WNBA players get 50% of the incremental revenue. They share in the funds earned above the league's projection for the season, so it fluctuates. They should, and probably will, opt out in 2025 to line things up with their new TV deal. Assuming they maneuver correctly, they will, as I said, reap the rewards when the money is there.
Giving them 50% of total revenue in line with the NBA would have crippled the league right out of the gate, making it immediately unsustainable. The WNBA was a ten-figure loser for its first two decades. With the steady increase since 2020, their shitty ESPN deal should multiply in total value.
If Paramount's NWSL deal works out for them, they might double down on women's sports, but the WNBA needs to align with a serious streamer regardless; one with a serious entertainment catalog. The odd upside of a league that gets no media coverage is that fans can be free to watch games when and how they want -- especially crucial given their struggles with the same primetime and weekday start times many NHL fans have to contend with.
I agree that the target should be % parity with the NBA, but that has to happen over time. The league could have been more fair in their incremental calculation year-to-year, but the aim of the revenue share in that CBA was for the players to share in the growth without diminishing the benefits toward the sustainability of the league, which has been a serious concern since its inception.
This is why I put "equal pay" in quotes in my first message. It's complicated, and the people that complain the loudest are the ones that'll never see "equal" the proper way. A 50% revenue share for the WNBA right now would make the average WNBA salary over 600K, which would be awesome. But even in that reality, all those people would see is how it compares to an average NBA salary of $9.5 million.
That's also why I equated it to the trans women in sports issue. It's a very similar misperception of fairness.
www.etsy.com
golf.com
