Why hasn't the possibility of shutting the WNBA down been addressed?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Since the day of its inception, the WNBA has never been profitable. The only reason it's lasted this long is because Stern created it and would rather keep it on life support with revenue earned by the NBA and its players than put his ego aside and admit it was a failure. The WNBA has never demonstrated the ability to turn a profit regardless of economic conditions in America. People love to use the term "It's a business" when describing pro sports, but the WNBA is anything but a business. The sole purpose of a business is making money, one thing the WNBA doesn't do. It's better described as a non-profit charity organization funded by the NBA for female basketball players.

Now, when the economy is good, and everyone (owners, players, coaches, etc.) in the NBA is fat and happy, it's excusable for Stern to use the NBA to keep the WNBA around. It's still fuckin stupid for a "business" to invest in something my dog can see isn't profitable, but it's not something worth complaining about.

In this economy tho, it's ridiculous that not only is the WNBA still around, there hasn't been any murmur of shutting it down/contracting it. There's been talk from Stern of killing as many as 10 NBA teams that are losing money right now but have made money in the past, but Stern hasn't even mentioned the idea of killing a league that can't make money in a good or bad economy. There's a likely chance we'll see a hard salary cap where NBA players take a big pay cut and have contracts that are only partially guaranteed when NBA players are selling tickets and earning big TV contracts for the NBA, yet I haven't heard anything about reducing the WNBA players' salary/making their contract non-guaranteed, when the only reason they get paid is revenue earned by NBA athletes.

Does this seem as stupid to anyone else as it does to me?

[Leetonidas]

I agree

[Leetonidas]

Pretty much describes it

FsSmEA2FrZs

[ChumpDumper]

Had to look it up to confirm, but the WNBA has already contracted in number of teams and roster spots for each team. Does anyone know what the most recent subsidy the NBA paid to cover WNBA losses? That would be a fair assessment of how things are going. Anyway, I think the league and team owners (including the Spurs) are probably content to go along at similar levels until the ESPN contract runs out in 2016.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Had to look it up to confirm, but the WNBA has already contracted in number of teams and roster spots for each team. Does anyone know what the most recent subsidy the NBA paid to cover WNBA losses? That would be a fair assessment of how things are going. Anyway, I think the league and team owners (including the Spurs) are probably content to go along at similar levels until the ESPN contract runs out in 2016.
IMO, the NBA isn't in any kind of shape right now to be paying subsidies to cover WNBA losses regardless of how big it is. That's not fair to the NBA teams that have to cover their own losses. It's not like the NBA would be helping the WNBA out until the economy turned around like it would be with certain NBA teams, it'd be helping the WNBA out just so it could help the WNBA out again with less money in a good economy.

As far as league owners being content, I think it also has a lot to do with owners knowing how stubborn Stern is keeping the NBA alive, and suggesting it be cut down would put said owner on Stern's shit list.

[ChumpDumper]

IMO, the NBA isn't in any kind of shape right now to be paying subsidies to cover WNBA losses regardless of how big it is. That's not fair to the NBA teams that have to cover their own losses.Do they have to cover all their own losses?


It's not like the NBA would be helping the WNBA out until the economy turned around like it would be with certain NBA teams, it'd be helping the WNBA out just so it could help the WNBA out again with less money in a good economy.I agree there are other steps that can be taken.


As far as league owners being content, I think it also has a lot to do with owners knowing how stubborn Stern is keeping the NBA alive, and suggesting it be cut down would put said owner on Stern's shit list.You do know that several WNBA teams are owned by NBA owners, don't you?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do they have to cover all their own losses?
Not 100% sure, but I can't imagine owners would be complaining about losses they don't have to cover.


I agree there are other steps that can be taken.
Good, but I wasn't trying to argue with you :lol


You do know that several WNBA teams are owned by NBA owners, don't you?
Yes, I wasn't sure what you were actually saying in the last part. My point was that no one involved in CBA negotiations is stupid enough to suggest scrapping the WNBA, knowing that Stern refuses to accept the WNBA as a failure, and knowing how Stern reacts to those who question him/his creations.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't understand why people think owners live in fear of Stern. He's their employee and works at their collective pleasure.

And no, teams don't cover all their own losses. Hell, until the league took over the Hornets, they received a direct multimillion dollar subsidy from the state of Louisiana every year. They might still be getting that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't understand why people think owners live in fear of Stern. He's their employee.
He can issue them whatever fines he wants to and there are plenty of people (me not being one of them) who think Stern has refs throw games against owners he doesn't like. If there's an owner who does believe that, he's gonna naturally fear Stern in some ways.

[ChumpDumper]

He can issue them whatever fines he wants toWith the blessing of the owners as a whole.
and there are plenty of people (me not being one of them) who think Stern has refs throw games against owners he doesn't like.If you don't believe it, why bring it up? :lol
If there's an owner who does believe that, he's gonna naturally fear Stern in some ways.If there is an owner who believes that, he's kind of an idiot for owning an NBA team.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And no, teams don't cover all their own losses. Hell, until the league took over the Hornets, they received a direct multimillion dollar subsidy from the state of Louisiana every year. They might still be getting that.
The funding they got from parties outside of the NBA is irrelevant. If the WNBA was getting government subsidies to cover its losses, I wouldn't have made this thread. Do you know of a situation where the NBA itself is covering the losses of a team?

I'm pretty sure if owners in the NBA didn't have to cover losses, there'd be plenty of teams spending like Cuban and Buss do.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you don't believe it, why bring it up? :lol
Because my personal belief is irrelevant. It's about certain owners who fear Stern, and it's naive to think theories that got a well respected coach (George Karl) to admit his fear of Stern/NBA officials on national TV haven't hit home with a few NBA owners. I personally believe you shouldn't be watching the NBA if you think it's rigged, but it's impossible to deny that there are an alarmingly high amount of people who think the NBA is rigged compared to other sports like the NFL or MLB.


If there is an owner who believes that, he's kind of an idiot for owning an NBA team.
Won't deny that, owners are also dumb for giving out contracts they can't afford.

[Koolaid_Man]

This thread needs some muthafucking Koolaid in it..


what's up Ephailtes *aka* Leetonidas

[ChumpDumper]

The funding they got from parties outside of the NBA is irrelevant. If the WNBA was getting government subsidies to cover its losses, I wouldn't have made this thread. Do you know of a situation where the NBA itself is covering the losses of a team?There are a few revenue sharing agreements already in place.


I'm pretty sure if owners in the NBA didn't have to cover losses, there'd be plenty of teams spending like Cuban and Buss do.Then why don't WNBA teams spend in the same way?

Not all their losses are covered either.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Back on topic, I guess it's not about fear as much as it is owners not bothering to mention something Stern won't even entertain. It seems obvious that Stern would have to get incredibly desperate before deciding to give up on the WNBA.

[ChumpDumper]

Back on topic, I guess it's not about fear as much as it is owners not bothering to mention something Stern won't even entertain. It seems obvious that Stern would have to get incredibly desperate before deciding to give up on the WNBA.If a great majority of the NBA owners wanted to scrap the WNBA, how could Stern stop it?

