They did sign a 10year/5 billion deal with Netflix (while signing a cable deal for Smackdown and a broadcast deal for NXT), but that has a bunch of caveats, and may actually be less money than they were making before. Prior to the deal, they had a $200 million/year deal with Peacock for the Network content, a 250 million/year deal for Raw on US TV, and they had all their international rights with various networks overseas, plus their WWE Network outside the US. Starting in 2026, Netflix is paying $500 million a year for ALL of that combined. In 2025, though, they are paying that only for the international stuff and for Raw, so it's a monster increase for 1 year. But if WWE was making more than $50 million combined on EVERYTHING else in the world they do, then the Netflix deal is actually a drop in value over the life of the deal, but it comes with the advantage of easier bookeeping/workflow (ie, not having to do 50 deals for different countries and letting Netflix handle it), it's more exposure (there are more Netflix subs in the US than cable subs at this point, and it's only going to become a wider gap as the years go on), and having everything under one banner makes it so there is less risk overall. But, just like with the NBA/WNBA rights bundling, they did pay a price for getting the bundle- they didn't get a big increase!
Yeah that's true. Even with a shorter season, I wonder how much more airtime the league is going to get with Caitlin Clark now. I get the feeling that if there was ever a time to strike while the iron is hot, this would be it.
I'm kind of torn on this, but I also agree with you overall. I think that all professional athletes, even those in the NBA, are underpaid. It's the talent that fuels these monstrously profitable industries and the people on the court providing the entertainment should continue to get larger & larger slices of the pie. That said, I do also think there's room to shave off the current salaries that NBA players are earning. I know that sounds completely contradictory (it is), but I guess I want NBA players paid more in general and to also have their salaries trimmed to support the WNBA.
I mean you're talking a league that has a 50/50 revenue split so I don't think it's too bad. The players aren't supporting any of the leagues expenses so it's not like ownership is making 50% of the revenue. They still have to pay for everything that goes around the players out of that 50% share, refs, stadium costs (not building it but keeping it running that's a whole different convo), concessions, merchandising, trainers, coaches, back office, etc before they see a dime. All of those expenses are also providing the entertainment so to speak, they're just not dribbling.
If you actually care about how much the women are getting paid you should actually support their content and watch the games. Hopefully Caitlin puts more eyes on the WNBA for this to actually happen.
Yeah that's true. Even with a shorter season, I wonder how much more airtime the league is going to get with Caitlin Clark now. I get the feeling that if there was ever a time to strike while the iron is hot, this would be it.
For the Indiana Fever, 36 out of 40 games will be on national television. Most are on NBA TV, but ESPN/ABC and CBS will have their fair share as well.
DATE
TIME (ET)
OPPONENT
NATIONAL TV NETWORK
May 14
7:30 p.m.
at Connecticut
ESPN 2
May 16
7:00 p.m.
vs New York
Prime Video
May 18
1:00 p.m.
at New York
ABC
May 20
7:00 p.m.
vs Connecticut
ESPN
May 22
10:00 p.m.
at Seattle
May 24
10:00 p.m.
at Los Angeles
ION
May 25
9:00 p.m.
at Las Vegas
NBA TV
May 28
7:00 p.m.
vs Los Angeles
NBA TV
May 30
7:00 p.m.
vs Seattle
Prime Video
June 1
1:00 p.m.
vs Chicago
NBA TV
June 2
7:00 p.m.
at New York
NBA TV
June 7
7:30 p.m.
at Washington
ION
June 10
7:00 p.m.
at Connecticut
NBA TV
June 13
7:00 p.m.
vs Atlanta
June 16
12:00 p.m.
vs Chicago
CBS
June 19
7:00 p.m.
vs Washington
NBA TV
June 21
7:30 p.m.
at Atlanta
ION
June 23
6:00 p.m.
at Chicago
NBA TV
June 27
10:00 p.m.
at Seattle
Prime Video
June 30
3:00 p.m.
at Phoenix
ESPN
July 2
9:30 p.m.
