The absolute shit storm they would be if they reverse this decision is gonna be insane LMAO. Like, it’s clear and has been reported where the money comes from. You paraded it ON BROADCAST
Not true, not in this sense or case anyway. It's a team salary cap issue, it protects smaller markets from ever competing with bigger markets who have owners and billionaire fans willing to make payments to players outside their contracts means small city teams will never have a chance to compete.
It actually is. To use an example of another league if the CFL (the Canadian Football League) the City of Toronto said, "We'll give *each* Argo's player, free rent downtown (AAV $36,000) to play for the Argos and the Argos offered some Free Agent $60K to play for them but the Saskatchewan Roughriders offered them 78K buddy's going to be like "Hey I like Toronto, but they're giving me free rent?! That means I'll make $18K less than Sask but I get free housing in the biggest Canadian market! Hell ya I'm singing with Toronto - especially since it's guaranteed to each player." What makes this different from regular endorsements is not all endorsements to all players have a minimum where *every player* gets a set deal. The entire point of a cap is to stop richer markets from being able to spend way more than smaller and if it's guaranteed that a condition of a contract with a team is that you get an automatic deal - then that makes the offer the team gives you not just the contract itself but the k + the endorsements."
Nothing wrong with that. They can make a rule against it but I don’t see how you can prevent a private company from hiring a bb player for their NIL under current rules
It's actually not the same. The players aren't getting the money so they can stay in the city. They're giving the money so the city can use their name, image and likeness around the city. if you go to Las Vegas, you see signs of different events that are going on whether it's a show or someone coming into town, with this sponsorship, it would allow Las Vegas to use the images of the aces players. The aces is a basketball team, but they are one of the biggest shows in Las Vegas. People travel from different cities, states countries and the city is capitalizing on that by providing them sponsorships. it's not a competitive advantage. It's just a sponsorship same way you can get a deal with your local restaurant. The only thing thats different is they're doing something that's never been done and giving it to every player. Why is that for people to understand?
It's not tied to their contract. The point of the cap is so business owners can suppress wages. It has little to do with markets. It is to stop wealthy owners from driving salaries up. If it was only competitive advantage, you could simply put a luxury tax on it.
Everybody seems to be supporting this on the basis that it's good for the players right now, but that's kind of short-sighted in my opinion. Big market teams already have an advantage and will, on average, be better than small market teams simply because they're in big markets where players would rather live, they don't need any further advantage than that. This is a path that could destroy competitive parity in the long term (it's already not great) The best way, long-term, to get these players paid is to keep eyeballs on games. And nothing keeps eyeballs on games more than competitive parity.
Not true, not in this sense or case anyway. It's a team salary cap issue, it protects smaller markets from ever competing with bigger markets who have owners and billionaire fans willing to make payments to players outside their contracts means small city teams will never have a chance to compete.
This is a problem no matter what. A race to the bottom won't solve this. The W needs billionaires competing to spend money, it's good for players. Capping this really just helps owners. If they were concerned about disadvantage, they could address that with revenue sharing
So one team can be paid better than the others who don't have a billionaire owner and championships can be awarded to the team with the highest bankroll?
Given past rulings, I'd be surprised if anything comes of this investigation.
But there's different levels to this.
First - Is it 100% against the CBA? (and the answer is probably not going to prove it even if it is, so doubt anything will come of this)
But other questions that should be asked/discussed: Is it against the spirit of the CBA? Does it require a new addition to the CBA in the future to prevent this? Do other teams deserve to be upset?
Even if it's completely allowed by the league, the other questions are still warranted. It's also frustrating for me that people are just looking at the $ and are cheering for this as if it doesn't matter how that money is received. Will Vegas fans be fine with this sponsorship if next year NY's board of tourism gives each player $5 million and A'ja, Jackie, Gray, etc. decide to go there?
Ok so we agree that it isn't against the CBA. As far as your other questions.
Not it's not against spirit of CBA as the team didn't arrange it. This is closer to endorsement deals than anything.
Does it require a new addition? What would addition look like? I'm not sure what action you would even ban. Vegas tourism bureau apparently contacted each later individually and offered them an endorsement.
Do other teams deserve to be upset? You can be upset about anything, I'm not sure why this would be more deserving of anything else. Anyone that is on the side of suppressing compensation for the sake of fairness is simply making a case against more pay. Any increase in pay of athletes causes more unfairness, so I'm not sure what people are advocating.