You guys ascribe way too much power to this guy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

There are a few revenue sharing agreements already in place.
Revenue sharing and subsidies to cover for losses are two completely different things. If after revenue sharing and everything else a team is still in the reds, I don't think the NBA covers losses. Cuban for example, operates at a loss every year because he can afford it. I don't think the NBA covers any of his losses.


Then why don't WNBA teams spend in the same way?

Not all their losses are covered either.
This thread wasn't about WNBA teams. I was talking the WNBA league itself. It can't operate on its own. If it could and the issue was a few WNBA teams losing money, I wouldn't suggest killing the WNBA entirely. And obviously the WNBA spends more than it can afford given it needs NBA aide to stay alive.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If a great majority of the NBA owners wanted to scrap the WNBA, how could Stern stop it?
So you're saying NBA owners, including the ones who don't own a WNBA team, have the power to scrap the WNBA at any time? News to me.

[ChumpDumper]

So then what incentive do the owners have to keep it around?There could be plenty of reasons. I'm sure they lose money on NBA Cares too. Why is no one talking about scrapping that?

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying NBA owners, including the ones who don't own a WNBA team, have the power to scrap the WNBA at any time? News to me.They would certainly have the power to end the subsidies. Why would they not?

[jag]

There isn't a commentator or reporter who really wants address why the WNBA still exists. It's almost a taboo subject. If any ESPN sportscaster came out and said the WNBA was a drain on the NBA, he'd most likely be fired.

Very few people actually care about women's sports in general. And the WNBA is kept alive, not because people actually want to watch it, but because we're all sitting around pretending that women can do anything men can do.

I dont even want to imagine the PR hit Stern would take if the WNBA were dissolved. Every sports personality sitting in front of a camera on ESPN/TNT/Fox would pretend it was some kind of travesty.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

They would certainly have the power to end the subsidies. Why would they not?
Because they don't have complete control over the NBA's cash flow and operations. If they did, there wouldn't be things like 6 figure fines for bad mouthing officials. I'm pretty sure the league gets a certain percentage of total revenue every years owners have no control over.

[ChumpDumper]

There isn't a commentator or reporter who really wants address why the WNBA still exists. It's almost a taboo subject. If any ESPN sportscaster came out and said the WNBA was a drain on the NBA, he'd most likely be fired.It would be kind of dumb for an ESPN sportscaster to talk shit about his own network's programming.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

There isn't a commentator or reporter who really wants address why the WNBA still exists. It's almost a taboo subject. If any ESPN sportscaster came out and said the WNBA was a drain on the NBA, he'd most likely be fired.

Very few people actually care about women's sports in general. And the WNBA is kept alive, not because people actually want to watch it, but because we're all sitting around pretending that women can do anything men can do.

I dont even want to imagine the PR hit Stern would take if the WNBA were dissolved. Every sports personality sitting in front of a camera on ESPN/TNT/Fox would pretend it was some kind of travesty.
Jim Rome has actually gone on several rants basically saying, "I've accepted the fact the WNBA is something Stern is gonna do whatever it takes to keep around and will keep on life support as long as he can, I just don't wanna hear about it as much as I have to."

[ChumpDumper]

Because they don't have complete control over the NBA's cash flow and operations.Really?

Who does?

Their employee, David Stern?


If they did, there wouldn't be things like 6 figure fines for bad mouthing officials.That's a power they gave their employee, David Stern.
I'm pretty sure the league gets a certain percentage of total revenue every years owners have no control over.And who set the league up to do that?

You're acting like the NBA is an entity unto itself and Stern is allowing the owners to participate in it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you're saying the owners put rules in place allowing someone to fine them? That seems logical :lmao:lmao:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying the owners put rules in place allowing someone to fine them? That seems logical :lmao:lmao:lmaoThat's exactly what I am saying. It's like a homeonwers' association. It's your house, but you agreed to the terms of the HOA when you bought it, and the HOA president can fine you if you don't adhere to those terms.

Understand?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Really?

Who does?
They have control over a portion. The way revenue is shared isn't something that can be negotiated at any time.


That's a power they gave their employee, David Stern.And who set the league up to do that?
And it's not a power they can take away with the snap of a finger. You're original point was they could cut off WNBA subsidies at any time. Now you're saying they gave Stern the power to disperse revenue as he pleases. Which one is it?

[ogait]

First of all, we kind of have to know how much money are we talking about. What difference would it make if they ended the WNBA in the global economy of the NBA.

Even more important than that is the public reaction if they decided to end the WNBA in what is being perceived by the general public as fight between billionaires and millionaires to get more money. It could have a negative impact in the global opinion of the NBA even for fans who don't care or watch the WNBA.

My guess is the money they are loosing with it, probably isn't even worth the bother to entertain this possibility.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That's exactly what I am saying. It's like a homeonwers' association. It's your house, but you agreed to the terms of the HOA when you bought it, and the HOA president can fine you if you don't adhere to those terms.

Understand?
So do the homeowners have any control of how their monthly dues to the homeowners association are spent?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My guess is the money they are loosing with it, probably isn't even worth the bother to entertain this possibility.
That's a great way to run a business.

"Hey, we're definitely losing money in this department, but it's not enough where we should try to stop losing money in this department"

[jag]

It would be kind of dumb for an ESPN sportscaster to talk shit about his own network's programming.

Of course it would. Don't patronize me.

It made no sense from a financial standpoint for ESPN to be involved with WNBA programming. I'm sure the it's probably the same reason they felt the need to develop WESPN.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Even more important than that is the public reaction if they decided to end the WNBA in what is being perceived by the general public as fight between billionaires and millionaires to get more money. It could have a negative impact in the global opinion of the NBA even for fans who don't care or watch the WNBA.
So basically, what you're saying is that the WNBA is a charity organization the NBA keeps alive solely for PR. Thanks for agreeing with my original post about how much of a joke the WNBA is.

[ChumpDumper]

They have control over a portion. The way revenue is shared isn't something that can be negotiated at any time.Then who controls the rest?

Their employees?



And it's not a power they can take away with the snap of a finger. You're original point was they could cut off WNBA subsidies at any time. Now you're saying they gave Stern the power to disperse revenue as he pleases. Which one is it?It's both actually.

I never said they gave direct control of the WNBA to Stern in the first place. That is a power you ascribed to him. I would bet the actual money is delegated by a committee of the board of governors, which is made up mostly of -- surprise! -- owners.

Even if they did give him that direct power, they can certainly take it away.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course it would. Don't patronize me.

It made no sense from a financial standpoint for ESPN to be involved with WNBA programming. I'm sure the it's probably the same reason they felt the need to develop WESPN.You are free to bring that up at the next Disney stockholders meeting.

[Joey Gallo]

You are free to bring that up at the next Disney stockholders meeting.

Chumpdumper, dumpin' chumps

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Then who controls the rest?

Their employees?
Yeah....
Just like how people "employed" by a home owners association have control over how the monthly dues are spent.



It's both actually.

I never said they gave direct control of the WNBA to Stern in the first place. That is a power you ascribed to him. I would bet the actual money is delegated by a committee of the board of governors, which is made up mostly of -- surprise! -- owners.
You would bet or you would know?