at Las Vegas
ESPN
July 6
1:00 p.m.
vs New York
CBS
July 10
12:00 p.m.
vs Washington
NBA TV
July 12
7:30 p.m.
vs Phoenix
ION
July 14
4:00 p.m.
at Minnesota
ESPN
July 17
7:30 p.m.
at Dallas
ESPN
Aug. 16
7:30 p.m.
vs Phoenix
ION
Aug. 18
3:30 p.m.
vs Seattle
ABC
Aug. 24
8:00 p.m.
at Minnesota
NBA TV
Aug. 26
7:30 p.m.
at Atlanta
NBA TV
Aug. 28
7:00 p.m.
vs Connecticut
NBA TV
Aug. 30
7:30 p.m.
at Chicago
ION
Sept. 1
4:00 p.m.
at Dallas
NBA TV
Sept. 4
7:00 p.m.
vs Los Angeles
CBS Sports Network
Sept. 6
7:30 p.m.
vs Minnesota
ION
Sept. 8
4:00 p.m.
vs Atlanta
Sept. 11
7:00 p.m.
vs Las Vegas
NBA TV
Sept. 13
7:30 p.m.
vs Las Vegas
ION
Sept. 15
3:00 p.m.
vs Dallas
Sept. 95
7:00 p.m.
at Washington
Prime Video
Which leads me to another rant about blackouts. A lot of people are going to buy WNBA League Pass to watch Caitlyn Clark, but a bunch of the games can't be viewed because of the ancient blackout rules.
In the U.S., certain nationally televised games (currently, those on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, CBS, CBS Sports Network and Prime Video) are not available live on WNBA League Pass.
1. What is WNBA League Pass? WNBA League Pass is the WNBA’s subscription streaming product that provides fans with access to live and on-demand games. Available games may vary by country and within the local footprint of participating teams. Please see FAQ #6 below for additional details. 2...
www.wnba.com
I get that everyone wants their piece of the pie, but that is going to hurt the WNBA's potential growth when 15 of Caitlyn Clark's games are already blacked out across the country on League Pass.
Caitlin Clark is "underpaid" -> She's popular and increase the WNBA TV ratings and popularity -> New TV Deal -> She (and other players) gets a gigantic salary increase
They get paid a percentage of what the league makes, that's how you get mediocre players making 10M per year in the NBA because teams have to spend money somewhere lol. She also just signed a 10M+ deal with Nike I think.
Also if caitlin clark does bring a lasting popularity boost they can use it to negotiate a better TV deal which in return would allow the players union to leverage their power to negotiate higher pay in the next cba(which could be coming in 2026 from what i'm reading).
When it came to the US Women's Soccer Team making less I was definitely in the camp that they should be paid equal to the male team
This is different, like someone posted, the WNBA makes a fraction of what the NBA does so it makes sense their players would make a fraction, but hopefully the new found popularity of Women's collegic basketball will translate to the WNBA growing and soon their players can be payed more
If you actually care about how much the women are getting paid you should actually support their content and watch the games. Hopefully Caitlin puts more eyes on the WNBA for this to actually happen.
Yes, Indy is not a very expensive city. I rent a house with a fenced in yard and garage, less than 10 minutes from downtown, and pay less than $900 a month in rent. Now, I've been lucky that my landlord hasn't raised the rent in the last 5 years I've lived here. But even my friends who rent decent apartments in the heart of downtown only pay $1,200-$1,400.
$75K would be a very comfortable salary for this city. I make a good deal less than that and I'm not struggling too much (though utilities are getting ridiculous and food inflation has hit hard).
I think part of the point is Victor Wembanyama is making an average of 13.8 million/year in his rookie contract, and that's 0.14% of that 10B in league revenue.
Whereas Caitlin is averaging 88k/year, which is just 0.04% of the WNBA's annual revenue.
Essentially, Victor is making 3x the share of league revenue that Caitlin is. And you could argue Caitlin's impact on league revenue is going to be much higher than Victor's.
