The WNBA and the WNBPA continue their negotiations as they try to forge a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The two sides are supposedly far apart in the talks which have been a tad acrimonious at times; back at last year’s All-Star Game, the players all wore tee shirts saying “Pay Us What You Owe Us”. Last week, the union announced that it had taken a vote of the players testing the willingness of the players to call a strike. According to the union:
- 93% of the players registered a vote – – AND – –
- 98% of the players voted to authorize the union to call a strike.
Naturally, both sides issued statements in the wake of that announcement by the union; I need not tell you that the two statements have nothing to do with each other. The existing CBA should have expired on Halloween, but the two sides have agreed to “extensions” pushing the date back to January 9, 2026. If the two statements that were issued last week are even half true – – not necessarily close to correct – – what the two sides did was to kick the can down the road with those extensions. Now the players have upped the ante.
Is that a good idea? Well, if you believe that the league/owners “owe” the players something significantly more than they are currently paying the players, then this is not only a good idea; it is a necessary action. If you believe the players are asking for more than league revenues support, this is a bad idea.
The WNBA is increasing in popularity but that increase comes against a markedly small base. The bedrock for revenue foundation in sports today is broadcast rights. When you compare TV audience size for the NBA and WNBA regular season telecasts, the reported numbers say that NBA audiences are 3 times larger than WNBA audiences.
Before I present numbers from the cited source above, let me say that it makes no sense to compare the WNBA to leagues like the NFL or MLB; the only comparison that is even close to realistic is the WNBA to the NBA; so, here are some numbers for you to consider:
- Revenue: NBA = $10.6B WNBA = $0.2B
- TV audience NBA = 1.6M WNBA = 0.5M (Regular season)
- TV audience NBA = 5.5M WNBA = 0.4M (Playoffs)
- TV audience NBA = 11.6M WNBA = 0.73M (Finals)
- Attendance NBA = 18,324 WNBA = 9,195 (Average)
- Ticket Price NBA = $94 WNBA = $87 (Average)
Based on revenue, the NBA is about 53 times larger than the WNBA. The average NBA salary is reported at $11.9M and the average WNBA salary is reported at $0.120M. The multiplier there says the average NBA player makes 99 times what the average WNBA player makes. If that is what the union wants to bring into balance, they have numbers to back up their proposals; but that will still leave the WNBA players in a situation making a lot less than their NBA counterparts.
Having nothing to do with the righteousness or the outrageousness of the union’s position, there is an interesting unknown here. The WNBA has never had “labor strife”; it has never had a work stoppage. So, there is no empirical evidence of how such a situation might affect the fanbase for the WNBA. Yes, the league is significantly more popular than it used to be; yes, some of the WNBA stars are easily recognized figures. However, do they have “staying power” as public figures if they are not going to play basketball for those new fans that are showing up? There are “lifelong NBA fans” who were there in the days of Magic and Bird and in the days of Dr. J and in the days of Wilt and Russell. There are no lifelong fans of the WNBA that come close to that sort of heritage. A strike by the players is a risky option; the voting reported by the union suggests that most of the players are willing to take that risk.
The owners also have risk in taking a position that encourages a strike by the players. The recent average attendance at WNBA games (more than 9,000 per game as cited above) has grown significantly. Ten years ago, the only way the WNBA would have come close to that figure would be to hand out free tickets with the promise that anyone who came to the arena and sat through the game would get a $20 bill on leaving the premises. Owners do not want to go back to the days of arenas filled to 15% of capacity.
As is the case with every CBA negotiation, what is set aside as the proposals go back and forth and the statements are issued is a simple fact:
- The owners and the players are actually partners in this endeavor; they both seek to present to the public an entertainment experience that the public is willing to support financially.
- Moreover, neither side of the partnership can do that on its own.
Personally, I think a strike would be a bad idea for both sides. I wonder how many of those fans will maintain their interest to the point of being willing to pay to see the WNBA product if there is a protracted time period with no games and no publicity related to games. During a strike, all other aspects of the affected league are stifled; the strike news sucks all the oxygen out of the room. If the two sides get to the point that a strike – – or a lockout by the way – – comes into existence, the two sides have just placed a bet on the degree of robustness that exists in the WNBA fanbase.
Finally, these words from Charles E. Wilson – – former Secretary of Defense under President Eisenhower:
“Unfortunately, in collective bargaining one party or the other too often tries to gain an advantage – a bargain, like buying something in a store for less than it is worth.”
But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………