WNBA ratings down 50% since Clark injury
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
This. It's the NBA's chance to say publicly and loudly "you're right, you ladies dont need yearly subsidies anymore", and walk away. Can't argue how much value you have and turn around to complain that you can't even make a profit without the men.
They would try to, of course.
Nonetheless, this 2 billion is a good head start to the WNBA finally becoming profitable. It's going to come down to how the WNBA is able to manage the revenue. They need to raise the salaries somewhat, but not too high. People like to compare how unprofitable the WNBA as opposed to the NBA. However, the WNBA is a league that is only 29 years old. In comparison, the NBA is 79 years old. In 1975, when the NBA was 29 years old, the league was a drug-infested league with a poor media rights deal that was considered too Black to succeed. You add a commissioner (Stern) with vision to market individual superstars and make the game global, two generational players (Bird and Magic) and arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball and you have what the NBA has become. We were a football, baseball, and boxing society back in the 1970's. However, you can't measure what a league will be by what it is right now. I know that as basketball fan in the 1970's. I remember staying up late to get the 1 or 2 games you might see on a Friday night or a Sunday. I remember watching the NBA Finals on tape delay. So, who knows what the future holds for the WNBA.
Last edited:
You're still missing the point, Botman. In 2024, they recorded record viewership figures across the board. Couple this with the new contract deal(s) stated above, the NBA would be abandoning its start-up endeavor at exactly the wrong time.
Cue "Gamecock Stock" BOT in your head for additiional analysis.
Was the NBA still losing money that season? I looked briefly and didn't see whether they were or not.
Edit:
Found one link:
The NBA at 75: From a very modest beginning, to a behemoth
It started in 1946 with 11 teams and 160 players. The shot clock was nearly a decade away, the 3-point line was a couple generations away. Buildings were smaller.
apnews.com
The league started in 1946, merged with NBL in 1948 and the teams started turning a profit in 1949.
That is not comparable to still being subsidized 29 years later. Especially given the NBA's roots were during a time of almost no TV coverage and no internet.
Last edited:
The NBA was originally the BAA and they lost money/struggled until Wilt and Bill Russell in the 70s. Even during that decade most teams were unprofitable.
Yes, not at all comparable to the WNBA's situation. WNBA has had all the advantages of mass media (TV, online, social media) for almost its entire existence.Was the NBA still losing money that season? I looked briefly and didn't see whether they were or not.
Edit:
Found one link:
The NBA at 75: From a very modest beginning, to a behemoth
It started in 1946 with 11 teams and 160 players. The shot clock was nearly a decade away, the 3-point line was a couple generations away. Buildings were smaller.
The league started in 1946, merged with NBL in 1948 and the teams started turning a profit in 1949.
That is not comparable to still being subsidized 29 years later. Especially given the NBA's roots were during a time of almost no TV coverage and no internet.
Was the NBA still losing money that season? I looked briefly and didn't see whether they were or not.
Edit:
Found one link:
The NBA at 75: From a very modest beginning, to a behemoth
It started in 1946 with 11 teams and 160 players. The shot clock was nearly a decade away, the 3-point line was a couple generations away. Buildings were smaller.
The league started in 1946, merged with NBL in 1948 and the teams started turning a profit in 1949.
That is not comparable to still being subsidized 29 years later. Especially given the NBA's roots were during a time of almost no TV coverage and no internet.
Comparing the overhead requirements of this type of startup today vs. 1946 is an exercise in futility.
In 1946, you needed a basketball and some concrete and they still struggled.
Even if they made a profit, it would have been very modest.
The NBA is prepared to eat cash on the front end because if it turns around the league it could be a waterloo in terms of profit.
Again, the benchmark remains the success of women's college basketball.
If they can reach a certain fraction of that success, the WNBA should be very profitable.
Yes, the WNBA has had advantages that the NBA did not. No one said that the two league's situations were exactly the same. I would argue that the WNBA is in a better situation than what the NBA was in 1975. The NBA didn't have a partner to eat the losses and say, oh by the way, here's 2 billion dollars from our new media rights deal. The key is for the WNBA not to look at this situation and say we've made it. Pay us like NBA players. They need to be conservative with their revenue, market to its fanbase (not to guys that won't watch regardless), and be visionary to make it global. You know a lot of the same people that like to downplay the WNBA do the same thing to the NBA. The issue with the NBA is that it has been marketed globally to such a degree that it's not really concerned about the people that don't like it domestically.
Actually, in 1975, the NBA had been profitable for the past 26 years.
The "better situation" may be you saying they've got advantages the NBA didn't at the time, and I would agree. But they are not in a better situation financially than the NBA at that age.
