WNBA investigating $100,000 Las Vegas Aces player sponsorships that star called 'life-changing'

[woodpusher]

MSN

I suppose the difference is that
WNBA has a players' union, and
The union agreed to a salary cap.

Although any player who belongs to such a union with such a salary cap who also receives an endorsement deal is cause for suspicion.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yeah, IDK why this can't be counted as an endorsement deal. Literally no difference in any meaningful way. The city likes the way they represent their city. Las Vegas spends as much money on branding as any city in the US, probably. There is nothing nefarious or wrong with this. It's not fair to the rest of the WNBA? It's the same as choosing LA because of the market size.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Ridiculous.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[C-south]

Solution is simple. Have the players buyout the investors and what the nba subsidizes. That way revenue can be split 2 ways instead of 4. Of course we all know that won’t work out like they want it to.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Solution is simple. Have the players buyout the investors and what the nba subsidizes. That way revenue can be split 2 ways instead of 4. Of course we all know that won’t work out like they want it to.

Yeah, the $19.5M payroll cannot buy out half of a single $250M franchise let alone the league. Simple solution lacks reality.

 

[C-south]

Yeah, the $19.5M payroll cannot buy out half of a single $250M franchise let alone the league. Simple solution lacks reality.

Then what are they really crying about?

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Then what are they really crying about?

Disingenuous question. They are seeking higher wages in the next CBA. But you know that.

 

[C-south]

Disingenuous question. They are seeking higher wages in the next CBA. But you know that.

From what? They’ve lost money every year they’ve been in existence. At some point those that have thrown money away to keep them afloat might consider a little roi. There’s not many companies that start a business to lose money just to give someone a job so those that were given employment can demand more money.

 

[NashVol11]

From what? They’ve lost money every year they’ve been in existence. At some point those that have thrown money away to keep them afloat might consider a little roi. There’s not many companies that start a business to lose money just to give someone a job so those that were given employment can demand more money.

They don't need to leave the players only 9% for purposes of "ROI" and "losing money every year" was mostly an accounting lie too.

Lots of entities increased wages before being "profitable" anyway. It's always weird to me when there is a labor dispute and fans side with the billionaire owners over the players who make the leagues what they are

 

[C-south]

They don't need to leave the players only 9% for purposes of "ROI" and "losing money every year" was mostly an accounting lie too.

Lots of entities increased wages before being "profitable" anyway. It's always weird to me when there is a labor dispute and fans side with the billionaire owners over the players who make the leagues what they are

Lol. 9% is better than 0%. I guess after 30 years of losing hundreds of millions they feel like they deserve something. There’s always someone willing to play for less.

 

[NashVol11]

Lol. 9% is better than 0%. I guess after 30 years of losing hundreds of millions they feel like they deserve something. There’s always someone willing to play for less.

No, they are just arguing for something close to the status quo because they always do. Every time leagues do what you're suggesting and try "replacement players" everyone hates them, and again why side with the owners over the players?

 

[C-south]

No, they are just arguing for something close to the status quo because they always do. Every time leagues do what you're suggesting and try "replacement players" everyone hates them, and again why side with the owners over the players?

It’s the wnba. If anyone cared that much the money wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[RandomUTfan]

They don't need to leave the players only 9% for purposes of "ROI" and "losing money every year" was mostly an accounting lie too.

Lots of entities increased wages before being "profitable" anyway. It's always weird to me when there is a labor dispute and fans side with the billionaire owners over the players who make the leagues what they are

There was a good article on Yahoo Sports today quoting a couple of economists who argued that the WNBA players are being vastly underpaid based on their value. I'll link it. ‘They’re absolutely underpaid’: Economists weigh in on WNBA labor showdown

 

[NashVol11]

It’s the wnba. If anyone cared that much the money wouldn’t be an issue.

That doesn't make any sense, they just signed a 2.2 billion dollar media rights deal

 

[C-south]

That doesn't make any sense, they just signed a 2.2 billion dollar media rights deal

And? The pie is split 4 ways instead of 2. They may get more money but it won’t be anything close to nba player money and will continue to operate at a loss.

 

[NashVol11]

And? The pie is split 4 ways instead of 2. They may get more money but it won’t be anything close to nba player money and will continue to operate at a loss.

Who said anything about NBA player money? They certainly won't be operating at a loss though

More record growth for women's sports revenue

Women's sports are projected to earn $2.35 billion globally in 2025, a 25% increase from 2024, according to a new report by consulting giant Deloitte.

www.espn.com

(And like I said, even the claim that they are "operating at a loss" now is just creative accounting)