Even if they did give him that direct power, they can certainly take it away.
Not at any time. They'd have to do it during CBA negotiations, and adding a clause prohibiting the league from spending money on the WNBA is something plenty of owners might casually support, but it's not something any owner would want to be the leader of. The only person who could kill the WNBA without taking a giant hit publicly would be Stern since he created the WNBA and obviously tried his hardest to keep it alive.

[ChumpDumper]

So do the homeowners have any control of how their monthly dues to the homeowners association are spent?Absolutely.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

ChumpDumper, whatever happened to you telling me NBA teams don't have to cover their own losses?

[JamStone]

Agree with the thread for the most part. Except for places like Connecticut (because of the UConn women team) and maybe a couple other teams, there isn't a big enough fan base to care. Case in point, two of the most successful WNBA teams (Houston Comets and Detroit Shock) no longer exist. They were either contracted or moved. It says a lot that championship tradition can't keep teams in cities.

I agree Stern doesn't want to admit the mistake of the WNBA. Seems like he wants to make it part of his legacy as NBA commissioner that he did something for women's rights, and have it more about his social legacy rather than his business legacy.

But here's where I guess I can justify it to the very smallest degree. The WNBA doesn't really make any money. But if you look at the big picture, as the WNBA relates to the multi-billion dollar, international institution that the NBA has become, the cost the WNBA puts on the NBA is minimal at best. The NBA has had to cover up to $12 million to finance the WNBA for a season. That's the most its had to spend. $12 million is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about the NBA dealing with an annual revenue somewhere between $3-4 billion. Now it's true that some NBA teams are losing money, but that's where player salaries come into play. NBA players are making too much money. NBA franchises are financially viable and profitable for the most part. The player salaries have gotten out of control. When you think about it $12 million is nothing to cover as a loss or expense.

Probably be better off just to get rid of it completely. But the WNBA isn't even in the neighborhood of being a primary financial problem for the NBA.

[Koolaid_Man]

Since the day of its inception, the WNBA has never been profitable. The only reason it's lasted this long is because Stern created it and would rather keep it on life support with revenue earned by the NBA and its players than put his ego aside and admit it was a failure. The WNBA has never demonstrated the ability to turn a profit regardless of economic conditions in America. People love to use the term "It's a business" when describing pro sports, but the WNBA is anything but a business. The sole purpose of a business is making money, one thing the WNBA doesn't do. It's better described as a non-profit charity organization funded by the NBA for female basketball players.

Now, when the economy is good, and everyone (owners, players, coaches, etc.) in the NBA is fat and happy, it's excusable for Stern to use the NBA to keep the WNBA around. It's still fuckin stupid for a "business" to invest in something my dog can see isn't profitable, but it's not something worth complaining about.

In this economy tho, it's ridiculous that not only is the WNBA still around, there hasn't been any murmur of shutting it down/contracting it. There's been talk from Stern of killing as many as 10 NBA teams that are losing money right now but have made money in the past, but Stern hasn't even mentioned the idea of killing a league that can't make money in a good or bad economy. There's a likely chance we'll see a hard salary cap where NBA players take a big pay cut and have contracts that are only partially guaranteed when NBA players are selling tickets and earning big TV contracts for the NBA, yet I haven't heard anything about reducing the WNBA players' salary/making their contract non-guaranteed, when the only reason they get paid is revenue earned by NBA athletes.

Does this seem as stupid to anyone else as it does to me?

about as Stupid as defending gay marriage...so on the one hand you're a proponent of gay marriage but you don't want to let Bull Dikes play ball...:lol

How will they support each other in marriage if they aren't allowed to work Dok...:lol

[jag]

You are free to bring that up at the next Disney stockholders meeting.

I'd rather voice my basketball opinions on a basketball forum.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah....
Just like how people "employed" by a home owners association have control over how the monthly dues are spent.Right, they are given that control by the homeowners.


You would bet or you would know?I said I would bet. That's how they do most of the things they do.


Not at any time. They'd have to do it during CBA negotiationsDo you actually know that?

I don't remember the WNBA's funding being mentioned in the CBA whenever I read parts of it. Feel free to point it out to me. I'll believe you when you link the section that refers to it.

I just think it would take a meeting of the board of governors -- like an HOA meeting where they take a vote to pay a landscaping company.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd rather voice my basketball opinions on a basketball forum.Great.

[jag]

Great.

I know, right?

[ogait]

So basically, what you're saying is that the WNBA is a charity organization the NBA keeps alive solely for PR. Thanks for agreeing with my original post about how much of a joke the WNBA is.

Interpret it as you want. I'm not a WNBA fan myself but don't pretend they could just shut down the WNBA because of the economy and not have consequences.



That's a great way to run a business.

"Hey, we're definitely losing money in this department, but it's not enough where we should try to stop losing money in this department."

You know very well that's not how it works. I'm not advocating that it wouldn't make sense financially to end the WNBA. Having started a women's league might have been a mistake, but ending it is a totally different story.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't remember the WNBA's funding being mentioned in the CBA whenever I read parts of it. Feel free to point it out to me. I'll believe you when you link the section that refers to it.

I just think it would take a meeting of the board of governors -- like an HOA meeting where they take a vote to pay a landscaping company.
Feel free to point out this "board of governors" made up of owners that can call a meeting at any time to end the WNBA without Stern's approval.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You know very well that's not how it works.
I don't really. Everything a business does is supposed to have a positive impact on profitability. If one of the business's operations isn't profitable, they end it. It's that simple.

[JamStone]

I don't really. Everything a business does is supposed to have a positive impact on profitability. If one of the business's operations isn't profitable, they end it. It's that simple.

Successful businesses also put in time and revenue to promote philanthropy and charity as a social responsibility to "give back" to the community.

Look at the WNBA as just that. It offers a venue and medium to inspire young girls who aspire to be professional athletes. It offers young female basketball players a career opportunity in the country.

I actually agree with you that they should just end the WNBA. But as I posted above, the cost to the NBA is next to nothing when you look at the big picture. And in response to your business angle, it's not just about profit. Plenty of successful, million and billion dollar business do things that don't directly and positively impact profitability.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Successful businesses also put in time and revenue to promote philanthropy and charity as a social responsibility to "give back" to the community.

Look at the WNBA as just that. It offers a venue and medium to inspire young girls who aspire to be professional athletes. It offers young female basketball players a career opportunity in the country.

I actually agree with you that they should just end the WNBA. But as I posted above, the cost to the NBA is next to nothing when you look at the big picture. And in response to your business angle, it's not just about profit. Plenty of successful, million and billion dollar business do things that don't directly and positively impact profitability.
The WNBA isn't advertised or marketed as a charity, I'm sure as hell not gonna treat it like one. The NBA has "NBA cares" for philanthropy and charity, don't even try to pretend Stern created the WNBA for image. He created the WNBA because his big ass ego was convinced he could create a successful female basketball league.

I've never seen a charity organization that gives people in need 5-6 figure salaries. I've never seen a charity organization that has a draft every year for people to enter hoping they get to work for that charity organization. You have an odd definition of charity when you consider giving a few lucky women with a skill that no one cares about a 5-6 figure income to showcase said skill "giving back to the community". The WNBA doesn't do jack shit for 99.99% of the community.

