Why the WNBA is a joke! Katlin’s salary
$76,000.00 for first year!
90 Replies
2y
Clark's salary is $76,000 because the WNBA is a joke. The league makes no money, their ratings for their championship games are on par with a Wed night MAC football game. It's very existence is because the NBA props it up both through direct financing and by linking the WNBA TV contract directly to being eligible to get the NBA contract.
Their salaries are collectively bargained, they have a union. Wonder why they didn't push for revenue sharing, etc? Pretty simple they would make less than they do now. Wonder why they don't go on strike due to their "joke" salaries? Every once in a while there is rumbling, but it goes away as I assume someone sits the rumblers down and explains the realities of being a welfare recipient demanding more from those that make the money that pays you.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
...where do you think the money is supposed to come from? Do you watch, buy tickets to WNBA games?
(In response to this post by hines495)
Isn't the WNBA season 4 months?
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
Capitalism. I wouldn't sweat it though. Her endorsements will keep her from the poor house.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
She's going to do just fine! I agree that WNBA should pay much, much better. Hopefully Clark and the new wave of talent that's coming into the league will boost attendance, ticket sales and ultimately, salaries.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
but they receive a fraction of the $$$$ because of the ESPN contract. with the NCAA. And they get treated like second class athletes at the Regionals...
(In response to this post by hines495)
Business decisions should not be made on the basis of one game
I certainly hope women’s NCAA hoops can keep the momentum, but that remains to be seen.
(In response to this post by Hokebury)
2y
(In response to this post by WestEndHokie39)
I’m just going to leave this here…so, no she wouldn’t have made *more* 💰at
Iowa. That’s just foolish talk.
(In response to this post by hines495)
V
Va AandM
2y
Sue Bird made more in Russia in 10 seasons than her WNBA career. Many others, too, including Liz’s new HC who became a Russian national and played for the Russian national team. Maybe Harmon does like borscht, kasha and blinis
** Edited by Va AandM at 4/18/2024, 8:52:42 AM
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
...Russian fans support professional women's basketball better than American fans?
(In response to this post by Va AandM)
Purely economics
The WNBA can’t even support itself at those pay levels.
(In response to this post by hines495)
V
Vippie1
2y
NBA annual revs are $10 billion. Or 50x.
If she can bring new eyeballs to the sport , that means a higher paying TV contract, and then the player's union can negotiate higher entry salaries.
Capitalism at work not gender bias.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
Clark already caused a bump in interest in WBB that drove interest in the WNBA. You can expect a larger bump, but the question is whether it will be sustainable.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
great endorsements and makes good $ outside of WNBA. We "NIL" paid Kitley $150,000 this past year and well deserved
(In response to this post by hines495)
…but instead she’ll make “tons more” in WNBA w/her contract/endorsement
deals. What’s your point? This wasn’t just about money for her. She had accomplished all she could in college and loves the game. This is about opportunity to elevate her game against elite competition.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
Historic inflection point, and she's the primary source of it.
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
2
2hhoop3
2y
partner/nemesis? It will take more than one player I think to create a historic inflection point. It will also be dependent, at least in part, on her actual performance in the league and that will depend on the level of star treatment she gets from the refs.
(In response to this post by Long-Lost Hokie)
2y
...one of whom is Angel Reese, and there's similar Bird/Magic history between them in college.
With Reese and Kamilla Cardoso, Chicago seems likely to get good sooner rather than later. Chicago also has a storied history in pro basketball, obviously, and might really get behind a winner. Indiana has a lot of basketball tradition, too, including connections to Bird himself. And Chicago and Indy are close, geographically.
The potential narratives are there to be amplified. Plus there are a lot of really good WNBA players who are basically anonymous now. The Olympics and Clark's first WNBA season seem likely to change that -- lots of people are betting on it, anyway.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
...more about the star power of this class and them being the ones that kinda changed the game in women's college hoops. The hope is that it will follow them to the WNBA.
(In response to this post by Long-Lost Hokie)
2y
early stages of a large NIL deal IF she STAYED in college due to rising popularity of the womens game and the viewers she brought in. 2 things can be the same. She would have made more $ if she told the Iowa collectives she was interested in returning than the $76,000 salary. And she STILL would have had her legit NIL deals.