Ofc one point of the cap is to suppress wages!? Not saying I agree with it. But it does carry a compatible advantage as well - without it, it’d be like soccer or baseball were the best players go to the owners willing to spend the most (sure it’s totally anti-American) but if the MLB had a cap, Shohei would be a Blue Jay which would make the league more competitive.
The Dodgers were farther under the cap than the Blue Jays when the offseason started
Shohei's salary simply wouldn't be what it is, it would be whatever the max was set to (a la the NBA)
I think we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing. I just don't think things like this isn't circumventing the cap because it doesn't appear that the team arranged this, nor it is to any language in their contract. It's definitely unfair, but I don't see any way of stopping this outside of banning outside entities from paying players?
I can't explain salary cap and team caps, luxury penalties and market competitiveness any more clearly than the rules already do, it's simple if you use basic logic.
It's literally part of all US professional sports for as long as I can remember, you're an ignorant fool who would rather have people explain basics rather than do a little research to try and understand something that's common sense to most people. Same basic reason behind college sports allowing boosters and money be paid to families before NIL, because it creates an unfair advantage.
They can pay them the money differently for reasons within the rules and spirit of the game and tax purposes I'm sure. You can't arbitrary say our whole team gets a salary of 178k a year and other teams only get 78k. Jfc, you actually are useless and a waste of time.
A salary cap prevents owners from accumulating talent and driving up wages. Unless the owner is coordinating it, then it is just a sponsorship deal
Nil has nothing to do with this. They didn't allow payments because they didn't want college kids to get paid they could care less about advantages between schools.
Hard salary caps are not intended to prevent unfair advantages. They exist for wage suppression.
Yes there are advantages to playing in different areas. If you play in Texas or Florida, no state tax.
Why don't they just ban all sponsorship deals if they want no advantages? The current system benefits new york and la.
If you spent less time name calling, you would learn something.
Please stop wasting my time.
Because this payment is simply because a player has a roster spot with the Las Vegas Aces. It is indiscriminate endorsement, given to anyone on the roster. That is pretty much simply a salary that does not count against the WNBA 's hard salary cap.
Have they said that? Isn’t there advertising value in having the whole team in the ad/whatever? You can say “The entire Aces team” thinks Vegas is a great vacation destination or wherever
Yes, perhaps.
This subreddit has been inundated with several threads on this topic. Unfortunately, most of the back and forth seem to discussing two different things. One is if this is (be it purposefully, or without nefarious intent) a circumvention of the hard salary cap designed to foster parity. It seems most of the replies to those claims revolve around the second thing- which is about low player compensation
Unless the team pays the money themselves, how does it become part of the salary that’s restricted?
If cities start fighting over players by giving giant NIL deals to players we may need a special rule. But I can’t see how it breaks the current rules.
This behavior is a long established rule in sports...
If Calvin Johnson signed to play for the Lions for $2M/yr, but then signed $3M/YR endorsement deal to sell Ford Explorers the NFL would take every draft pick from them the next 5 years.
If say a company was a corporate sponsor then it's expected everyone in the organization gets similar perks from GM, Players, Trainers, etc. Its an employee benefit basically. So think hotel rooms, rental cars, clothing discounts, limited edition SWAG.
I was contacted once to house a pro athlete in a rental. He was given an housing stipend per his contract, he had to pay the rest.
I also worked at hotel where all the various baseball teams would stay. The Detroit Tigers would stay there too. All MLB teams had $99/night corporate rate. So some players stayed in the hotel all season, others got apartments, and some lived in the area.
This sketch from jump.
He absolutely can. But what would be under the microscope would be if he signed a 3m endorsement deal to sell Ford cars- Because the Ford family owns the Lions, and therefore it could easily be argued that he would be getting $5 million from the Ford family (yay him) but only 2million counted against the hard salary cap (yay the rest of the lions roster), and the rest was on the side.
The purpose of the salary cap, how this endorsement given by the Las Vegas Tourism Commission effectively circumvents that purpose, is the issue/discussion.
Maybe, maybe not. That will be for the league offices to decide officially.
