did not last much after their big splashes. So I doubt that Clark will turn me into a women’s basketball fan long term but we’ll see.

What about Clark is causing you to tune into womens basketball? Is it her, or the publicity that she has garnered in the media and elsewhere? My guess is that you heard all this talk about her so you decided to check her out. It really wasn't her per se as much as it was the media pumping her up.

Excellent question. I really don’t know.

Like most sports fans I enjoy good stories and drama. So we had that in the NCAA tournament and that made it entertaining to me. (It helps that I enjoy basketball as a sport- if Clark was in a sport I enjoyed less- say soccer or hockey- it would be more difficult.)

In terms of storyline, comparisons have been made of the Clark-Reese rivalry to Bird vs Magic- as a lifelong Lakers fan that is one of my all time favorite sports storylines- so now I’m intrigued and want to see where it goes.

 

[Mister CIA]

First google hit: "For the upcoming season, the league minimum salary is $62,285 and the max is $234,936. Much of WNBA players’ "problem lies with a collective bargaining agreement struck in January 2020.” The CBA, which runs through 2027, has an “option that allows either side -- the league or the players’ union -- to notify the other at the end of the 2024 season that it plans to abandon the agreement at the end of the 2025 season.”

Seems like the WNBA can do something about this, soon, if they think they can get a better deal.

 

[TLEF316]

Clark is that rare athlete who has caused me to tune in to a sporting event that I normally would not be watching: the other two that I can think of were Wayne Gretzky when he came to the Kings (I was a teenager) and Tiger Woods during his heyday.

But in neither example was the effect long lasting. Gretzky didn’t turn me into an NHL fan, and Tiger didn’t make me a rabid golf fan. In both incidences my interest in the sport did not last much after their big splashes. So I doubt that Clark will turn me into a women’s basketball fan long term but we’ll see.

What about Clark is causing you to tune into womens basketball? Is it her, or the publicity that she has garnered in the media and elsewhere? My guess is that you heard all this talk about her so you decided to check her out. It really wasn't her per say as much as it was the media pumping her up.

If you're actually going to watch a women's game for the game itself.....she's clearly the most entertaining player to watch. She basically plays like Steph Curry.

But yeah, there's definitely something to "she's a draw because the media says so". ESPN has been hyping her up non-stop because they have the rights to the women's tournament (and the WNBA) and its in their best interest to draw as many eyeballs as possible.

They'll likely move on to Juju Watkins next year. Chucked (she shoots.....a LOT...and not nearly as efficiently as Clark) her way to 27 PPG as a frosh this past year. So I'm sure they'll spend the next 2-3 years talking about how she can challenge Clark's scoring record.

 

[Zow]

By all accounts, WNBA players actually take a HIGHER percentage of their league's revenue than their NBA counterparts.

The NBA subsidizes the league as a PR play. My understanding is that it has run DEEP in the red every year of its existence. (apparently they lose about 10-13M a year)

Clark is an incredible player and she'll obviously continue to do well via endorsements. But I don't think she's going to raise the profile of the league enough (long term) to drastically increase player compensation.

While I hope your prognostication is wrong, certainly can't disagree with anything you're saying here.

 

[General Malaise]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

 

[timschochet]

Obviously media plays a big role. But I don’t think they can sell a product if it’s not entertaining. Not to me anyhow. I might stop and watch a few minutes of an athlete but if I’m going to invest a couple of hours then it better be worth it. The media can’t force that on me.

 

[General Malaise]

I think the WNBA has a marketing problem. For example:

- I have NO idea when the season starts. I also have no idea when the season ends. And I like women's sports!
- I had NO idea there were only 12 teams. Gun to my head, I would have told you there were 20 teams last night.
- I have NO idea what cable channel broadcasts the games.
- I have NO idea how many games are played.
- I have NO idea who the MVP of the league is or was.

