PDA

View Full Version : If There is a Lock-Out, How is there a WNBA?



PacerGuy
06-14-2011, 09:09 PM
The WNBA survives ONLY because of the deep pockets of the NBA. If there is a lock-out, why would the NBA be allowed to continue to supoport the WNBA? Part of the money/ revenue the league is losing must be tied to what it is giving this faultering league.

Is it purely a matter of being a PR nightmare for the "men" (NBA) to demand/ force the "women" WNBA to shut down?

While I personally have nothing against the WNBA, I would much rather see & support the league spending the money towards expanding the NBADL into a true NBA minor league system (ie. baseball). This would help young drafted players who still need to develope to make the parent club, players who were not drafted at all, or even some vets who can still play but are no longer "league quality" a chance to play, teach & stay connected to the game. If I were the NBAPA, I would push for this!

Anyway, back to my question... Anyone? :whoknows:

beast23
06-14-2011, 09:50 PM
Kind of stretching it a bit, don't you think? The NBAPA has absolutely no say, nor any interest, in any extraneous business interests of the owners. Whether the owner happens to also own a software company, an insurance company, or even a WNBA team is of no concern whatsoever to NBA players.

Sookie
06-14-2011, 10:11 PM
Not really, a majority of the WNBA teams are owned by separate owners. Although Simon, I believe, still owns the Pacers and the Fever. (For instance, Connecticut has a WNBA team, and no NBA team)

The WNBA owners lose money for the most part (peanuts compared to what most NBA teams lose), but the NBA actually makes a bit of money off of it, (Stern didn't cite how much, but if I had to guess, probably a couple hundred thousand)it's just simply how the finances work. (For example, An entire WNBA payroll is around 800,000 dollars..essentially, Tinsley's contract probably cost Herb Simon double of what the Fever costs him.) Essentially, if you don't spend the money, you don't lose the money. And the WNBA doesn't spend that much money.

The women have an entirely different system. I believe they're CBA came up a year or two ago. And the women obviously can't force a lockout, the league fold.

CableKC
06-15-2011, 02:04 AM
The title should be renamed to "Lock-Out or no Lock-Out, how is there a WNBA"?

:rimshot:

Professor S
06-15-2011, 09:35 AM
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Reginald
06-15-2011, 09:44 AM
It's called NCAA Division-I.

And yes, I think the requirement that players stay in college a year is arbitrary and dumb. What about the 17 and 18-year-old baseball players who've been going straight from high school to the minor leagues for the last freaking century? What about those mathematics and computer wunderkinds who go straight from being home-schooled teenagers to six-figure think tanks? Where's the outcry about these kids?

PacerGuy
06-15-2011, 10:13 AM
It's called NCAA Division-I.

And yes, I think the requirement that players stay in college a year is arbitrary and dumb. What about the 17 and 18-year-old baseball players who've been going straight from high school to the minor leagues for the last freaking century? What about those mathematics and computer wunderkinds who go straight from being home-schooled teenagers to six-figure think tanks? Where's the outcry about these kids?

IMO there should be no 1 yr. rule out of H.S., but I DO believe that if you scoose college, you should stay 2 yrs. Regardless of that, your point about baseball is also my point in that there is a structured system in place, and a place where each team could develop talent (player & coaches) to help improve the overall quality of the league.

As for the WNBA, if you are saying there is NO Leageu money or League revenue going to support them, then OK, but I do not believe that. No way the owners are funding this 100% out of pocket. Consessions/ compensation must be given somewhere, & IF that is from the parent NBA, then this is a valid question, if not then it is not.

naptownmenace
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
Finance

So far the WNBA has not mirrored the monetary success of the NBA, though it targets profitability. While some teams do make a profit (and others break even), most of the teams in the WNBA lose money each season. Losses are subsidized by the NBA; in 2003, news surfaced that the NBA spent up to $12 million a year to help pay for the WNBA losses. In 2007, teams were estimated to be losing $1.5 million to $2 million a year.[12]

However, in a March 12, 2009 article, NBA commissioner David Stern said that in the bad economy, "the NBA is far less profitable than the WNBA. We're losing a lot of money amongst a large number of teams. We're budgeting the WNBA to break even this year."

Salary caps

In 2008, a new six-year collective bargaining agreement was agreed upon between the players and the league. The salary cap for an entire team in 2010 is $827,000 (although it was later lowered to $775,000). By 2013 (the sixth year under this agreement), the cap for an entire team will be $900,000. In 2010, the minimum salary for a player with three-plus years of experience is $51,000 while the maximum salary for a six-plus year player is $101,500 (the first time in league history that players are able to receive over $100,000). The minimum salary for rookies is $35,190.[14][15] Many WNBA players supplement their salaries by playing in European or Australian women's basketball leagues during the WNBA off-season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_National_Basketball_Association#Finance