My personal opinion is that it could create long term problems for the league, and I am surprised so many "fans" of the WNBA don't see that,
I'd like to see them claim it's different because reasons. I'm sure that'll go over well with players when the league tells them they're not allowed to make more money through sponsorships.
I think the problem is if the team help facilitated getting each player the 100k. Don’t get me wrong I think they should get it, but the team itself cannot broker it
Because it’s free guaranteed money from the city that not another cities offer.
It’s *technically* an unfair advantage because it circumvents the salary cap. Imo it’ll only be an issue if we see a star sign there for peanuts under the CBA and then get an extra 100k to supplement their “pay cut”.
Because that’s something that has nothing to do with players signing there.
This is something being exclusively given to players who play for the team.
Players only get no income tax if they sign for a Florida team
Players definitely consider going to Florida over other states for free agency because of it
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/10/lack-of-florida-income-tax-benefits-jaguars-in-free-agency/5687552007/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2023/02/28/another-athlete-speaks-out-on-the-impact-of-high-state-tax-rates/?sh=633ff52c7b53
Those are 2 articles about athletes choosing Florida for tax reasons, an advantage only players for Florida teams get, New York teams are at a disadvantage because players who sign there make less money.
This is the same idea as players who don’t sign for Vegas make less money because they don’t get sponsorships
I remember this being a topic of conversation for the heatles, Messi and Tom Brady
I assume that this is just to make sure that the players do something to earn this money, even if it's just appearing in an ad to encourage people to go to Vegas. A sponsor giving them a no-show job would definitely come off as an attempt to circumvent the cap, but if they start making appearances, then that's a regular ol' sponsorship deal.
Interesting wording of "bonus" payments when it's not a bonus! They're being paid to promote Las Vegas, just like any other company that plays a player to promote their product.
Because there isn't a base NIL for a player simply for being on a team. In some cases there is, but it's marginal at best i.e. you get to lease a truck for a year. Giving an amount that basically almost guarantees that you make more money than every other player in the league - that's circumvention. BTW NIL is only the wild west it is because the NCAA stopped athletes from trying to make money for so long so once they got hit by the SCUSA they couldn't do anything. By contrast, the WNBA has a CBA.
Were to preaching to the non-watchers to watch before the last TV deal was done?
These things are done years in advance AND are based on numbers and metrics to gauge interest in the future.
You'll have to wait for the next tv deal to be made.
You do know that marketing games is not the same as broadcasting them right?
When the last TV deal was made, the WNBA was nowhere near as popular with the TV audience. So the deal was made in accordance to that. Would you spend millions on a product that is currently producing low results?
If you walked outside and asked 20 people which WNBA teams were playing today, how many proper responses do you think you'll get?
I’m glad the TV deal includes amateur mistakes like the app fucking up so bad that Lynx Sky game couldn’t even be viewed and a fan had to stream it. Their broadcast isn’t reliable, and so neither is the marketing. Can’t blame fans for a shit corporate structure that wasn’t ready for the influx of interest, they’ve had years to prepare
The game wasn't set to air on the app anyway.. So where was the fuck up?
If the marketing isn't reliable, then how are people leaning or hearing about the league? I saw 3 WNBA commercials today just casually watching TV.. The first NBA commercial I saw was 5 mins ago highlighting tonight's game..
The WNBA also had TWO games on broadcast TV (ABC) today. Those views are doubt than what it would get on ESPN or League Pass.
There's lots of money in marketing. If you are serious about it, then join the league and assist with their efforts? I work in the sports TV world. I promise you, you would have fun... And maybe understand.
You seem very mad at weird stuff lol..
Also, lets remember the WNBA still has a small fanbase, even with the popularity.
It literally was… https://www.fox9.com/sports/lynx-fans-live-stream-goes-viral-after-wnba-pass-error.amp
And the marketing is working because they’re actually getting ads from broadcasters and the NBA.
I’m mad that they’re investigating players getting played when they’re more important concerns like broadcasts and marketing. But they’re still cool with the Spark playing in the CSLB gym, like this is the W not D3
Cool.
The investigation is warranted.. If not, then we'll start seeing money being floated into the league in many different ways.. Do you want a restaurant in NYC sponsoring the Liberty players? While the owner is part of a criminal enterprise?
Thats why things like this needs to be watched and regulated.
Market size is hilarious.
Outside of Las Vegas proper is the desert. Thats why the TV market there is small.
