$76,535.00 is a lot of money, but…

P

Packard

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
4,750
According to all the news media I found, Caitlin Clark’s first year salary will be $76,535.00.  (She will doubtless make far more money in endorsements.) Not a bad first year’s salary, it might be said.  But the one person who is widely acknowledged as the best of the best at this point in her career, this seems like a pittance to me.

With projections pointing to her being the No. 1 pick by the Indiana Fever, Clark's rookie salary is expected to be $76,535 for the upcoming season, as per the WNBA's collective bargaining agreement. The official announcement of Clark's selection is anticipated during the 2024 WNBA draft scheduled for April 15.

Compare that with the top NBA draft pick last year (over $10,000,000.00). 

I am of the opinion that everyone should be paid exactly what their value is to the company that they work at.

By that standard, $76,535.00 seems very low. 
 
That's the WNBA min (rookie) salary.  In any case, the collective bargaining agreement has hovered around a 80-20 split to league vs members.  Part of that horrible split is that WNBA has yet to actually even achieve profitability and is floated by the NBA.

Comparing it to people who actually bring in cash is kinda meh.  "I take up space" is not a valid reason.
 
The short version of this, as woodferret alluded to, is that Caitlin ALREADY makes more than that in endorsements thanks to NIL.  She'll be fine.  If she helps sell out stadiums in WNBA the way she did in college, the WNBA may have room to update their CBA in the future.

Speaking of NIL, love it or hate it (or somewhere in between), without NIL, stars like Clark, JuJu Watkins, Angel Reese, Paige Bueckers, and many other female basketball players would have almost no chance of ever catching their male counterparts in pay; where the NBA will allow 19 year-olds to be drafted (One-and-done, or straight out of high school), WNBA has a 22 year-old age floor, so even the best of the best can't get there until they've gone all the way through college.
 
It has been estimated that Clark's NIL deals are worth around $3.1 million. Probability is that some of her current endorsement deals may follow her as a pro.

The Indiana Fever salary cap is around $1.2 million, Their average attendance last year was slightly above 4000 fans. I don't think any of the WNBA teams are actually making big profits if any at all.

The league is hoping to cash in Clark's popularity with the public and boost attendance. The league folks are looking to double the broadcast fees in the next contract which are somewhere around $60 million currently.

Ron
 
I think she should take the offer made by Barstool - 10 mil to play in their rec league and do Barstool shit - she seems down to earth and that will be a better play for her long term IMO - although not really competitive basketball
 
According to this article, league revenues are up, but none of that money is making it to the players.
https://justwomenssports.com/reads/wnba-basketball-revenue-player-salaries-cathy-engelbert/

Also noted is that TV viewership of the of women’s basketball was greater than men’s.

Ad revenue from women’s basketball has tripled in two years.  The league will have to get a bigger slice of the pie and share it with the players.
https://www.thecurrent.com/march-madness-womens-sports-advertisers-basketball
 
As far as I see it, allllll of these sports "stars" are so overpaid that it's borderline stupid. I get that they are "just getting their share of the revenue" but doesn't that say something itself? Why oh, why does anyone care enough to spend the kind of money it takes to go to the games, wear the paraphernalia, cable channels, etc. The amount of money that sports generate is just crazy.
 
Some of the top European soccer stars (guys like Harry Kane, a Brit who recently transferred to Bayern Munich in Germany) make absolute fortunes - literally obscenity levels.

Harry's pay check? £400,000 (just north of $$ half a million). PER WEEK.
 
If you are the very best in any field of endeavor, the pay should be higher.

I live in an ex-urban community 90 miles north of NYC, and generally beyond commuting distance from the city.

The average household income (I just looked it up) in my area is $77,099.  So she could live in an average home with an average car and be amongst the most skillful practitioners in her field.

What other field pays that for the best of the best?
 
$76k is a REALLY good wage for a new college graduate, but that's all based on your chosen career and local cost of living.

A rookie in a professional sport is not "the best of the best", even if they left college as "the best of the best".  That is the one point from Diana Taurasi's comments about Caitlin Clark that I'll concede: she's still a rookie in a pro league (I disagree with the '18 year olds' part of Ms. Taurasi's comments; that was pure shade).

See also: the significant skills gap between the NFL and NCAA football, or even Single-A, Double-A, Triple-A Minor and Major League Baseball.

Caitlin Clark is tough, composed, and seems to have good representation.  She'll do just fine.
 
Packard said:
If you are the very best in any field of endeavor, the pay should be higher.

I live in an ex-urban community 90 miles north of NYC, and generally beyond commuting distance from the city.

The average household income (I just looked it up) in my area is $77,099.  So she could live in an average home with an average car and be amongst the most skillful practitioners in her field.