The college game ran laps around the WNBA this season. Perhaps the WNBA should hire the marketing arm of college basketball for women and start promoting the WNBA so guys like me know a little more than we do about the game. I realize the WNBA is almost 30 years old and people a lot smarter than me have been trying to market this sport to a wider audience, but if they can't capitalize on Clark's success, what are we even doing?

 

[Mister CIA]

Crazy idea (which I think has been rejected in the past) is to lower the hoop, say, six inches. The diameter of the basketball is an inch smaller than the men's ball, so I don't know why they can take the extra step of lowering the hoop ... I'm assuming most hoops are designed such that they can be easily adjusted. Might be a expensive to refit hoops up and down the spectrum of women's basketball if existing hoops can't be adjusted.

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

 

[-OZ-]

lower the hoop, say, six inches.

I could be wrong but that seems like it would really mess with players for a while.

 

[Mister CIA]

lower the hoop, say, six inches.

I could be wrong but that seems like it would really mess with players for a while.

And it might ultimately mess with the average salary too, in a positive way.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Obviously media plays a big role. But I don’t think they can sell a product if it’s not entertaining. Not to me anyhow. I might stop and watch a few minutes of an athlete but if I’m going to invest a couple of hours then it better be worth it. The media can’t force that on me.

now why did you have to go and offend the soccer fans....

 

[Gally]

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

What would it really open up? Dunks? That's about it. There is much more to basketball than dunking. It won't really increase the overall athleticism of the players. I am not sure this would do anthing for the actual game. It would be a novelty and you would likely get that initial look to see what it's all about but it wouldn't really change anything for me in liking the game more or less.

 

[Gally]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

 

[General Malaise]

I'm not sure if lowering the rim would help anything. I don't need to see them dunk to get me to watch. You know what would?

Adding a 4-point line. You've got one of the best long range shooters entering your sport, why not lean into it? Market like crazy a Sabrina Ionescu vs Caitlin Clark game with the new 4-point line and man, THAT would be fun to watch.

 

[Gally]

If you're actually going to watch a women's game for the game itself.....she's clearly the most entertaining player to watch. She basically plays like Steph Curry.

I never watch women's basketball at any level but I did make an effort to watch Clark play a couple times because of the media bombardment. She was fine. She takes long shots, She is a good player but by and large the games were still boring and didn't really have much to capture my interest.

 

[GoBirds]

How much revenue is generated by the WNBA compared to the NBA?

 

[-OZ-]

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

What would it really open up? Dunks? That's about it. There is much more to basketball than dunking. It won't really increase the overall athleticism of the players. I am not sure this would do anthing for the actual game. It would be a novelty and you would likely get that initial look to see what it's all about but it wouldn't really change anything for me in liking the game more or less.

If you want real entertainment add A 25 foot rim

 

[General Malaise]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That's fair, but I did want to at least throw some data out there contradicting the fact that men's sports get a lot more viewers - we just witnessed that NOT being the case. The Uconn V Purdue game was 14.2 Million viewers.

 

[Gally]

Adding a 4-point line. You've got one of the best long range shooters entering your sport, why not lean into it? Market like crazy a Sabrina Ionescu vs Caitlin Clark game with the new 4-point line and man, THAT would be fun to watch.

I think it would be interesting for about 10 minutes. I don't think much would change. I actually think it will make the game worse as it would just be them two in isolation trying to get to the 4pt line for shots. Basketball wouldn't really be played.

Eventually as more people got that range (if that would happen) it would just morph into how the game is now but with more shots as analytics says to go for more and more 4 pointers. Not sure if that makes the game better.

 

[Gally]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That's fair, but I did want to at least throw some data out there contradicting the fact that men's sports get a lot more viewers - we just witnessed that NOT being the case. The Uconn V Purdue game was 14.2 Million viewers.