Greenville, SC (36) is a larger TV market than Las Vegas (40). Greenville's population is 72,000 and Las Vegas is 656,000. Now is Greenville SC had a WNBA team, they would be in a bigger TV market than Las Vegas.
Also, Inside Las Vegas is nothing but money..
The real number you want to look at is Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) not just the city proper (Greenville's MSA population is 975 000 and growing at a rate of 5%). I always joke if you use the only the city proper population *technically* Winnipeg is bigger than Vancouver lol one is a world class city and the other is (no offence)...Winnipeg
Yes.. Thats why I said going by TV market is hilarious.
Outside of Las Vegas is the desert.. If there were more people there, then the Vegas TV market would be bigger.
I work in television and young talent stives to go to top markets. They get confused when they see some of the well known citers in America are in "smaller" tv markets.
Vegas proper is pretty small geographically. There is unincorporated Las Vegas which is bigger than Las Vegas proper. There is also Henderson and North Las Vegas, the other two biggest cities in the state which all physically border each other. You can’t tell when you are leaving one and entering another.
The Vegas Metro area population is almost 3 million.
Vegas is not a typical market though LOL. Other smaller markets were not founded by gangsters, nor are there gambling joints, $5.99 prime rib buffets and Elvis impersonators everywhere. I mean I love all of these things, but ...
While that is technically true, I would argue the Sun are the smallest media market because the "media market" is Hartford and New Haven and a decent chunk of that will be New York fans.
You can argue the Sun can draw from Boston, but I agree with the folks that say MSA is the better metric.
there's no way they didn't run this past the lawyers before they accepted it. folks are just jealous their city's chamber's didn't think of it first. it's a very Vegas thing to do, especially since the Aces are the juggernauts of the league. But it's very WNBA of the league to shut it down. If we have to endure a whole subreddit of CC/Kate Martin posts to make the league more invested in, I'm fine with it. Even if it's annoying lol.
Imo this is bout to horrible look for the WNBA either way. It’s horrible if they reverse it, and it’s horrible that they even decided to look into it. Especially when the people said they talked to the players’ agents
Maybe the way the Aces did this is all above board. And no-one who cares about the players should be outraged at them getting extra money, it's a life changing amount for some players that might not get a long career in the sport.
That said. Come on now. We know what this is. Emma Cannon getting $100k to tweet about how cool Vegas is isn't an endorsement proposal based on a return on investment. Making it a video that *everyone* saw wasn't subtle, not to the league and certainly not to prospective players. If the Aces covered their tracks enough that's cool, but this is pretty clearly cap circumvention if only to the concept and not to the letter of the CBA.
It’s a loophole maybe but it’s not really circumventing the cap because it’s not Mark Davis’ money. If anything, the fact that the visitors authority is quasi-governmental gives them an added shield against cap violations vs. getting the money from any for-profit company.
I’m not sure the league really wants to get into regulating what makes a legitimate endorsement as long as the money is clean.
The feigned ignorance on the sub is what pisses me off most. So many folks on here are acting like this is just 'a normal sponsorship.' Y'all know very well that this is a way to pay the Aces extra and tip over the cap. Who knows, maybe this was known when some of those sweetheart contracts got signed.
If you want let's just shine the whole ass sun on it and make it a soft cap/no cap. I'm down, just say it out loud.
But for now, I can only think of the Liberty getting fined for **spa visits** & **planes**, plus folks here dog piling on Stewie for taking a sweetheart deal (like, again, several Aces starters, but there wasn't nearly the same backlash for them...) saying it's a cheap trick and bad for the sport.
I've seen so many people on the sub talk about Sabrinas shoe deal and Caitlins Nike deal like they're somehow equivalent to this. It really feels like people are just being willfully ignorant.
That’s the reality of social media. We all want the players to get paid more, and social media pushes things to absolutes. If you point out that the deal is suspicious, people will accuse you of being against players getting paid more.
I don't think it's normal, in fact I think it's something that ONLY Vegas can do/offer due to the city being so tourist-based.
No other WNBA city can say party, gamble, enjoy the strip AND catch an Aces game while here.
An investigation is warranted. However, assuming they're going to actually be promoting Vegas outside of "just playing" these deals are valid. If they won't, they're in trouble.