Quit acting like the WNBA has any kind of impact real charity organizations do.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I actually agree with you that they should just end the WNBA.
Classic Jamstone :lol

"I agree A is a better option than B, but I'm gonna write 3 paragraphs about the great fuckin charity work :cry option B does"

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao

now i'm not saying kobe bryant is better than michael jordan, but kobe did blah blah blah and won blah blah blah and his advanced stats say blah blah blah :lmao
"I'm about to list off all the reasons why Kobe is the most underrated player in the universe, and why Jordan is the most overrated player in the universe, but I swear, I still think Jordan > Kobe by a mile!"

[DMC]

Some see the glass half empty, some see it half full. JamStone isn't saying it's either, whatever you think is right he agrees with, however there are 300ml of water in a 600ml glass.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Some see the glass half empty, some see it half full. JamStone isn't saying it's either, whatever you think is right, however there is 300ml of water in a 600ml glass.
No, Jamstone said he agrees the WNBA should be shutdown completely, even tho it made no sense to include that opinion in an explanation of all the great fuckin charity work (:cry) the WNBA does.

The WNBA helps bull dykes earn a living :cry

[ogait]

I don't really. Everything a business does is supposed to have a positive impact on profitability. If one of the business's operations isn't profitable, they end it. It's that simple.

As simple as this. The NBA does a lot to improve his image "The NBA Cares", "We are greater than AIDS", and all that. Now picture them ending the WNBA in the midst of negotiations between owners and players on who should get more money. I'm sure that would do wonders for their image.

You would still watch the NBA, I would still watch the NBA. Can you say that it wouldn't have a negative impact on the general public?

Maybe in a different time, maybe under the excuse of finding a way for professional female basketball to be profitable, the NBA can eventually end the WNBA. Not now, and specially if it doesn't make any considerable difference in the NBA economy as it seems to be the case.

[DMC]

What about the MNBA, the Mexican NBA? Don't they deserve a league?

[Roxsfan]

Agree. However, where would tall, fast, athletic lesbians burn off steam? :lmao:nope:depressed:sleep

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao:lmao all you stupid fucks comparing a program that builds houses and does volunteer work all over the country or a program that helps contain AIDS to a league that does nothing other than give a few hundred bull dykes a 5-6 figure salary.

The WNBA is not a charity organization, stop trying to justify its existence by saying it's a charity organization.

[DMC]

I would rather watch HS ball than the WNBA. So when is the WNFL going to be funded by the NFL or am I behind the curve here?

[DMC]

Agree. However, where would tall, fast, athletic lesbians burn off steam? :lmao:nope:depressed:sleep
I could open a restaurant.

[DMC]

:lmao:lmao all you stupid fucks comparing a program that builds houses and does volunteer work all over the country or a program that helps contain AIDS to a league that does nothing other than give a few hundred bull dykes a 5-6 figure salary.

The WNBA is not a charity organization, stop trying to justify its existence by saying it's a charity organization.
True. Not profitable doesn't equate to not for profit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You would still watch the NBA, I would still watch the NBA. Can you say that it wouldn't have a negative impact on the general public?

The NBA was doing fine before Stern established the WNBA. Quit acting like the WNBA is an absolute must for the NBA's public image. If the general public cared so much about the WNBA being around, the general public would actually pay attention to the WNBA.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah, take the 5 best high school male players in this country, put them against the 5 best female players in the world, and watch the women's team get run off the court. Not going out on much of a limb saying HS > WNBA

[DMC]

Killing the WNBA would have no negative effect on the NBA. I don't know a single NBA fan who can name 5 WNBA players on one team. I cannot name 5 in the entire league.

Let them apply for D-league. If they make it, good. They might be fun to watch. Otherwise, no. There's no crying in basketball unless you are Lebron or Kobe.

[DMC]

HS basketball is actually pretty cool imho
HS ball is great when you can attend. Nothing like sitting at the court level and feeling the fast break vibrations as you stare through the legs of the cheerleaders... I mean... it's a great sport for the kids.

[ogait]

The NBA was doing fine before Stern established the WNBA. Quit acting like the WNBA is an absolute must for the NBA's public image. If the general public cared so much about the WNBA being around, the general public would actually pay attention to the WNBA.

Don't twist it.

The WNBA isn't an absolute must for the NBA image. And I also didn't say that the the WNBA does any charity at all.

If they have never created it, I'm sure there wouldn't be much complaining about the lack of a professional women's league either.

But you're the one saying, it's ok for women's to play basketball when the economy is high. But when the recession hits they should be the first to go down. If you think that's a good way to promote the NBA image OK.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Killing the WNBA would have no negative effect on the NBA. I don't know a single NBA fan who can name 5 WNBA players on one team. I cannot name 5 in the entire league.

Let them apply for D-league. If they make it, good. They might be fun to watch. Otherwise, no. There's no crying in basketball unless you are Lebron or Kobe.
Heck, let them apply for the NBA. The people who'd cry about the WNBA being banned are the idiots who whine about equal opportunity but don't even know what equal opportunity is. Give women an equal opportunity to make the NBA.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Don't twist it.

The WNBA isn't an absolute must for the NBA image. And I also didn't say that the the WNBA does any charity at all.

If they have never created it, I'm sure there wouldn't be much complaining about the lack of a professional women's league either.

But you're the one saying, it's ok for women's to play basketball when the economy is high. But when the recession hits they should be the first to go down. If you think that's a good way to promote the NBA image OK.
I said it was excusable, if it were up to me the WNBA wouldn't be around regardless of the economy. I only said a good economy made it so it wasn't something worth complaining about.

It becomes something to complain about when Stern thinks contracting the NBA is a better option than killing the WNBA.

[JamStone]

The WNBA isn't advertised or marketed as a charity, I'm sure as hell not gonna treat it like one. The NBA has "NBA cares" for philanthropy and charity, don't even try to pretend Stern created the WNBA for image. He created the WNBA because his big ass ego was convinced he could create a successful female basketball league.

I've never seen a charity organization that gives people in need 5-6 figure salaries. I've never seen a charity organization that has a draft every year for people to enter hoping they get to work for that charity organization. You have an odd definition of charity when you consider giving a few lucky women with a skill that no one cares about a 5-6 figure income to showcase said skill "giving back to the community". The WNBA doesn't do jack shit for 99.99% of the community.

Quit acting like the WNBA has any kind of impact real charity organizations do.

I said view it like one. It's not a charity. What I was saying is that its existence serves a social agenda. Sure it has to do with Stern's ego as well. But I do think Stern is using it for image.

It would be like a soft drink company having a division of the company work on a "health drink." The health drink doesn't sell at all. They don't scrap that division because they want consumers to know they aren't just trying to kill people with sugared drinks and that they're actually socially conscious about the health negatives of their primary money maker.

It is about image too.

I did agree that the WNBA would be better off scrapped. My point was that the WNBA isn't even on the radar as one of primary economic problems the NBA and its franchises are having right now. It's an afterthought. The WNBA isn't what's hurting the NBA financially. Whether it stays alive or they scrap it altogether, the NBA has the same economic problems. The WNBA is very low on the list of financial priorities the NBA needs to fix. That's the point.