I think that is because the mens college game doesn't have a hype machine like Clark. She was being pushed like no other. If the women's game was between any two teams without Reese or Clark involved I doubt you would have had that type of viewership. The one off game begs for a media darling like those two to drive viewership way up. The marketing was huge for those two. If they weren't in it then I bet it would have been half what it was......some conspiracy people could even say that questionable call in the semi's happened because of the hype train. I doubt it actually was but it at least makes you consider it.

 

[TLEF316]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That's fair, but I did want to at least throw some data out there contradicting the fact that men's sports get a lot more viewers - we just witnessed that NOT being the case. The Uconn V Purdue game was 14.2 Million viewers.

I think that is because the mens college game doesn't have a hype machine like Clark. She was being pushed like no other. If the women's game was between any two teams without Reese or Clark involved I doubt you would have had that type of viewership. The one off game begs for a media darling like those two to drive viewership way up. The marketing was huge for those two. If they weren't in it then I bet it would have been half what it was......some conspiracy people could even say that questionable call in the semi's happened because of the hype train. I doubt it actually was but it at least makes you consider it.

Clark didn't play Reese in the finals this year (Iowa beat LSU in the elite 8) but yeah.....that's pretty key here. Clark was a once in a generation storm and ESPN did everything they could to take advantage of it. Even with the "rivalry game" with Reese happening earlier, they still got the GOAT vs an undefeated juggernaut in the finals. And they played the game at 3PM on a sunday afternoon (when nothing else was really on) compared to a 9:30 PM tip off on Monday night for the men's game. (big chunk of the east coast probably slept through the 2nd half)

Dont get me wrong....the growth they saw for this year was VERY impressive. I just dont think it continues without Clark around to carry them. And I dont think those viewers move over to watch regular season WNBA games.

 

[guru_007]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That woman's NCAA final was the highest watched BASKETBALL game in the last 5 years. Includes men's NCAA tournament, all NBA finals, etc, etc....

 

[Gally]

Clark didn't play Reese in the finals this year (Iowa beat LSU in the elite 8) but yeah..

I know....that is why I said Reese or Clark. Marketing needed at least one of them in the finals or the game would have had half (or worse) of the viewership.

 

[Gally]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That woman's NCAA final was the highest watched BASKETBALL game in the last 5 years. Includes men's NCAA tournament, all NBA finals, etc, etc....

and that is solely because of the Clark hype train. If Iowa doesn't make the finals that viewership tanks.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

This seems like another one of those media-generated issues where a few people raise a point just to cause a stir, fully aware of the reality, and then the counter-outrage quickly eclipses the original concept, and then it all goes away in a couple days when there is some new outrage. None of the people commenting on this topic on one 'side' or the other will be watching WNBA and none of them ever watched Iowa women's basketball until this past couple of weeks.

 

[Terpman22]

I find it funny why this is such a hard concept to grasp. The WNBA season runs from May - September, which is peak vacation season.
The highest rated game, from what I can tell, was Game 4 finals last year, and it didn't even get 900K viewers.
The average attendance for a game in person is like 7000 people

Not trying to crap on Clark or the WNBA, and while I believe she will excite fans and the like, It reminds me a lot of when Ronda Rousey was at her peak/hype. It was new, people liked it, but in the end it kind of petered out and from what I can tell, people aren't super hyped about women fighting anymore.

I do think Clark will raise the game to a certain level, but if we think she will/should be getting hundreds of thousands per year with low ratings on TV (which drives the salaries for the most part) and low in person attendance at games, we might be disappointed.

 

[Gally]

None of the people commenting on this topic on one 'side' or the other will be watching WNBA and none of them ever watched Iowa women's basketball until this past couple of weeks.

For me personally, I wouldn't have watched without the media hype train so that I could see if the hype was all it was cracked up to be. I fully fit your description. I checked in to see the hype. I wasn't overly impressed (don't get me wrong, Clark is a good player) to the point of wanting to become a big fan of women's basketball.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm not sure if lowering the rim would help anything. I don't need to see them dunk to get me to watch. You know what would?