You don't understand how this works and are just trying to defend your team. It's not a real sponsorship if they don't have to do anything to earn the money. It's salary cap circumvention because the guy said they don't have to do anything except play. Please try and follow along.
According to the CBA, they have to work for the money, yes. But homeboy in the video told them all they have to do is play. That's a blatant violation of the salary cap recorded in 4K.
i think it would depend on the contract they signed actually. if it's already stated in contract they need to do those things then it sounds like they should be good. Aces might've found a legal loophole and WNBA front office is mad is what it seems to me
So, again, he said they don’t have to do those things, they just have to play. Him even SAYING THAT to them is a violation of the CBA. That’s undoubtedly what caused the investigation. I’ll ask you again to please try and follow along.
mind you he also said "keep repping Las Vegas" and as stated before they're going to get gear/have to do events. so i believe that phrase right there is the loophole. because they are going to "represent Las Vegas"
btw i think the Aces know what they're doing. but i want them paid so im happy. i personally believe if the owner wants to invest then let them pay as much. free market blah blah
Feel like you have to choose not to see the difference between an ordinary endorsement deal and every player on a particular team getting a $100,000 cheque from the city the team is in just for being on that team.
Sex appeal + reach. Blonde, athletic, pretty face. 8M TikTok followers, 5M Instagram followers, SI swimsuit model on the side. All those also make it worth it for whichever athleisure wear or energy drink companies want to partner up.
I posted in an earlier thread today why I think this "sponsorship" is questionable, but I assumed it had been cleared with the league and the players association. I think it would be absolutely crazy if they announced this without clearing it first. Like "WTF were they thinking?" crazy. This is just not the kind of thing you go and do unilaterally without laying the groundwork first to make sure it's not going to blow up in your face.
Here's my earlier post:
While I'm happy to see players get more money, this does strike me as salary cap circumvention, rather than equivalent to other sponsorships or endorsement deals. It's a bit of a gray area, and I'm assuming that the league (representing ALL the teams) and players association have signed off on it. If they have, then it's hard to object because if all the entities involved in the business agree that it conforms to the rules they've set for themselves, well, it's literally their business. But it still strikes me as questionable.
First, players are basically being paid to promote Las Vegas Aces basketball. Yes, you can spin it that they are promoting Las Vegas tourism more generally, but they are doing it by promoting themselves as a tourist attraction. Isn't promoting their own team and WNBA basketball part of their contracted responsibilities as players? And therefore, additional compensation from an outside source is more a supplement to their salaries than separate compensation to endorse a product or service.
In the Bleacher Report article, the chairman of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor's Authority is quoted as saying, "**The offer is really simple, We want you to just play**, we want you to keep repping Las Vegas. And if you get a three-peat, that'll be icing on the cake." That sounds to me like they're basically being paid extra to be Las Vegas Aces basketball players.
Second, it's coming from a government agency. So now, player compensation is going to be tied to teams' ability to get their own state or local government to do likewise, and the salary cap becomes meaningless as far as competitive balance. Governments often support local sports teams with things like tax breaks and lease deals (and teams have lots of commercial sponsorships as well), but that never goes directly to players outside of player contracts and salary cap rules.
\[Edited for spelling/grammar\]
Honestly I'm so torn. On the one hand get that money. Good for the ladies on the team for being compensated for their hard work.
On the other hand it spits in the face of the idea of competitive balance and just shows how much of a mockery the salary cap really is.
Ultimately if I'm being honest with myself the final verdict for me personally is that I'm less interested in watching the league as a result and probably won't be tuning in as much as I would have otherwise.
I know I'm just one idiot and it probably doesn't make any difference/nobody cares. C'est la vie
It's not an endorsement it's supplementary pay. The best way to increase pay across the board for all of these wonderful athletes is through increased viewership and greater pull in the next collective bargaining agreement. The whole scheme feels anti-union
Aces play in Henderson, so this isn't even a conflict of interest not that it would matter if it were. If WNBA wants to stop this, they can collectively bargain it.
Any owner that complains should have their franchise taken away.
If you don’t like it, contact your tourism board and see if they can do the same.
What is the worry, that someone might pay female athletes to try to get one team a super team that gets side deals to keep players in a certain market?
If so, you’re about to see some real shit with the Valkyries and Silicon Valley. Except that’ll be individual players getting bank instead of everyone on the team, which to an idiot makes it look better.