Last edited:
The NBA fought for viewership and attendance long before cable TV and the internet.
The WNBA has been promoted by both in a way far outreaching it's appeal, based solely on the NBA wanting it to happen.
I dont think a lot of people begrudge the NBA burning through so much money, it's theirs to do with. I think the pushback comes from the "pay me what you owe me" garbage. It makes a good political soundbite, but doesn't hold water when thought out logically.
If you look at the recent success of the Women's game compared to the Men's game on the collegiate level. The women's game is primed for success that should indeed grow the WNBA. With the men's structure, One-and-Done along with the transfer portal, no one knows the players. You have to get out a program every year to figure out what you are looking at. With the women being there for 3 years, the players are able to make more of a name, rivalries grow. Just appears to be a more interesting game right now. Forget Caitlin. If they put JuJu Watkins and Angel Reese in a lineup with Cooper Flagg and Zach Edey. Cooper Flagg might get recognized first, but Zach Edey would most definitely get recognized last. Just comparing the last two men's player of the year to popular women's players. Yes, the women's games has catching up to do, but their infrastructure is set up to really grow in the next decade or so.
Last edited:
Even with ESPN and every other sports/news outlet pumping the WNBA for years now, they still cannot draw fans in large enough numbers to even break even. The new tv deal should make them break even as long as the league doesn't cave to the stupid "pay me what you owe me" foolishness and blow all of the new revenue on payroll. I can easily see the league going on a spending spree like a bunch of drunk sailors on shore leave.
The tv deal is nothing more than more charity for the WNBA, this time from, again, the king of woke, Disney along with NBC (another bastion of wokeness) and Amazon, who has more money than God and doesn't mind a loss leader.
Women's college basketball on the whole is probably not followed as much as the WNBA. A handful of programs have pretty loyal fan bases but 90% or more generate little interest and even less money.
The first people to celebrate when/if the wnba breaks even will be the NBA owners who have been throwing money at the league for 30 years.
Lile you, I wouldnt be surprised if any additional funds the wnba gets magically dont lead to profitability though.
I don't know a single WNBA fan, male or female. I don't think I've ever even seen a WNBA fan out in public, or at least someone wearing a WNBA team shirt or player jersey.
This new tv contract is the opening of the exit door the NBA has been dreaming about. They need to run for the exit right now.
You may not know them, but you certainly have been talking to them. If you live in South Carolina, they are all over the place due to the success of our women's team. I was right along with you about 3-4 years ago, but the success of our women's team changed that. You then look at other games and you find that a lot of these girls can really play. No, they are not dunking and all that, but they are really skilled players. Can shoot the ball, handle the ball, in many respects have better IQs for the game because they will listen and not just depend on their athletic ability. I have actually talked to several women's coaches on the high school level in this state. When I ask why do you coach women's basketball, the response I usually get is that the boys don't listen.
Agreed. It's very telling that its been 30 years of hype to still not even be able to break even as a league.
Edit:
Was curious how much of the wnba the NBA owns, and its about 60%. That same article had a funny addition. Apparently, the wnba signed a large TV deal this year, but the NBA negotiated it as part of their TV deal. Even the biggest step taken by the wnba in 30 years was a charity gift from the NBA.
Last edited:
I live in a town with a WNBA team. Almost never see a person wearing WNBA gear. You actually remember it when you do b/c it stands out as memorable. Very much like when I see someone in Gamecock gear up here a couple times a year.
I've known one person who has been to a WNBA game and it was when he took his daughter when Clark was in town.
I know there are some on this forum, but the fact remains that I still don't know any personally and never see team-related gear. A real fan would have some sort of fan gear he or she wears at least every once in awhile.
Indianapolis with metro area population of 2.1 million and a HUGE basketball town in a basketball crazy state, averaged 4000 people per game in 2023, when Clark came they are averaging 17,000 per game. 13,000 more people per game did not suddenly decide to become WNBA fans.
Like minded people hang around each other. I wouldn't be talking to you if not for Gamecock football. Also, Gamecock fans of the Women's Team just wear Gamecock gear. I wear the same gear for that as I would for a football game. So gear doesn't really tell you anything. I don't know what it is, but the fact that our Women's team is so popular really seems to bother some of you. The only people that bring up Women's Sports subjects this time of year is the people that say they have no use for the game.
Last edited:
You didn't mention that the team was 13-27 and was 5-31 the year before that. The team was terrible. I know Gamecock fans go to Gamecock football games regardless, but most fanbases stop going to the games when the product is terrible.
I wasn't talking about Carolina women's basketball lol. I know a family of Clemson fans who love Dawn Staley and Gamecock WBB. I know there are lots and lots of diehard Gamecock WBB fans, otherwise the CLA wouldn't be packed for their games.