Adding a 4-point line. You've got one of the best long range shooters entering your sport, why not lean into it? Market like crazy a Sabrina Ionescu vs Caitlin Clark game with the new 4-point line and man, THAT would be fun to watch.

7 foot rim, 50 foot court, pop-a-shot ball, 12 second shot clock, traveling legal, only super egregious fouls called, subs-on-the-fly like hockey.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

The attendance has been a big problem in the league for many many years.

Here is a chart that shows the long slow trend in the wrong direction. I have to assume that they will get a fairly is significant bump this summer but the real question will be if can it continue 2 or 3 seasons from now.

WNBA Historical Attendance Data - Across the Timeline

 

[NewlyRetired]

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

The attendance has been a big problem in the league for many many years.

Here is a chart that shows the long slow trend in the wrong direction. I have to assume that they will get a fairly is significant bump this summer but the real question will be if can it continue

WNBA Historical Attendance Data - Across the Timeline

as a comparison, the NWSL (the women's soccer league in the US), averaged about 10k last season.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I think the WNBA has a marketing problem. For example:

- I have NO idea when the season starts. I also have no idea when the season ends. And I like women's sports!
- I had NO idea there were only 12 teams. Gun to my head, I would have told you there were 20 teams last night.
- I have NO idea what cable channel broadcasts the games.
- I have NO idea how many games are played.
- I have NO idea who the MVP of the league is or was.

The college game ran laps around the WNBA this season. Perhaps the WNBA should hire the marketing arm of college basketball for women and start promoting the WNBA so guys like me know a little more than we do about the game. I realize the WNBA is almost 30 years old and people a lot smarter than me have been trying to market this sport to a wider audience, but if they can't capitalize on Clark's success, what are we even doing?

I'm not sure if lowering the rim would help anything. I don't need to see them dunk to get me to watch. You know what would?

Adding a 4-point line. You've got one of the best long range shooters entering your sport, why not lean into it? Market like crazy a Sabrina Ionescu vs Caitlin Clark game with the new 4-point line and man, THAT would be fun to watch.

Area man who knows nothing about the WNBA certain he knows how to fix it.

 

[General Malaise]

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

The attendance has been a big problem in the league for many many years.

Here is a chart that shows the long slow trend in the wrong direction. I have to assume that they will get a fairly is significant bump this summer but the real question will be if can it continue

WNBA Historical Attendance Data - Across the Timeline

I'm thinking they should remove the WNBA from giant cities with a lot going on. For example, Atlanta. Atlanta can't even fill their NBA stadiums (or, at least, that was the knock on them for years). Atlanta has the Braves and Falcons, Georgia football.....how on earth is a WNBA team going to compete in that market?

Maybe look at mid-markets that are starved for sports entertainment. Obviously I'm biased, but the Portland Thorns sell out many of the NWSL games and I'd bet a WNBA team would do fine here too. Move Dallas to OKC.

 

[timschochet]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

 

[timschochet]

FWIW- my daughter’s knowledge of professional sports is basically limited to Travis Kelce plays for the Kansas City Chiefs- and she only learned that fact late last year…

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Crazy idea (which I think has been rejected in the past) is to lower the hoop, say, six inches. The diameter of the basketball is an inch smaller than the men's ball, so I don't know why they can take the extra step of lowering the hoop ... I'm assuming most hoops are designed such that they can be easily adjusted. Might be a expensive to refit hoops up and down the spectrum of women's basketball if existing hoops can't be adjusted.

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

Should they be allowed 6 steps like the NBA?

 

[Mister CIA]

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

What would it really open up? Dunks? That's about it. There is much more to basketball than dunking. It won't really increase the overall athleticism of the players. I am not sure this would do anthing for the actual game. It would be a novelty and you would likely get that initial look to see what it's all about but it wouldn't really change anything for me in liking the game more or less.

In that case, I will continue to not watch the games.