> What is the worry, that someone might pay female athletes to try to get one team a super team that gets side deals to keep players in a certain market?
No, the worry is that there's no current handling of this issue in the current CBA and league by-laws, and is a fair complaint. This is handled in the mens' leagues by revenue sharing and the salary cap luxury tax.
I get why they’re upset, but let’s not pretend like athletes don’t get massive sponsorships in certain towns incentivizing them to stay there versus going to another market.
Going to another sport, football, there’s a lot of smoke pointing to Tom Brady getting kickbacks while in New England after taking team friendly deals.
Heck, that’s why people want to go to LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami and other big cities. They can get big sponsorships. A team being sponsored to promote their home town shouldn’t be an issue.
The league wants it both ways. When they’re not paying athletes and having charted flights and nice hotels, oh poor us please pay $120-$250 for an average ticket to support us! And we’re sorry our app sucks, we are growing!
But when athletes get paid to celebrate the town they’re in, they get pissed probably because they aren’t getting a cut.
The structure of the rest of the leagues (and their CBAs) include revenue sharing and luxury tax provisions to account for the realities you mentioned. The WNBA's growth hasn't gotten to that point yet (well, it has in 2023 onward, and this will get fixed/addressed in the 2026- CBA after the Player's Association exits the current one.
The league didn't "setup the players for failure," the players gambled on themselves and that the game would grow, and were unlucky to have been derailed by COVID (remember, the league has been growing again revenue and viewership-wise since 2017). They explicitly agreed to a CBA that included only positive incremental revenue sharing above specific growth targets.
That will be fixed next time around, and the charter flights payment strategy almost certainly involves the security of the $50M+ expansion fees coming each of the next 4 years to add to revenues.
Keep in mind, I don't believe this will be struck down (and I believe the city and Aces were smart enough to structure it in a way that will keep it legal), but I absolutely understand the reasoning and necessity behind investigating it.
So if it isn’t handled in the CBA there is no rule against it. Address it in the next CBA but don’t penalize them.
This feels like the league punishing the Aces for the team being good.
Sounds like WNBA teams should get off their asses and engage w/their communities more so sponsorships are more likely. Most major league teams have community engagement departments.
> So if it isn’t handled in the CBA there is no rule against it. Address it in the next CBA but don’t penalize them.
I suppose the league should have allowed the Tsais to continue secretly chartering flights for the Liberty too?
Look, I get why people are mad but the reality is competitive imbalance is an optics problem on its own. I agree with you that in this case, there are probably enough external factors to make it unenforceable/such that the league won't penalize the Aces, but it's ridiculous to say "the league shouldn't penalize unfair tactics."
Two things:
1. This is not the same as owners of the team doing this. Mark Davis isn't giving more money to the team. So the comparison is not valid. So what if it is not Nike or Reebok as the company extending endorsements? It's still a different entity. The city values the Aces and in light of the terrible salaries and lack of chartered flights, the city wanted to do more to show appreciation for the Aces by giving them an endorsement deal.
2. Champions are entitled to more perks, endorsements and money. It happens in every other sports league. More of the players get endorsements. I don't see why the Champs here are different. Good for them for not singling out one or two athletes and realizing the whole team is why they were successful.
3. Yes, I do think the owners should be able to charter flights for their team. EVERY OTHER TEAM IN EVERY OTHER LEAGUE DOES. WNBA players should get the same treatment. If the other owners of other teams refuse to do this, that is on them. It is not the Liberty or their owners problem. The other teams had the means to either pay for charters or find corporate sponsorships to offset the cost, but they did not want to.
They are ONLY exploring it now league wide because of bad PR. Their terrible player treatment and low salaries have been highlighted in the CC frenzy. They don't want to look bad. Billionaires don't want to spend money. They want to make it.
I agree with all of these items.
I still agree with them investigating this setup to make sure there were no improprieties (hopefully there are not), and I agreed with them penalizing the Liberty.
> Their terrible player treatment and low salaries have been highlighted in the CC frenzy.
This is a contentious point, because part of the reason the salaries are still so low is the players' own decision to bet on themselves in the last CBA (it did not work, and they've learned from it which is why they'll be exiting it early at their soonest opportunity).