Overall if the WNBA had the same ratio as the NBA average salary compared to league revenue, the players would be getting paid $216k/year on average. When in reality it's only about half of that.
But there's also the fact that costs don't scale linearly with revenue - there are certain unavoidable costs to running a NBA or WNBA team before you get to salaries and profit. Arena leases, transportation, practice/training facilities, etc. Those things will certainly be CHEAPER with WNBA teams I'd assume, but not necessarily to the same proportion of NBA vs. WNBA revenues.
If Clark can show that she's a massive draw everywhere she goes in the WNBA unlike basically anyone else in the league right now, she will be able to command a massive raise when her contract is up and teams will be fighting to get that draw on their roster.
For the Indiana Fever, 36 out of 40 games will be on national television. Most are on NBA TV, but ESPN/ABC and CBS will have their fair share as well.
DATE
TIME (ET)
OPPONENT
NATIONAL TV NETWORK
May 14
7:30 p.m.
at Connecticut
ESPN 2
May 16
7:00 p.m.
vs New York
Prime Video
May 18
1:00 p.m.
at New York
ABC
May 20
7:00 p.m.
vs Connecticut
ESPN
May 22
10:00 p.m.
at Seattle
May 24
10:00 p.m.
at Los Angeles
ION
May 25
9:00 p.m.
at Las Vegas
NBA TV
May 28
7:00 p.m.
vs Los Angeles
NBA TV
May 30
7:00 p.m.
vs Seattle
Prime Video
June 1
1:00 p.m.
vs Chicago
NBA TV
June 2
7:00 p.m.
at New York
NBA TV
June 7
7:30 p.m.
at Washington
ION
June 10
7:00 p.m.
at Connecticut
NBA TV
June 13
7:00 p.m.
vs Atlanta
June 16
12:00 p.m.
vs Chicago
CBS
June 19
7:00 p.m.
vs Washington
NBA TV
June 21
7:30 p.m.
at Atlanta
ION
June 23
6:00 p.m.
at Chicago
NBA TV
June 27
10:00 p.m.
at Seattle
Prime Video
June 30
3:00 p.m.
at Phoenix
ESPN
July 2
9:30 p.m.
at Las Vegas
ESPN
July 6
1:00 p.m.
vs New York
CBS
July 10
12:00 p.m.
vs Washington
NBA TV
July 12
7:30 p.m.
vs Phoenix
ION
July 14
4:00 p.m.
at Minnesota
ESPN
July 17
7:30 p.m.
at Dallas
ESPN
Aug. 16
7:30 p.m.
vs Phoenix
ION
Aug. 18
3:30 p.m.
vs Seattle
ABC
Aug. 24
8:00 p.m.
at Minnesota
NBA TV
Aug. 26
7:30 p.m.
at Atlanta
NBA TV
Aug. 28
7:00 p.m.
vs Connecticut
NBA TV
Aug. 30
7:30 p.m.
at Chicago
ION
Sept. 1
4:00 p.m.
at Dallas
NBA TV
Sept. 4
7:00 p.m.
vs Los Angeles
CBS Sports Network
Sept. 6
7:30 p.m.
vs Minnesota
ION
Sept. 8
4:00 p.m.
vs Atlanta
Sept. 11
7:00 p.m.
vs Las Vegas
NBA TV
Sept. 13
7:30 p.m.
vs Las Vegas
ION
Sept. 15
3:00 p.m.
vs Dallas
Sept. 95
7:00 p.m.
at Washington
Prime Video
Which leads me to another rant about blackouts. A lot of people are going to buy WNBA League Pass to watch Caitlyn Clark, but a bunch of the games can't be viewed because of the ancient blackout rules.
1. What is WNBA League Pass? WNBA League Pass is the WNBA’s subscription streaming product that provides fans with access to live and on-demand games. Available games may vary by country and within the local footprint of participating teams. Please see FAQ #6 below for additional details. 2...
www.wnba.com
I get that everyone wants their piece of the pie, but that is going to hurt the WNBA's potential growth when 15 of Caitlyn Clark's games are already blacked out across the country on League Pass.
