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

[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 ulative 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 ulative 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 en ber 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.

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 en ber 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/pos...e-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/pos...e-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 s 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 sandwiches

Russia 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 in philanthropy act known as the WNB

[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 in philanthropy act known as the WNB

Don'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.