My point, though anecdotal, is that I don't personally know any WNBA fans and I've never seen any WNBA fan gear out and about in South Carolina.
I don't think you can find anything negative I've said about women's basketball in this thread. It's a message board, and I read most threads no matter the topic. This is my input on the subject.
I think that's kind of the point. The team sucked the seasons prior, but in the first home game with Clark, their attendance more than quadrupled. They didn't discover 4x as many WNBA fans or fans of Clark's team. Some WNBA teams actually move their games against Indiana to larger venues...and only games against Indiana. In consecutive home games against Seattle and Indiana, Chicago drew 7,750 fans and 19,601 fans. In a home game against the best team in the league, Minnesota, they drew 9.025 fans. Those extra fans in the Indiana game didn't show up to see the home team Chicago play. And they didn't show up to see the best team in the league play. And they didn't show up to see an overall mediocre Indiana team play. They showed up to see Clark play.
I got it that it is a message board and you get to talk about what you want, but who sits around all day to talk about something that they don't like? It's really in the form of a question. What is irking some of you so bad that you add on to a topic that is almost a month old on and on. I don't make a habit talking about the sports I don't like.
Bored at work lol. Football season hasn't started. Not much to talk about yet.
Do you know any WNBA fans? Do you see WNBA gear around town wherever you live?
Few people are talking about the WNBA as it relates to the game. The WNBA has become a topic of discussion for non-WNBA fans b/c they continue to assert and demand validation for the perceived (but unfounded) worth and value. It's less of a sports discussion and more of a social one.
Yes, I know a lot of them. My whole family actually. Rabid Gamecock fans. Say something bad about Dawn Staley and they will want to fight you. Bugged me about the WNBA for years. I was the last convert. Finally, tried it about 3-4 years ago and it's nothing like what you guys try to make it out to be. Not bad basketball. No Dunking, but good basketball with well run offense especially on the WNBA level. I don't really get into MLB or any summer sports. So, it fits right in where it doesn't interfere with any sport I want to watch. Gamecocks have a player on about every roster in the league. Sometimes 2. So, its easy to find someone to root for.
This has been repeated, but will continue to be ignored. It's a matter of wanting to avoid the painful truth and trying to badger/shame someone from pointing it out.
Do you usually see people confident in their point of view try to get people to stop talking about the topic?
Last edited:
If those stats are real, that's scary. The ratings numbers from earlier in the thread coupled with those?
You were right ( I think it was you) to question if any pro sport has ever been so dependent on one person. Tiger Woods is the only other comparison I can think of.
Nobody is trying to stop you from talking about it. The question is why do it if you say you don't care? Just weird from my point of view. Will at least explained his POV is boredom. What's yours? I don't care for soccer. Never felt the urge to post multiple threads on my dislike. Just doesn't matter in my world. You have let it be known. You don't care for the WNBA. ....and?
This has been covered before.
And from 18
Yet here you are, still asking the question.
That's just weird from my point of view.
...and I haven't gotten a straight answer yet. Well, I feel Will10 gave one. Seems like an agenda thread and interested in the agenda.
I just quoted you two straight answers. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them any less "straight". And asking again, which we all know you will, wont change the answer.
Maybe the words were just too big for you.
Last edited:
Tiger is a good comparison, but golf is at least an individual sport. I dare say, no team sports league has ever been so dependent on a single person. And it's not just a minor shift from unpopular to mild interest or mild interest to growing interest. Minus Clark, fans don't give a crap. With Clark, fans are nuts for it. It's beyond a night and day difference. I don't really get it, as others have noted she's far from the best player in the league (which I assume to be true). Truly, the WNBA is nothing without Clark. There is no argument to made to the contrary.
Last edited:
Woods in his time was not only phenomenally the best there was but most importantly, *entertaining* to watch. I play a good bit of golf but the only time I'll actually watch on television now is if there is some drama involved; Scheffler is phenomenally good, but when he's not farting he's about as entertaining to watch as paint drying.
That's the deal with Clark; she is entertaining to watch. Others in the league are good but not particularly entertaining; with a couple of exceptions, the rest are relatively ugly women both looks and style wise and not fun to watch. Its roller derby with no cover girls.
Didn't read the story, but I saw a post on Twitter that a WNBA game was paused (last night I think) when a player's wig fell off. That's not something you hear very often.
I think a fan was kicked out for making fun.
Did not fact check it, so maybe it was satire.
Outside of tennis and, to a lesser extent, golf, professional women athletes aren't usually the most attractive bunch you will find.
No one watches women's beach volleyball because of the riveting competition.