But there's also the fact that costs don't scale linearly with revenue - there are certain unavoidable costs to running a NBA or WNBA team before you get to salaries and profit. Arena leases, transportation, practice/training facilities, etc. Those things will certainly be CHEAPER with WNBA teams I'd assume, but not necessarily to the same proportion of NBA vs. WNBA revenues.
If Clark can show that she's a massive draw everywhere she goes in the WNBA unlike basically anyone else in the league right now, she will be able to command a massive raise when her contract is up and teams will be fighting to get that draw on their roster.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
Basically because of this. Caitlin Clark has, and probably will continue to have, lucrative deals with multiple companies.
As long as she's smart with her money, she won't have to worry about how much she's making from the WNBA. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about most other players.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
I've never understood why people struggle to understand why the WNBA and NBA salaries are different.
Almost every time this comes up, it's usually someone who hasn't bought a single ticket to a WNBA, hasn't watched a WNBA season on TV, bought a single WNBA jersey, or contributed really in any way to the things that would ACTUALLY increase WNBA salaries.
Most people are arguing specific amounts, but the only real argument here is the % of revenue, which is 100% on the table to argue, especially when the new CBA negotiation comes around.
The union wouldn't have to agree to the taxes any more than any of us have to agree to ours.
The figures posted earlier in the thread were $10bn for NBA and $200mm for WNBA. So the new tax could kick in on revenues over $500mm and they get a deduction for funds sent to the WNBA (or just government fund them from the taxes collected).
As everyone already said, the WNBA operates at a loss as it makes nowhere near as much money as the NBA.
Caitlyn has shown to be a promising star. But they need something to really make people tune in. We'll need real rivalries. Like how we had with Iowa vs LSU. We need to keep that momentum going in the WNBA. People tuned in to the rivalries of Magic vs Larry which helped save the NBA.
Also, there have been some NBA players who have suggested that dunking would bring way more excitement into the game but of course it would mean lowering the rim if it meant they could dunk. Michael Jordan for example had amazing dunks which enamored everyone and helped grow the NBA to new heights.
The benefit of people tuning in just for Clark is that they will get exposed to a lot of great players and that lifts everyone.
Like if someone only followed Clark in the last few games of the tournament, you got to see her compete against Reese (again) and Flau'jae, then see the hype around Bueckers, and then number 3 pick Kamilla Cardoso. All that was missing was a matchup against Juju but it was either her or Bueckers anyway. If the NCAA can keep the hype going with the likes of Bueckers and then Juju maybe that continues on even as Clark goes up against the WNBA heavyweights.
The sensible solution is to have the men make less, by taxing them more. A "recreation and entertainment tax" that taxes revenues above some threshold at like 90+%.
There's no need for any of that. Ultimately this is in the hands of the people who're upset. If they want these women to make more money then buy tickets to these games and watch them on TV. And not just the games that Caitlyn is involved in. During the 2023 WNBA season the average attendance was 6,608, while the NBA's season was 18,324. TV viewership average for the WNBA is 505k, while for the NBA its 1.6m. The WNBA Finals averaged 728k viewers, while last years NBA Finals averaged 11.6m. Right now there's a massive disparity not only in the level of interest between the WNBA and NBA, but also how much money fans are putting into each league.
The union wouldn't have to agree to the taxes any more than any of us have to agree to ours.
The figures posted earlier in the thread were $10bn for NBA and $200mm for WNBA. So the new tax could kick in on revenues over $500mm and they get a deduction for funds sent to the WNBA (or just government fund them from the taxes collected).
They still would be? Except in the libertarian view of taxation I guess?
No, the plan would be to tax the NBA players and immediately pour the money into communities, but I'd be OK with a WNBA subsidy to offset any decrease in funding from the NBA that might occur from the tax increase.
No, the plan would be to tax the NBA players and immediately pour the money into communities, but I'd be OK with a WNBA subsidy to offset any decrease in funding from the NBA that might occur from the tax increase.