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
Fact is you don’t know that and if you had read my post or anyone else’s
this was more about the the basketball opportunity and challenge for her. The money will be there.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
Iowa or went to WNBA. Why do you think Amoore skipped WNBA? She makes more than the WNBA salary by playing at Kentucky and collecting from collectives. (And same would have been true if she stayed at VT)
Iowa collectives > WNBA salary. Period. That is indisputable
I am not saying she should have stayed. She does want the challenge and opportunity I agree
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
2y
...could she have? Ok...yes...but she has/had shown no inclination to do so. Thus the comparison to Georgia (along with the international aspect) is apples to oranges.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
that if she DID.....that would far exceed her WNBA salary ALONE.
The comparison to GA is she IS MAKING more $ by staying college. Much as Kitley made MORE by returning for her senior year.
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
The fact is, you know none of this to be true. Your posts are based on
pure speculation.
** Edited by BackInTheBurg at 4/18/2024, 12:31:58 PM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
Not anything to do with endorsements, Your position is WNBA$ > Iowa collectives at a low $76,000 correct?
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
You keep saying she would’ve made more $ returning to Iowa. I don’t
believe that. You can’t discount the endorsements that will travel with her NIL to Indiana. You seemed to be debating out of both sides of your mouth on this. Bottom line. She’s a generational player who loves the game of basketball. She wants to move on. She’s going to make bank.
** Edited by BackInTheBurg at 4/18/2024, 12:45:57 PM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
visits. It is ok.
I asked solely whether you think WNBA $ are greater than Iowa collective $'s. You believe that it is and I respect your opinion on that.
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
Good one. That adds a lot of value to the discussion on the boards, but you
be you.
** Edited by BackInTheBurg at 4/18/2024, 1:03:19 PM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
I thought I read something that she didn't take any collective "bag" money. So she's making what she'd have made at Iowa PLUS $76,000...plus probably even more endorsements.
IMO...VT/Triumph failed Kitley with regard to NIL. Sure...they paid her some sum of $....but they should've been working with her more on building her brand nationally.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
The big money isn't the collectives paying them sums of money, its the national endorsements, shoe companies, cosmetics companies, State Farm, etc. like Catlin Clark and Angel Reese have.
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
...I think they failed big time in that regard with Liz and Georgia who are probably two of the most marketable athletes VT has had since Vick. Those opportunities aren't going to exist for everyone or even the majority...but they certainly should've for those two. Social media is a big part of that. Missed the boat there.
(In response to this post by VANESSAHOKIE)
2y
so both incomes will go up.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
she would have made more here as well. Of course Clark's endorsement deals go with her..Gatorade, State Farm etc...
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
🤦🏻♂️…so she makes the same or more in endorsements + her WNBA salary.
What don’t you understand about the “maths” involved in this?
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
Why do people no get this?
Even that article is speculating without any firm data (that's what ON3 does).
Amoore and Clark aren't the same situation unless you can show me proof Clark took a pay for play NIL payment from a collective (money not related to her endorsements) because it's my understanding she didn't.
** Edited by vthokieq at 4/18/2024, 8:25:47 AM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
NIL deals are national brands, separate from Iowa, and will follow her at WNBA, like Nike, State Farm, etc. Clark and Reese are marketing machines. Their brands will only increase in WNBA. "Collective NIL's" are done at the school level. Clark and Amoore don't compare, nowhere close, at National branding. Amoore is limited since she is an international student.
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
It just changes how they're able to monetize that. Virginia Tech and moreso Triumph missed golden opportunities with both Kitley and Amoore IMO and didn't utilize their personalities to their full potential or help them build their brands more on a national level.
(In response to this post by carhokies)
2y
to have traditional branding NIL's, like Nike, Coach, State Farm, etc, because she is an international student. Multiple people asked her that specific question on her Instagram and Twitter accounts. She said couple times she hopes this will change for International students in the near future. She did say she has multiple NIL's in Australia. Quoting what she said. Don't know the specifics since she didn't give details.
** Edited by carhokies at 4/18/2024, 11:19:03 AM
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
You're confusing endorsements (the monetization aspect I mentioned) with building a brand out of the player themselves.
And she isn't unable...those companies just have to get creative (Doritos/PepsiCo/Frito Lay was able to do it with Georgia apparently), which to them it may just not be worth the hassle at this point.
