This aspect is completely separate, and I would then ask as a follow-up, which entity is or should be most interested in making women's sports competitive on the world's stage, and opening up opportunities for female athletes, and why? I would say that that entity would be the entity who would then be able to best gauge the value to them in investing in WNBA salaries. I think it's been made clear that the NBA doesn't see that investment as worthwhile to them.
WNBA players are already the best in the world among women so I don't think your argument about being competitive as possible on the world stage makes sense.
Well, they started and support the WNBA, so they do see the value. But they understandably want to spend as little as possible on it. This is why I've said I think making tax incentives to help the NBA with this would be worthwhile.
They see value in it's existence, but obviously they don't see value in making the WNBA the world's highest-paying women's league. However, you're saying that the federal government has a vested interest in US women's basketball being the most lucrative women's basketball opportunity worldwide? How exactly does creating more sports fans (as you mentioned in a prior post as a driving reason for paying WNBA players more) benefit American society as a whole to a degree that it's worthy of millions of dollars of government subsidy?
True, but they started losing before the WNBA was started. The WNBA and title 9 have been what has kept us at the top. I just think paying the best female basketball players in the world what we pay the best garbage men is stupid. They have worked longer and harder on a much more difficult to attain goal than any garbage man, and their pay should reflect that. And there is no downside to paying them better. The NBA wouldn't even notice it. Especially if there were tax incentives. And if they could use that tax to even out the state to state tax differences of the NBA that could help make the NBA morw competitive as well.
How does NASA? How does Google? How do oil companies? You're giving half of the population more incentive to be productive and better themselves as opposed spending all day on tiktok. This seems like a very positive thing to me.
The value of NASA/Google/oil subsidies is not the question here. Whether those have value is a separate debate. The question is--what would be the value of WNBA subsidies. I don't know that most would believe that people pursuing a basketball career constitutes "bettering themselves". Very few women who are not already driven enough to pursue viable employment opportunities "as opposed to spending all day on tiktok" will suddenly become contributing members of society because WNBA players make more. Certainly not enough to justify the tens of millions of tax dollars you're calling for.
I don't understand why the entertainment industry is so hard to grasp. Movies, television, sports..... are part of the entertainment industry. If your product doesn't make money, you don't make money. Plenty of movie stars who used to be big are now gone because they had too many flops. You can try to insert your social agenda into entertainment all you want, but if people don't want to watch it, it won't make money and it will go away. If people are unhappy with the compensation that women get from sports, they should support those sports more. How much womens sports do you watch @Phatguysrule How many jerseys have you purchased? The NFL and NBA are profitable because people watch them. Their franchises are worth billions of dollars. It's pretty cut and dry. We're not talking about manufacturing cars here. We're talking about a product that needs eyes to watch it or it's not profitable. Sadly, women's sports is not that profitable. If you were running a business and you were barely scraping by, would you pay your employees more money? Would you go into a deficit to pay your employees more? Would you go out of business just so you could pay your employees more money for a short period of time?
You have to fill an arena with fans and sell a ton of merch to get big paychecks in sports...from what I've seen in both college and the WNBA there's usually an echo in the arena....it's not a thriving success not that it couldn't blossom into that. I went to Oregon State games when my son was a student and the men's basketball program had a ton of fan support...the women's ..empty seats. It can change but it's going to take an image makeover from what I see to make it more of a draw than baseball which it's not as of yet...women's softball and baseball is much more popular
I watch a ton of women's sports. I coach women's sports. I pay for WNBA league pass. And I see the difference between young girls who play sports (or do other extra curricular activities) and those who don't. Women's competitions make society better. Stronger.
I just made a proposal that would pay them better without doing the other stuff first. If we didn't put power behind women's sports via title 9 there would still be no women's sports other than what media were able to sexualize. Women are worth more than that, IMO.
That's great! I have also supported high school and college women's basketball but I didn't have much company...I don't subscribe to any league pass though..I'm a radio guy for most live sports. Blackouts soured me on NBA league pass..did it two years in a row and found it frustrating and I can honestly say the WNBA doesn't keep my attention much...I'm not a fan at all and don't seek it out so I'm part of why they lack big viewing numbers. I do watch team USA play in the Olympics though which I thoroughly enjoy.
The problem for me, personally, is that I am used to and enjoy the level of athleticism and skill at the pro level of men's basketball. I can't stand high school sports for the same reason that I don't enjoy watching women's basketball. I don't even really like college basketball. As an example, it drive me nuts how many of the college players are horrible at free throw shooting. It's just frustrating to watch. I like dunks. I like deep threes. I like hard physical play. I just don't see those things from women's basketball. Also, I'll just point out that there's so many things to pull people's attention now. There's so many streaming services and content that's available on demand all the time. So someone REALLY has to want to watch something that's kinda niche. Just an example, but motorcycle racing isn't super big in the US anymore. I had to pay for a separate subscription to stream the MotoGP races and it wasn't cheap. It's huge overseas but in the US it just really isn't that big and it's niche. Those guys put their lives on the line every race, and people have died. Some of them really don't make that much money. Especially the guys in the US. But they make their money from endorsements and if they're not one of the most popular riders on a factory vehicle, they just won't make that much money. It's not fair but that's the sport.
We can't watch anything on time anyway, so the blackouts don't bother me. And I want to support the sport any way I can. Men's sports are so flush with cash we could easily support women's sports better without negatively impacting anybody. I see no reason not to do it.
That's fantastic. Good for you. I'm not saying that with any sarcasm at all. That's why we try our best to offer the same opportunities in high school and college, but the pros are about making money. They're a business. Businesses need to make money. You can't pay someone money that doesn't exist.
Honestly I think all professional athletes in basketball are grossly overpaid but I feel that way about entertainment industry in general...Brad Pitt can make 20 million for six weeks work and it's not fair...ever. I also think a kid should be able to go to a game and not be priced out by adults with deep pockets.
Title 9 relates to sports in education, requiring educational institutions that proclaim value in marrying athletics and education to provide equal athletic opportunities for all students, and requiring those institutions to foot the bill. There's a very clear public benefit (involvement in youth sports is valuable to development), and a very clear definition of the responsible party (educational institutions). Attempting to apply the same logic to government subsidization of professional women's athletics is fraught with pitfalls.
The money does exist. I've already shown where it can come from without negatively impacting anybody. While possibly helping to improve the NBA product... And that's just 1 of many different possible solutions...
