WNBA Players Earn Less Than Male Counterparts For A Reason
As expected, Iowa women’s basketball phenom Caitlin Clark was picked number one in the WNBA draft on Monday. Chances are, though, she won’t be buying a Bentley with her first paycheck as a pro.
Clark will be playing next season for the Indiana Fever and will be paid $76,535 her first year, with a four-year contract worth $338,056.
By contrast, the number one pick in the NBA draft this year will make about $10.5 million. A Bentley isn’t out of that player’s reach.
No fair! cry America’s mindless socialists. Women should be paid the same as men for the same work!
That’s rich, coming from the guy who wants to ruin women’s sports by allowing biological men to play.
Will someone please sit this old man down and try - in very simple terms - to explain basic economics and free market capitalism to our C-student president?
Women make a lot less playing professional basketball than the men for one reason: Their sport doesn’t generate as much money. In fact, in 30 years the league has never turned a profit. It’s kept afloat, in part, with infusions of cash from the NBA.
Until recently no one wanted to see women play basketball. Their league is anemic, their arenas are nearly empty. Few watch on television.
Harsh but true.
Here are a few facts that might clear up any talk about inequity in pay having to do with anything other than ticket sales:
Last year was a record-breaking season for both the WNBA and the NBA. The women drew a total of 1,587,488 fans to their games. They averaged 6,625 spectators per arena.
By contrast, the men drew 22,500,000 spectators and 98% of their arenas were sold out, averaging 18,324 fans per game.
Beyond that, tickets to the WNBA sold for an average of $47, while the average NBA ticket was almost twice that, at $94. It’s worth pointing out, however, that court-side seats to, say, a Lakers game, are priced at $5,500. For big games those same seats can cost as much as - sitting down? - $42,000.
The big money, of course, comes from television. The NBA has a deal with ESPN that’s worth $24 billion or $2.6 billion a year. The ladies? Their deal is worth $60 million annually.
Do the math. The NBA is not only half a century older than the women’s league, it rakes in a lot more loot than the women. Consequently, it can pay its players more.
The WNBA was formed in 1997 and has fewer teams playing fewer games than the NBA.
The good news is that Caitlin Clark may begin to change all that. There are early signs that Indiana Fever is going to sell out both at home and away games as fans throng to see the 6-foot tall guard with the ability to hit three-pointers from almost anywhere.
She’ll also make lots of money with endorsements. Clark was making an estimated $3.1 million just as a college player in NIL payments.
It’s easy to look at disparities in pay between the WNBA and the NBA and blame the patriarchy as our simpleminded president did. But common sense should tell all of us to calm down and give the sport time to grow.
That may happen. But only if we can keep 7-foot tall mediocre male players from invading the women’s sport.