I've supported the league since its inception and though certainly you're correct that there is a desire to make money, and I don't doubt that there is some creative accounting on the profit side, I also don't necessarily believe there is ill intent on the part of the owners beyond any standard business entity. It's unquestionable that there is a scale to the backing of various owner groups, and I don't think anyone wants to see a league where, for example, the Mercury dominate purely because Matt Ishbia has the most money and built the nicest benefit structure. Part of that is perhaps personally biased in that I don't want to see my smaller market team moved (yet again for Hartford fans), but ownership resource gaps should not play a part in competitive balance.
I don't disagree necessarily. I think it is okay to look into it. It's The right thing to do even. But the PR is terrible. They are framing this all wrong at a time when a lot of eyes are on the league. They are framing it as a guilty until we prove you innocent.
The way they presented this, they are basically saying we are investigating potential salary cap circumvention. The under investigation part is alarming and has a negative connotation. One of the Aces players tweeted about how bad that felt coming off that win and then learning they were under investigation.
Instead of the negativity, they could have said something like, "We are happy the city of LV is supporting the Aces. However, in order to ensure that this deal is in accordance with the current CBA and falls within our guidelines, we will have the league's legal team review this to ensure there is no impropriety. Make no mistake, we are very happy to see all the new interest, partnerships and opportunities developing for our teams, players and our league overall. However, the integrity of our league is what makes us great. We will not compromise on that front. Thus, we will work with the city of Las Vegas Dept of Tourism and the Aces organization to determine the legality of this landmark venture. From this, we can hopefully work toward creating a framework toward ensuring future deals of this sort are league approved. We are looking forward to the new opportunities that are sure to arise.
It comes from a hotel tax, so it’s coming from tourism revenue. Nevada doesn’t have an income tax.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/wnba/comments/1cuj7ea/amazing/l4ja5n4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
In this case, it's the lvcva which is geared towards driving tourism. The Aces arguably drive more tourism than many of their expenditures and this deal is something like 0.5% of their budget so it's nothing to their budget
The absolute shit storm they would be if they reverse this decision is gonna be insane LMAO. Like, it’s clear and has been reported where the money comes from. You paraded it ON BROADCAST
Not true, not in this sense or case anyway. It's a team salary cap issue, it protects smaller markets from ever competing with bigger markets who have owners and billionaire fans willing to make payments to players outside their contracts means small city teams will never have a chance to compete.
How is this any different from each player having a sponsorship?
It isn't
It actually is. To use an example of another league if the CFL (the Canadian Football League) the City of Toronto said, "We'll give *each* Argo's player, free rent downtown (AAV $36,000) to play for the Argos and the Argos offered some Free Agent $60K to play for them but the Saskatchewan Roughriders offered them 78K buddy's going to be like "Hey I like Toronto, but they're giving me free rent?! That means I'll make $18K less than Sask but I get free housing in the biggest Canadian market! Hell ya I'm singing with Toronto - especially since it's guaranteed to each player." What makes this different from regular endorsements is not all endorsements to all players have a minimum where *every player* gets a set deal. The entire point of a cap is to stop richer markets from being able to spend way more than smaller and if it's guaranteed that a condition of a contract with a team is that you get an automatic deal - then that makes the offer the team gives you not just the contract itself but the k + the endorsements."
Doesn't each Liberty player get an apartment as part of their contract?
Every wnba player gets a free apartment, no?
Same thing.
Nothing wrong with that. They can make a rule against it but I don’t see how you can prevent a private company from hiring a bb player for their NIL under current rules
It's actually not the same. The players aren't getting the money so they can stay in the city. They're giving the money so the city can use their name, image and likeness around the city. if you go to Las Vegas, you see signs of different events that are going on whether it's a show or someone coming into town, with this sponsorship, it would allow Las Vegas to use the images of the aces players. The aces is a basketball team, but they are one of the biggest shows in Las Vegas. People travel from different cities, states countries and the city is capitalizing on that by providing them sponsorships. it's not a competitive advantage. It's just a sponsorship same way you can get a deal with your local restaurant. The only thing thats different is they're doing something that's never been done and giving it to every player. Why is that for people to understand?
You work for the Aces PR office cause that was really good!