** Edited by vthokieq at 4/18/2024, 11:43:31 AM
** Edited by vthokieq at 4/18/2024, 11:44:24 AM
(In response to this post by carhokies)
2y
college students are talking about this more frequently and hoping laws will be changed for international college students soon.
**I recently noticed that the VT Triumph NIL removed Georgia.
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
And it’s an immigration issue…not an NCAA or really an NIL issue even. I'm really surprised a collective or company hasn't tried to sponsor an international athlete for a work visa instead of the student visa that has the limitations (though not sure if that would impact their student status).
And Georgia should be removed at this point…no issue there whatsoever.
** Edited by vthokieq at 4/18/2024, 12:12:36 PM
(In response to this post by carhokies)
2y
have made more $ than her WNBA salary. Why do we have Triumph and Hokie Way? To keep our players....last I heard, we have 15-16 football players making $100,000 plus. That "endorsement" does not go with them if they leave VT. Most NIL deals are not companies. Clark has legit NIL deals. Amoore had legit smaller ones with local companies but she also makes more via collectives than she would in the WNBA
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
You keep posting things like this about Clark. I think she’ll be fine and
has plenty of smart people overseeing her value as a future star in the WNBA. Her marketability will only increase, not decrease as you seem to be suggesting, by going pro. Not only that, she’ll put more butts in seats is my guess. Have already read some things where a bunch of her home/away games are sold out.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
Clark is awesome and I look forward to watching her in the WNBA. Fact stands that Iowa collectives would pay her way way more than WNBA salary. And I am not saying she should have collected from the Iowa collectives. She does not have to worry about $'s as she will make a ton deservedly so. She made the right decision to turn pro.
(In response to this post by BackInTheBurg)
2y
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
....than she did this previous year at Iowa stands. She's an anomaly.
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
the collective. Her salary in the WNBA does exceed what she took from the collective which was zero.
(In response to this post by vthokieq)
2y
Not sure what the Iowa collective's slush fund is, but it pales in comparison to the buying power of just one of Clark's corporate partners. They are making it worth her while to play in the WNBA next year, and it's very possibly a condition of her endorsement deal with them. In her case, and maybe a few others, it's a false dichotomy to think in limited terms of earning power in the WNBA vs. earning power through NIL.
** Edited by Long-Lost Hokie at 4/18/2024, 11:51:56 AM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
She signed with them in October. Announced she was going pro very early, not because she needed to but to promote the WNBA. Hence the WNBA draft was must-see-TV this year. It's not just that she has NIL deals. It's that at least one of her major sponsors wants her to go pro and is almost certainly incentivizing her to do so.
** Edited by Long-Lost Hokie at 4/18/2024, 9:23:19 AM
(In response to this post by VintonHokies)
2y
If someone can show that the television rights aren't fair or the owners are pocketing more than their "fair share," okay, but until then, isn't this just a case of women's sports not generating the revenues men's sports do? The NBA plays more games and averages three times the attendance at those games; ticket average is twice or more the WNBA, too. The "cheapest" NBA franchise is worth $2.4 billion, several times the entire WNBA. When the WNBA starts generating more revenue, the players will start getting paid more.
There was a time, years ago, when NFL players used to also work "normal" jobs because the league was still establishing itself. (Interesting read: https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2010/05/remember_when_of...
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
not be just about how much revenue each sport generates. On average it is has been determine that women generally earn less money than men regardless of the profession. I think the difference is around 16% and there are only 3 professions where the average salaries are the same or women earn more money than the men. If we assume that the WNBA was just as profitable as the NBA, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that the WNBA salaries would still be less the NBA salaries. The hyperlink is an article in Forbes dated March 1, 2024 on this subject.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by 134729Hokie)
2y
I suspect professional women's basketball players will have a lot more leverage than the average woman in the workforce. I also suspect it would be difficult for a WNBA franchise to hide a revenue windfall so it can keep it all for itself, its investors, or majority owners. To compare professional sports to just about any other profession is like apples to oranges. When women's sports are as financially lucrative as men's, the players will make more money.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
At least the WTA has publicly gone on record to correct this issue by 2033.
"Billie Jean King, who won 39 major titles in her 22 years as a professional, brought about the first major equal pay shift when she threatened to boycott the U.S. Open until pay was equalized. She succeeded, and the other major Grand Slam tournaments followed, but the problem persisted. It wasn't until 2007 that Wimbledon paiyed men and women equally, and that change came after prodding from another major star: Venus Williams. Annual prize money for WTA events was about 80 cents on the dollar for women until Tuesday's announcement, the New York Times reported."