I literally said tax NBA revenue which would hit the owners? And of course I'd be in support of increased billionaire taxes, what a daft post.
Actually, I think all pro sports teams should be owned and operated by the state, and players would be government employees. The National Parks department could run them. This is much cleaner than a tax system anyway.
No, the plan would be to tax the NBA players and immediately pour the money into communities, but I'd be OK with a WNBA subsidy to offset any decrease in funding from the NBA that might occur from the tax increase.
So what does that even have to do salary inequities between the NBA and WNBA? Your solution to parity is to… lower the salaries of NBA players through targeted taxation?
edit: I see your post about the parks service owning the NBA… ok lol.
I literally said tax NBA revenue which would hit the owners? And of course I'd be in support of increased billionaire taxes, what a dense post.
Actually, I think all pro sports teams should be owned and operated by the state, and players would be government employees. The National Parks department could run them. This is much cleaner than a tax system anyway.
It's hard to tell if this tax detail is real or a parody of online leftists. The solution to the WNBA not paying their athletes enough is… have the Parks department nationalize the NBA.
I've never understood why people struggle to understand why the WNBA and NBA salaries are different.
Almost every time this comes up, it's usually someone who hasn't bought a single ticket to a WNBA, hasn't watched a WNBA season on TV, bought a single WNBA jersey, or contributed really in any way to the things that would ACTUALLY increase WNBA salaries.
Most people are arguing specific amounts, but the only real argument here is the % of revenue, which is 100% on the table to argue, especially when the new CBA negotiation comes around.
The other issue is basically all leagues have rookie limits on contracts to help/protect teams and older players. So it doesn't matter what the revenue or % of revenue is, Clark will be underpaid because of the rookie contract, which is pretty much how all leagues work. Lebron James was worth far more than the 5-7 million he was making as a rookie.
So I think it's both people not understanding the revenue discrepancy and how rookie contracts work.
Am I mistaken, or doesn't the WNBA actually operate at a loss and is essentially subsidized by the NBA? Whether or not the NBA overpays players / owners make too much money is a different story, but the WNBA is paying a rookie more than the median US salary, straight out of college, to play basketball. It's not an unreasonable amount to be paid for what is being done especially considering they're losing money.
I do anticipate the WNBA to be come profitable in the future, and absolutely, players should get their fair cut at that point. I don't think the low pay is an example of sexism but I do think the lack of audience is a result of sexism, whether subtle or more overt.
Also: The WNBA season is half the number of games as the NBA season. There's a disparity, there, too, although I'm sure training persists mostly year-round in either case.
I'm not sure I agree with the lack of audience as sexism unless we are saying the only gender of people who can be sports fans are men. Bill Burr made a good point about the women being upset that people aren't going to WNBA games. He's like "well, have YOU gone to a game?" Have YOU watched it on TV? It's not like men have to be the only ones to float the popularity of sports.
If women are playing the sport because they love the sport, why can't women watch the sport because they love the sport?
No, the plan would be to tax the NBA players and immediately pour the money into communities, but I'd be OK with a WNBA subsidy to offset any decrease in funding from the NBA that might occur from the tax increase.
I think most of the points have already been covered here. You want to see them paid more? Support the product. I'm going to guess the majority of folks taking offense to this have not gone to or even viewed a full game.
The amount of exposure to Caitlin has been tremendous. For what most consider a joke, I've seen full viewing gatherings and the games on at random bars with random drunks cheering her on. This is the time to start spotlighting new talent and marketing their transition to the professional game.
I'm not sure I agree with the lack of audience as sexism unless we are saying the only gender of people who can be sports fans are men. Bill Burr made a good point about the women being upset that people aren't going to WNBA games. He's like "well, have YOU gone to a game?" Have YOU watched it on TV? It's not like men have to be the only ones to float the popularity of sports.
If women are playing the sport because they love the sport, why can't women watch the sport because they love the sport?