[DMC]

I said view it like one. It's not a charity. What I was saying is that its existence serves a social agenda. Sure it has to do with Stern's ego as well. But I do think Stern is using it for image.

It would be like a soft drink company having a division of the company work on a "health drink." The health drink doesn't sell at all. They don't scrap that division because they want consumers to know they aren't just trying to kill people with sugared drinks and that they're actually socially conscious about the health negatives of their primary money maker.

It is about image too.

I did agree that the WNBA would be better off scrapped. My point was that the WNBA isn't even on the radar as one of primary economic problems the NBA and its franchises are having right now. It's an afterthought. The WNBA isn't what's hurting the NBA financially. Whether it stays alive or they scrap it altogether, the NBA has the same economic problems. The WNBA is very low on the list of financial priorities the NBA needs to fix. That's the point.

aka tax shelter

[ElNono]

They should end it. If it's more costly now because of any deals they have in place, then whenever those deals are over. But it's not working.

[ChumpDumper]

Feel free to point out this "board of governors" made up of owners that can call a meeting at any time to end the WNBA without Stern's approval.link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=national+basketball+association+board+of+govern ors)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Where's the part about how they could shut down the WNBA at any time without Stern's approval

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It would be like a soft drink company having a division of the company work on a "health drink." The health drink doesn't sell at all. They don't scrap that division because they want consumers to know they aren't just trying to kill people with sugared drinks and that they're actually socially conscious about the health negatives of their primary money maker.

I wasn't aware the NBA had any health negatives they had to be socially conscious of. What a great comparison.

[ChumpDumper]

Where's the part about how they could shut down the WNBA at any time without Stern's approvalWhere's the WNBA funding clause of the NBA collective bargaining agreement?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Where's your link to the WNBA funding clause of the collective bargaining agreement?
So I guess you don't have a link.

As for the WNBA clause in the CBA, I never said there was one. I said there's a portion of NBA revenue league officials controlled.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I did agree that the WNBA would be better off scrapped. My point was that the WNBA isn't even on the radar as one of primary economic problems the NBA and its franchises are having right now. It's an afterthought. The WNBA isn't what's hurting the NBA financially. Whether it stays alive or they scrap it altogether, the NBA has the same economic problems. The WNBA is very low on the list of financial priorities the NBA needs to fix. That's the point.
Is it a problem that's not on the radar and shouldn't be, or it is a problem that should be on the radar and is being ignored.

If you don't think the WNBA is a problem, why do you agree it should be scrapped?

[ChumpDumper]

So I guess you don't have a link.I never said I had one. I said this is the kind of thing the board does.

As for the WNBA clause in the CBA, I never said there was one. I said there's a portion of NBA revenue league officials controlled.
They'd have to do it during CBA negotiations, and adding a clause prohibiting the league from spending money on the WNBA is something plenty of owners might casually support, but it's not something any owner would want to be the leader of. The only person who could kill the WNBA without taking a giant hit publicly would be Stern since he created the WNBA and obviously tried his hardest to keep it alive.So you just didn't know what you were talking about.

[ChumpDumper]

Is it a problem that's not on the radar and shouldn't be, or it is a problem that should be on the radar and is being ignored.

If you don't think the WNBA is a problem, why do you agree it should be scrapped?How big a problem do you think it is?

How much money do you think was spent to subsidize the WNBA last season?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

How big a problem do you think it is?

How much money do you think was spent to subsidize the WNBA last season?
My guess is it's been an 8 figure amount as long as the WNBA has been around.

[ChumpDumper]

My guessAlright.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I never said I had one. I said this is the kind of thing the board does.
So you just didn't know what you were talking about.
You see the part where I said add a clause? Ever think that means there currently isn't one, hence why I said "add" and not "alter"?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I never said I had one.
Why'd you originally try to post one then?

[ChumpDumper]

You see the part where I said add a clause? Ever think that means there currently isn't one, hence why I said "add" and not "alter"?Why wouldn't there be one? Or some other clause saying the commissioner can do that kind of thing?

That makes no sense according to your theory.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Alright.
What do you think the NBA spends every year to keep the WNBA alive? Also, why do you care so much about the WNBA?

[ElNono]

How long they've been around anyways? Feels like forever for an experiment...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why wouldn't there be one?
If there was one, why the fuck would I have said add a clause?

[ChumpDumper]

What do you think the NBA spends every year to keep the WNBA alive?Dunno. I was asking you.
Also, why do you care so much about the WNBA?Who said I did?

[ChumpDumper]

If there was one, why the fuck would I have said add a clause?Why wouldn't there be one giving him that power in the first place?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Dunno. I was asking you.
And I gave an answer. Curious what you think.


Who said I did?
You're behaving like someone who does.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why wouldn't there be one giving him that power in the first place?
If he has the power to do whatever he wants with a certain % of the NBA's total revenue, there wouldn't need to be a clause specifically allowing him to fund the WNBA.

[ChumpDumper]

And I gave an answer. Curious what you think.I'd say probably less than what you think.



You're behaving like someone who does.It's irrelevant to this conversation, but I only really have interest in the business side of things.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's irrelevant to this conversation, but I only really have interest in the business side of things.
Same, it's not a boy/girl issue. If the NBA was the league being kept alive by the WNBA, I'd say shut the NBA down.

[JamStone]

I wasn't aware the NBA had any health negatives they had to be socially conscious of. What a great comparison.

The comparison involves having a social agenda. But you already knew that.




Is it a problem that's not on the radar and shouldn't be, or it is a problem that should be on the radar and is being ignored.

If you don't think the WNBA is a problem, why do you agree it should be scrapped?

It's a problem that's not on a radar for good reason. It's extremely low on the list of priorities because no matter what happens with the WNBA, it doesn't have a major impact on the NBA's financial model. $12 million (the most the NBA has had to cover in a season) is nothing to a multi-billion dollar revenue generating institution. Like I said, it's a drop in the bucket. If the WNBA continued to exist, it doesn't hurt the NBA much at all. If it's scrapped, it doesn't fix any of the economic problems it faces right now at the heart of the CBA negotiations.

I think the WNBA should be scrapped because I don't care about it. I don't watch it. I don't follow it. So I don't care about it. We can all agree that it does not profit the NBA so since I also don't follow it, I don't care. But even if it were scrapped, it would not help fix any of the economic problems the NBA has. So it's a problem that's not on the radar and doesn't need to be.

[ChumpDumper]

Same, it's not a boy/girl issue. If the NBA was the league being kept alive by the WNBA, I'd say shut the NBA down.I think the money spent is a drop in the bucket compared to the whole of player salaries.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think the money spent is a drop in the bucket compared to the whole of player salaries.
If that's true I'd ease up on my stance, but I still think the WNBA should go before the NBA starts contracting.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The comparison involves having a social agenda. But you already knew that.





It's a problem that's not on a radar for good reason. It's extremely low on the list of priorities because no matter what happens with the WNBA, it doesn't have a major impact on the NBA's financial model. $12 million (the most the NBA has had to cover in a season) is nothing to a multi-billion dollar revenue generating institution. Like I said, it's a drop in the bucket. If the WNBA continued to exist, it doesn't hurt the NBA much at all. If it's scrapped, it doesn't fix any of the economic problems it faces right now at the heart of the CBA negotiations.