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by 134729Hokie)
2y
Look at the price difference between the men's final and women's final at Wimbledon.
** Edited by 134729Hokie at 4/18/2024, 10:55:12 PM
Link:
Wimbledon Tickets
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
men's tennis. However, the media coverage still heavily favors the men for various reasons.
"In 2019, Women’s tennis had 41% less media coverage than Men’s despite higher interest."
https://playtoday.co/blog/stats/tennis-viewership-statist...
"In 2021, the viewership of the women's final of the tennis U.S. Open outperformed the men's for the fifth time in just seven years."
"The women's U.S. Open finale recorded 2.44 million viewers and a 0.38 rating against 2.05 million and a 0.35 rating for the men's."
https://askwonder.com/research/comparison-women-s-men-s-p...
FWIW askwonder.com did a comparison of men vs. women pro sports (i.e. NBA vs. WNBA, MLS vs. NWLS, PGA vs. LPGA, figure skating, swimming, football, etc.). The website reached an interesting conclusion for professional football, which I believe is relevant to the other sports, "Unfortunately, like most other women sports in the U.S., the growth of women's professional football is limited by lack of television coverage." The reason I believe it is an interesting conclusion because if you look at the history of television coverage for women's pro tennis, then you will see that for majority (or maybe all) of the tournaments the networks would only televise the later rounds for the women's tournaments and every round for the men's tournaments. I believe that has slowly been changing over the years particularly with the creation of tennis channel(s) and utilization of streaming services (i.e. WatchESPN). I do believe that could be an important factor in the discussion because it could lead to self-fulfilling prophecy which is later used to justify the unequal salaries/prize money.
(In response to this post by 134729Hokie)
2y
Wimbledon isn't giving tickets away for nothing just for fun. If they had more demand for women's event tickets, the price would be higher. Television viewership is only something if it translates into television revenue. Even the WNBA Commissioner says this is all about nothing ... the main driver for team revenue is ticketing. She says television rights are undervalued, but also says ...
"Engelbert noted that comparisons between WNBA draftee salaries and similar salaries for newly drafted NBA players or other men’s leagues should note that those leagues are “75 to 120 years old; we’re tipping off our 28th season.” The NBA has around $13 billion in revenue while the WNBA is roughly around $200 million.
“I would say if you look at them 28 seasons in, we’re further ahead, but we realize we still have a lot of work to do, and it’s all about the ecosystem around us that drives revenue,” Engelbert said."
And this was my point. No one is going to invest billions into an enterprise that is still proving itself. I think almost everyone can agree, Clark has elevated women's college basketball far beyond where it has been before. If she can have the same impact in the WNBA, the money will flow. There's no conspiracy here.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
T
thunar
2y
The controlled gap measures the difference in pay between men and women performing the same job, with the same experience and qualifications.
The controlled gender pay gap, which considers factors such as job title, experience, education, industry, job level and hours worked, is currently at 99 cents for every dollar men earn
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
The anger and outrage of how much or how little a player makes in the big leagues fall on deaf ears.
** Edited by KingLeoVT at 4/17/2024, 9:09:06 PM
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
expressing my opinion regarding the WNBA and their ridiculously low pay, especially when compared to other professional men’s sports. I too am a veteran and feel your frustration. Thank you for your service!
(In response to this post by KingLeoVT)
2y
So that they can pay the WNBA for the privilage to play. The WNBA would not even exist if the NBA had not been subsidizing it..... that may change and then so will her salary.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
should be paid as much as they do now.
150k is very sustainable. Unless you live in Cali or NY.. Then you might need to move. Thank you also for your service battle.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
I make more than that as a Federal retiree ....
(In response to this post by hines495)
People don’t buy tickets and watch you on TV either?
(In response to this post by YorkHokie)
2y
pay for parking.
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
...from 9-11 AM, and told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she's filing then she should be able to listen to the radio while she's collating so I don't see why she should have to turn down the radio because she enjoys listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.
(In response to this post by squarerootofone)
J
js93
2y
(In response to this post by hines495)
2y
And every other golfer benefited. I hope Caitlin has the same impact on the wnba.
(In response to this post by js93)