What other field pays that for the best of the best?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are lots of "best of the best" out there in sports that are not commercially popular, where there is no money in it. It has long been known that women's basketball has been a loser (financially), so they are actually over-paid as a percentage of profits.
The amount of the "official paycheck" is not even close to the amount they actually receive, like a server in a high-end restaurant. Officially, they make $2-3/hour and the rest comes from tips.
 
Once upon a time, athletes had to get regular jobs after their playing years were over. Now, a few good years and they are set for life.
 
jimbo51 said:
Once upon a time, athletes had to get regular jobs after their playing years were over. Now, a few good years and they are set for life.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, hockey cards would list what the player's summer job was.
 
What I said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...y-male-counterparts-draws-outrage-rcna148024#


Clark's contract will the Indiana Fever will see her pocket $338,056 over the course of four years. In contrast, last year's No. 1 NBA draft secured a $55 million four-year contract.

I just googled this:

The total advertising revenue for the NBA last year was 1.66 billion dollars.

The total advertising revenue for the WNBA last year was 860.1 million dollar, or roughly half what the NBA earned.

The math does not work.  Half the revenue would yield a salary of about 27 million over four years, not 338 thousand.  I don’t get it.
 
Packard said:
What I said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...y-male-counterparts-draws-outrage-rcna148024#


Clark's contract will the Indiana Fever will see her pocket $338,056 over the course of four years. In contrast, last year's No. 1 NBA draft secured a $55 million four-year contract.

I just googled this:

The total advertising revenue for the NBA last year was 1.66 billion dollars.

The total advertising revenue for the WNBA last year was 860.1 million dollar, or roughly half what the NBA earned.

The math does not work.  Half the revenue would yield a salary of about 27 million over four years, not 338 thousand.  I don’t get it.
Click to expand...

Advertising revenue isn't the only revenue for the NBA and WNBA.  There are also ticket sales, merchandise sales, television licensing rights, and other revenue streams.

NBA total revenue in 2022 was around 10.58 Billion.  WNBA total revenue was between 180 and 200 Million.  That's a 50x multiple, not just a 2x.
 
I found the real reasons that WNBA players are paid less than NBA players:
https://www.wsn.com/nba/nba-vs-wnba/

1.  The WNBA ball is 1” smaller and 2 ounces lighter, so the women don’t have to heft as heavy a ball as the men.

2.  Both play four quarters, but the men play 12 minute quarters and the women play 10 minutes.

However, the women have to be 22 years old to play and the men have to be 19 years old.  So the women have shorter careers.

On balance the men work harder with the heavier ball, and work longer with the longer periods.  That explains the 55 million dollars to the 385,000 dollars over four years.

 
Stop white knighting.

Your own link has revenue ratio of 166.  Avg salary on WNBA is 103k.  Ratio'ing, you'd expect 17M avg salary in the NBA.  It's currently 9M.

NBA salary curve is very skewed, with most earning below revenue - and only the highest celebrities pulling that league-member ratio to 50:50.  WNBA salary curve is flatter since celebrity cache is almost non-existent (hopefully that'll change).

Everyone's given you reasons like this... but you focus on ball size.  Even if it's sarcastic, it just comes across as assy.
 
Don’t know the length of the men’s season but just heard that the WNBA season is just 4 months long. No idea how much time long pre-season training takes.
 
Our womens football league, which are fully funded via our mens football league, are a stark difference to watch, and in fact from virtually every aspect possible. Yes there are some truly amazing and skilled women players that are sensational to watch, but aside from the reduced quarters, barely existent crowds, the skill, pace and entertainment level are nowhere near the level of the men's.

I have no issue with funding "anything womens", but to claim they should be paid exactly the same as the mens league on a significantly higher skill level, and actually bring in significant revenue, is just ludicrous. And it's come up often in interviews that the women supporting the women players right to equal pay without equal outcome, don't even attend or support the women's football in any way!

I could be wrong here but I'm pretty sure the last time they had a crowd over 15,000 at a womens match, they actually had given around 20,000 free tickets out. By comparison the more popular mens teams regularly attract 50,000-100,000 paying attendees depending on the venue. The womens fixture is 10 rounds for the 18 clubs, while the mens fixture this year is 25 rounds for the 18 clubs, giving a stupendously huge difference in revenue, especially when they struggle to get people to pay to watch at times for the womens matches. But even if they reduced the mens fixture to the same as the womens, the earnings would still be many, many, orders of magnitude higher.

Another thing to consider is that because of the pace of the mens game, it is far more demanding and rugged, and as a result the injuries are extremely common, and sometimes career ending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
A good idea with improvements, but mistakes were made along the way.
Replies
6
Views
281K
Packard
P
Back
Top