I think the WNBA should be scrapped because I don't care about it. I don't watch it. I don't follow it. So I don't care about it. We can all agree that it does not profit the NBA so since I also don't follow it, I don't care. But even if it were scrapped, it would not help fix any of the economic problems the NBA has. So it's a problem that's not on the radar and doesn't need to be.
Not saying it's wrong, but could you post a link to the $12M figure, I'd be curious as to where one can find those numbers.

[Isitjustme?]

Where are BRHornet and sigz and all those fags who jerk off to mediocre looking WNBA players at?

[JamStone]

You finally learned about google. I'd like to introduce you to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNBA


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]

[Nick Manning]

The crafty jew + quid-pro-quo chumpdumper=masterpiece theatre

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't see anywhere where it says $12,000,000 is the most the NBA ever spent. If each team was losing 1.5-2 million in 2007, the NBA spent more than $12M to cover losses that year.

It also says that it estimated the NBA spent $12M a year to cover losses, not one word about how $12M was the most it ever spent.

[JamStone]

It said up to $12 million. I didn't find another number saying the NBA has covered more. I guess I don't know for sure if $12 million is the most, so I apologize for that comment.

It didn't say all teams were losing $1.5 - $2 million. I believe Connecticut sells okay. There are only 12 teams in the league. So if it's more than $12 million, you could be conceivably talking closer to around $20 million. Again, I apologize for using that $12 million number in absolute.

Change that number to $20 million, and it's still a drop in the bucket for the NBA when they generate around $4 billion annually. The CBA negotiations right now are calling for the players to take anywhere from a $100 to $170 million pay cut annually. $20 million for the entire WNBA (if that's closer to the actual number) is the one year cumulative salary of 4 MLE NBA players. It's still a drop in the bucket.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It said up to $12 million. I didn't find another number saying the NBA has covered more. I guess I don't know for sure if $12 million is the most, so I apologize for that comment.

It didn't say all teams were losing $1.5 - $2 million. I believe Connecticut sells okay. There are only 12 teams in the league. So if it's more than $12 million, you could be conceivably talking closer to around $20 million. Again, I apologize for using that $12 million number in absolute.

Change that number to $20 million, and it's still a drop in the bucket for the NBA when they generate around $4 billion annually. The CBA negotiations right now are calling for the players to take anywhere from a $100 to $170 million pay cut annually. $20 million for the entire WNBA (if that's closer to the actual number) is the one year cumulative salary of 4 MLE NBA players. It's still a drop in the bucket.
I think it's a given player salaries are gonna have to be cut. It's more about team contraction. No matter how minimal it is, I don't see how you can get rid of a team that's profitable in a good economy but going through bad times because of a bad economy, but you can keep subsidizing a league that's been losing money since day 1.

[ChumpDumper]

I think contraction is a worst case scenario threat.

[JamStone]

I think it's a given player salaries are gonna have to be cut. It's more about team contraction. No matter how minimal it is, I don't see how you can get rid of a team that's profitable in a good economy but going through bad times because of a bad economy, but you can keep subsidizing a league that's been losing money since day 1.

It's all about the amount of money being spent or lost relative to overall revenue generated.

Let's use that $20 million as the hypothetical number that the NBA "loses" annually because of the WNBA. What I've read is that the NBA generates about $3-4 billion every year. $20 million would still only equate to less than 1% of that. That's an acceptable loss. Spread it over the 30 NBA teams. That's less than $700,000 per team. That represents just over 1% of the salary cap limit of (the approximate) $58 million each team is allowed to spend per year under the old CBA. Obviously some teams spend more. But teams generally throw away more than that for minimum contracts of end of the roster players.

The financial loss the WNBA creates for the NBA is so extremely small that it's essentially nothing. Its existence doesn't hinder or encumber the financial viability of the NBA. The end of the WNBA does not fix any of the current financial problems.

Scrap it. That's fine. But it doesn't really help.

[frodo]

WNBA should be maintained to keep dreams alive for ugly girls imho, WNBA makes ugly faces look fine, and average ones look brilliant (becky hammon)

[dunkman]

The WNBA has future, that product is still in the introduction phase.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The WNBA has future, that product is still in the introduction phase.
:lmao:lmao:lmao 10+ years in existence isn't an "introduction phase." If the WNBA had any potential for a future, we'd have seen it by now.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's all about the amount of money being spent or lost relative to overall revenue generated.

Let's use that $20 million as the hypothetical number that the NBA "loses" annually because of the WNBA. What I've read is that the NBA generates about $3-4 billion every year. $20 million would still only equate to less than 1% of that. That's an acceptable loss. Spread it over the 30 NBA teams. That's less than $700,000 per team. That represents just over 1% of the salary cap limit of (the approximate) $58 million each team is allowed to spend per year under the old CBA. Obviously some teams spend more. But teams generally throw away more than that for minimum contracts of end of the roster players.

The financial loss the WNBA creates for the NBA is so extremely small that it's essentially nothing. Its existence doesn't hinder or encumber the financial viability of the NBA. The end of the WNBA does not fix any of the current financial problems.

Scrap it. That's fine. But it doesn't really help.
IMO comparing the $20M to the NBA's gross revenue of 3-4 billion isn't really a fair assessment. The $12-$20M is just as much of a decrease in net income When the average NBA team has a negative net income, $700,000 is nothing to ignore. Yeah, stupid $5-6M MLE contracts are worse, my overall point is that when the NBA and most of its teams are losing money, the league can't afford to help subsidize the WNBA's losses, no matter how insignificant they are.

[Cessation]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/5468/still-making-people-mad-the-wnba

Here's a descent article, talking how money wasted on the wnba, could be used to improve the d league instead. Which could help develop players, that people might actually want to see play.

[JamStone]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/5468/still-making-people-mad-the-wnba

Here's a descent article, talking how money wasted on the wnba, could be used to improve the d league instead. Which could help develop players, that people might actually want to see play.

That's a much stronger argument against the WNBA than how subsidizing the WNBA relates to the possible contraction of some NBA teams.

Only thing is the D-league has also proven to not have done much in terms of developing players into NBA caliber players. There have been what a handful of D-leaguers that have actually made it to the NBA, even less who have actually become relevant in the NBA. NBA teams having the ability to send young kids down there so they can get regular minutes hasn't really proven to help either.

[frodo]

NBA is da predator while WNBA is the scavenger imho, NBA eats most of the prey and WNBA only takes a bite at the carcass. some u niggas just can't stand seeing ugly girls on your TV screens imho, bein ugly ain't their fault imho

[JamStone]

IMO comparing the $20M to the NBA's gross revenue of 3-4 billion isn't really a fair assessment. The $12-$20M is just as much of a decrease in net income When the average NBA team has a negative net income, $700,000 is nothing to ignore. Yeah, stupid $5-6M MLE contracts are worse, my overall point is that when the NBA and most of its teams are losing money, the league can't afford to help subsidize the WNBA's losses, no matter how insignificant they are.

I think how significant or insignificant the losses are is definitely relevant.

Would you be screaming about the WNBA if the annual loss was a couple hundred thousand dollars? Even in this very thread, you stated you might relent on your opinion depending on how much the losses were. It absolutely matters how insignificant the losses/expenses are.

Teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just on inviting street free agents or undrafted rookies to camp or 10 day contracts, and those players don't even ever play for the team in games and/or are cut at some point. I think $700,000 a year for multi-million dollar franchises that generally have annual operating costs of $10 million (that's a guess on my part) is something to scoff at.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think how significant or insignificant the losses are is definitely relevant.

Would you be screaming about the WNBA if the annual loss was a couple hundred thousand dollars? Even in this very thread, you stated you might relent on your opinion depending on how much the losses were. It absolutely matters how insignificant the losses/expenses are.

Teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just on inviting street free agents or undrafted rookies to camp or 10 day contracts, and those players don't even ever play for the team in games and/or are cut at some point. I think $700,000 a year for multi-million dollar franchises that generally have annual operating costs of $10 million (that's a guess on my part) is something to scoff at.
7% of the total operating costs isn't something to scoff at. Most businesses would jump at the opportunity to cut operating costs by 7% without hurting the way it operates.

[jag]

Jamstone is right on the money. The NBA is basically paying $12M+ per season to be perceived as a "Pro-Women's-sports" organization. As far as they're concerned, it's worth the money to be viewed in such a light. It's basically a $12M marketing campaign.

[JamStone]

7% of the total operating costs isn't something to scoff at. Most businesses would jump at the opportunity to cut operating costs by 7% without hurting the way it operates.

Not when most NBA teams generate around or over $100 million in revenue annually. The operating costs don't include player salaries.

[Stalin]

you americans are funny, wasting good money on women trying to play hoops, that no one wants to see..in russia women stay in da kitchen and make sandwiches

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Jamstone is right on the money. The NBA is basically paying $12M+ per season to be perceived as a "Pro-Women's-sports" organization. As far as they're concerned, it's worth the money to be viewed in such a light. It's basically a $12M marketing campaign.
Yet, as beneficial as you make and Jamstone make it sound, Jamstone said he thinks the WNBA should be shut down. Wonder why.

[ChumpDumper]

you americans are funny, wasting good money on women trying to play hoops, that no one wants to see..in russia women stay in da kitchen and make sandwichesRussia has two pro women's leagues tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Yet, as beneficial as you make and Jamstone make it sound, Jamstone said he thinks the WNBA should be shut down. Wonder why.He's neither a woman nor an NBA owner.

[Cessation]

That's a much stronger argument against the WNBA than how subsidizing the WNBA relates to the possible contraction of some NBA teams.

Only thing is the D-league has also proven to not have done much in terms of developing players into NBA caliber players. There have been what a handful of D-leaguers that have actually made it to the NBA, even less who have actually become relevant in the NBA. NBA teams having the ability to send young kids down there so they can get regular minutes hasn't really proven to help either.

We already know wnba is a failure. There's a chance, though, with this influx of cash, d leaguers might become more usefull.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

He's neither a woman nor an NBA owner.
Yet all of his arguments seem to be in defense of the great fuckin philanthropy act :cry known as the WNB:cry

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And yeah Stalin's comment makes no sense, I'm pretty sure Taurasi's salary with her Russian team is like $800,000

[ChumpDumper]

Yet all of his arguments seem to be in defense of the great fuckin philanthropy act :cry known as the WNB:cryDon't see it that way.

[jag]

Yet, as beneficial as you make and Jamstone make it sound, Jamstone said he thinks the WNBA should be shut down. Wonder why.

I think it should be shut down because I don't care about appeasing lesbos and women's rights groups.

I think it's stupid to put out a marketing campaign saying "basketball is basketball". And to seemingly pretend like women's basketball isn't an inferior product. It's a PR thing. And Stern feels like it's a necessary "investment". I think it's an insulting publicity stunt that assumes women and lesbians are gullible enough to actually believe it isn't an inferior product. Basketball isn't basketball. If you took one of the top 10, 8th grade boy's AAU teams in the country and matched them against any current WNBA team, WNBA team X would be slaughtered.

Everyone can see what the WNBA really is. But some who enjoy being pandered to choose to ignore it.

[GoodOdor]

Wade+Howard vs. the best WNBA team, wade+howard should win pretty easily, no?

[DMC]

Stern is treating the NBA like it's a college, where male and female sports get funded, even if the female sports lose money.

I think a business should run how it's CEO and BoD feels is most profitable for the shareholders, within ethical limits.

I also think that, when the WNBA becomes unattractive to the NBA, they will ditch it. It loses money, sure, but many ad campaigns cost a ton and the return on investment just never comes to fruition. The WNBA could be like that. Either way it's no skin off my nose.

[Stalin]

oh noes..I've been exposed.. :cry:cry I don't know shit about women's basketball. :cry:cry

Out of curiousity, are any of those russian women's leagues getting subsidized like the wnba?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Stern is treating the NBA like it's a college, where male and female sports get funded, even if the female sports lose money.

Which is another thing that's incredibly stupid. Colleges shouldn't have to give out as many female athletic scholarships as they do male athletic scholarships when male football and male basketball players bring in WAY more money than any other college athlete.

[dunkman]

:lmao:lmao:lmao 10+ years in existence isn't an "introduction phase." If the WNBA had any potential for a future, we'd have seen it by now.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg

>>> Link <<< (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg)

It may be 15 years, but it's still the introduction phase of that product. At first no one even knew about the WNBA, today some players are well known (Sue Bird, Lauren Jackson, Becky Hammon).

Keep in mind that the first phase is seldom profitable. But an enterprise has to have a mix of products, to avoid getting to decline phase, without having something in the growth and maturity phases to generate profits.

IMO, there is no reason if the NBA is a big business already, the WNBA could become important too and there is no reason why women can't play basketball and also the WNBA should be able to sale a lot of merchandise to women.

[DMC]

You would be hard pressed to find anyone on the street who could identify Sue Bird, Becky Hammon or Lauren Jackson. Show Lebron or MJ or Kobe. Even non NBA fans know at least one of them.

[Cessation]

I tried watching wnba games couple of times, within minutes, I felt like cutting myself out of sheer boredom. They are so unathletic. I could compete in the wnba, tbh. Even non dyke women, prefer men's basketball.

[DMC]

I have never, not once in my lifetime, seen anyone wearing a WNBA jersey other than WNBA players.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg

>>> Link <<< (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg)

It may be 15 years, but it's still the introduction phase of that product. At first no one even knew about the WNBA, today some players are well known (Sue Bird, Lauren Jackson, Becky Hammon).

Keep in mind that the first phase is seldom profitable. But an enterprise has to have a mix of products, to avoid getting to decline phase, without having something in the growth and maturity phases to generate profits.

IMO, there is no reason if the NBA is a big business already, the WNBA could become important too and there is no reason why women can't play basketball and also the WNBA should be able to sale a lot of merchandise to women.
:lmao don't lecture me about about enterprises and business you stupid fuck. No successful business has an "introductory non-profit" phase that lasts 15 years. It's not like all businesses have what the WNBA has, a partner league that subsidizes losses every year without the losses every being paid back.

The WNBA will never be profitable. If the WNBA can't currently sell merchandise to women, it never will.

[koriwhat]

shut it down, everyone knows women's bball isn't entertaining anyhow... it's like watch ice melt, grass grow, etc... it's fuckin' boring to no end.

[Nathan89]

I have never, not once in my lifetime, seen anyone wearing a WNBA jersey other than WNBA players.

Me neither.

I have never, not once in my lifetime seen an entire WNBA game. TBH, I doubt I even seen half a game.

[DMC]

I know Laimbeer coached a team, have no idea who was on it. I think they won a title which was printed in Powerpoint.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You probably know that only because I also remember a long undeserving ESPN special about all the great work Laimbeer was doing with the Detroit Shock. A year later the shock went bankrupt and had to move to Tulsa :lmao

[Jacob1983]

Have you ever seen how empty the arenas are during WNBA games? I saw some of a SA-NY WNBA game in Newark, NJ and there was like no one siting in the upper deck. Most of the people were sitting on the lower levels. And yes, the NY Liberty played in NJ. The WNBA is a joke and I have no idea why it still exists. I'm not an expert on business but I don't see how that league is making money.
People don't like watching women team sports unless maybe beach volleyball but are you going to tell me that most people enjoy watching softball, women's basketball, and soccer?

[PGDynasty24]

Only women's sports I watch are volleyball and soccer. Other sports are unbearable to watch...

[dunkman]

:lmao don't lecture me about about enterprises and business you stupid fuck. No successful business has an "introductory non-profit" phase that lasts 15 years. It's not like all businesses have what the WNBA has, a partner league that subsidizes losses every year without the losses every being paid back.

The WNBA will never be profitable. If the WNBA can't currently sell merchandise to women, it never will.

Actually, your intolerance to ambiguity (in this case a difference of opinion) is a clear sign of stupidity.

The WNBA losses are insignificant. There is a lot of potential. Stern said something that the league would break even in 2009. Keep in mind that if something can't me imagined by you, doesn't mean it will happen never.

Before Bird and Magic joined the NBA the league wasn't what it's today. MJ and finally the NBA-FIBA agreements took that to another level.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

How many WNBA games have you watched in the last 3 years? (here comes a lie)

If the WNBA losses are insignificant, they wouldn't need to NBA to subsidize them. Stern is obviously gonna say things that are borderline delusional about the league he created and insists will be a success. Did they break even in 2009?

The NBA wasn't as popular as it is now before bird and Magic, but it wasn't losing money every single year needing another organization to subsidize its losses.

[jag]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg

>>> Link <<< (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_14ediIvFeSM/StoWh923EyI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ontaqSL6haM/s1600-h/Picx+023.jpg)

It may be 15 years, but it's still the introduction phase of that product. At first no one even knew about the WNBA, today some players are well known (Sue Bird, Lauren Jackson, Becky Hammon).

Keep in mind that the first phase is seldom profitable. But an enterprise has to have a mix of products, to avoid getting to decline phase, without having something in the growth and maturity phases to generate profits.

IMO, there is no reason if the NBA is a big business already, the WNBA could become important too and there is no reason why women can't play basketball and also the WNBA should be able to sale a lot of merchandise to women.

It always goes back to this. "If men can do it, then so can women. " "Women should be able to play basketball too!"

Women have every right to play whatever sport they like. Women, especially feminists and bull dykes (and soft-ass men), have decided to interpret no one wanting to watch them play, as men telling them they aren't allowed to play.

If women truly believe they can and should do everything men do, then they should go right on ahead and start a sports league that's financially supported by fans and owners, and isn't reliant on charity.

[jag]

:lmao don't lecture me about about enterprises and business you stupid fuck. No successful business has an "introductory non-profit" phase that lasts 15 years.

:lol

[Muser]

There isn't a reason why women can't play basketball, they're just not very good at it.

[hater]

agree cannot watch WNBA for more than 30 seconds. It's just grotesque. sorry but that's my opinion.

[dunkman]

@DoK
I watched WNBA just a few times, I watched Olympic games more often. Would add that I would definitely watch a game if my country were to play the gold or something like that. It would a matter of marketing strategies to get the WNBA target audience interested. If available, I would take my daughter to a WNBA game. And if I were to see something very interesting in the WNBA, would watch. In 2009 the US economy was in funk, so I would guess the WNBA probably didn't break even.

@JaG
Look, playing bball is an addiction for me because I feel great playing, not because I want to prove something. I simply love playing bball (and I love to play more than watch). Now, when I want different type of fun I go "hunting" at appropriate places, if you know what I mean. As a curiosity, didn't conduct stats but a lot of attractive feminine looking women are bisexuals nowdays, not sure why.

@Muser
When you watch a game, it looks slow and so. That's an illusion. On the court one could end pissing blood after the game and still look slow from outside. When was 15 used to play against a HS friend that was a female pro player (she was 17 and some 3-4" taller than me). She would win always, so wouldn't bet much on those that talk about playing in the WNBA and being competitive, unless they play really well.

[DMC]

You probably know that only because I also remember a long undeserving ESPN special about all the great work Laimbeer was doing with the Detroit Shock. A year later the shock went bankrupt and had to move to Tulsa :lmao
Quite a shock


/lefty

[DMC]

@DoK
I watched WNBA just a few times, I watched Olympic games more often. Would add that I would definitely watch a game if my country were to play the gold or something like that. It would a matter of marketing strategies to get the WNBA target audience interested. If available, I would take my daughter to a WNBA game. And if I were to see something very interesting in the WNBA, would watch. In 2009 the US economy was in funk, so I would guess the WNBA probably didn't break even.

@JaG
Look, playing bball is an addiction for me because I feel great playing, not because I want to prove something. I simply love playing bball (and I love to play more than watch). Now, when I want different type of fun I go "hunting" at appropriate places, if you know what I mean. As a curiosity, didn't conduct stats but a lot of attractive feminine looking women are bisexuals nowdays, not sure why.

@Muser
When you watch a game, it looks slow and so. That's an illusion. On the court one could end pissing blood after the game and still look slow from outside. When was 15 used to play against a HS friend that was a female pro player (she was 17 and some 3-4" taller than me). She would win always, so wouldn't bet much on those that talk about playing in the WNBA and being competitive, unless they play really well.

Women are beautiful. Even other women know it.

[DMC]

Actually, your intolerance to ambiguity (in this case a difference of opinion) is a clear sign of stupidity.

The WNBA losses are insignificant. There is a lot of potential. Stern said something that the league would break even in 2009. Keep in mind that if something can't me imagined by you, doesn't mean it will happen never.

Before Bird and Magic joined the NBA the league wasn't what it's today. MJ and finally the NBA-FIBA agreements took that to another level.
USFL

Much more entertaining, much more gone, than WNBA.

[z0sa]

Only women's sports I watch are volleyball and soccer. Other sports are unbearable to watch...

and tennis

[DMC]

and tennis
And deep throating.

[dunkman]

q0SyUgw98tE

[Cessation]

I watched tennis when, Anna Kournikova was playing, tbh.

[Jacob1983]

I was watching NBATV last night and it was sad seeing Steve Smith trying so hard to make viewers believe that he is a WNBA fan. I know Stern won't do this but he should sell the WNBA and give the money to charity or someone that needs it. The WNBA is never going to make it.