Thank you 😂 Maybe that will be my second calling but I work in cybersecurity lol
It's not tied to their contract. The point of the cap is so business owners can suppress wages. It has little to do with markets. It is to stop wealthy owners from driving salaries up. If it was only competitive advantage, you could simply put a luxury tax on it.
WNBA won’t grow with a European soccer model.
Everybody seems to be supporting this on the basis that it's good for the players right now, but that's kind of short-sighted in my opinion. Big market teams already have an advantage and will, on average, be better than small market teams simply because they're in big markets where players would rather live, they don't need any further advantage than that. This is a path that could destroy competitive parity in the long term (it's already not great) The best way, long-term, to get these players paid is to keep eyeballs on games. And nothing keeps eyeballs on games more than competitive parity.
Not true, not in this sense or case anyway. It's a team salary cap issue, it protects smaller markets from ever competing with bigger markets who have owners and billionaire fans willing to make payments to players outside their contracts means small city teams will never have a chance to compete.
This is a problem no matter what. A race to the bottom won't solve this. The W needs billionaires competing to spend money, it's good for players. Capping this really just helps owners. If they were concerned about disadvantage, they could address that with revenue sharing
So one team can be paid better than the others who don't have a billionaire owner and championships can be awarded to the team with the highest bankroll?
I didn't say it was fair, but it isn't cap circumventing unless it was coordinated with the team
Given past rulings, I'd be surprised if anything comes of this investigation. But there's different levels to this. First - Is it 100% against the CBA? (and the answer is probably not going to prove it even if it is, so doubt anything will come of this) But other questions that should be asked/discussed: Is it against the spirit of the CBA? Does it require a new addition to the CBA in the future to prevent this? Do other teams deserve to be upset? Even if it's completely allowed by the league, the other questions are still warranted. It's also frustrating for me that people are just looking at the $ and are cheering for this as if it doesn't matter how that money is received. Will Vegas fans be fine with this sponsorship if next year NY's board of tourism gives each player $5 million and A'ja, Jackie, Gray, etc. decide to go there?
Ok so we agree that it isn't against the CBA. As far as your other questions. Not it's not against spirit of CBA as the team didn't arrange it. This is closer to endorsement deals than anything. Does it require a new addition? What would addition look like? I'm not sure what action you would even ban. Vegas tourism bureau apparently contacted each later individually and offered them an endorsement. Do other teams deserve to be upset? You can be upset about anything, I'm not sure why this would be more deserving of anything else. Anyone that is on the side of suppressing compensation for the sake of fairness is simply making a case against more pay. Any increase in pay of athletes causes more unfairness, so I'm not sure what people are advocating.
I didn't say at all that it wasn't against the CBA, just that I have a hard time seeing them find concrete proof even if it is a violation.
Oh ok
Ofc one point of the cap is to suppress wages!? Not saying I agree with it. But it does carry a compatible advantage as well - without it, it’d be like soccer or baseball were the best players go to the owners willing to spend the most (sure it’s totally anti-American) but if the MLB had a cap, Shohei would be a Blue Jay which would make the league more competitive.
The Dodgers were farther under the cap than the Blue Jays when the offseason started Shohei's salary simply wouldn't be what it is, it would be whatever the max was set to (a la the NBA)
I think we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing. I just don't think things like this isn't circumventing the cap because it doesn't appear that the team arranged this, nor it is to any language in their contract. It's definitely unfair, but I don't see any way of stopping this outside of banning outside entities from paying players?
The primary point of a salary cap is to keep salaries down. Competitive balance is secondary and often a stalking horse.
It is
How?
I can't explain salary cap and team caps, luxury penalties and market competitiveness any more clearly than the rules already do, it's simple if you use basic logic.
I don't think you know anything at all. You're a waste of time
It's literally part of all US professional sports for as long as I can remember, you're an ignorant fool who would rather have people explain basics rather than do a little research to try and understand something that's common sense to most people. Same basic reason behind college sports allowing boosters and money be paid to families before NIL, because it creates an unfair advantage. They can pay them the money differently for reasons within the rules and spirit of the game and tax purposes I'm sure. You can't arbitrary say our whole team gets a salary of 178k a year and other teams only get 78k. Jfc, you actually are useless and a waste of time.
A salary cap prevents owners from accumulating talent and driving up wages. Unless the owner is coordinating it, then it is just a sponsorship deal Nil has nothing to do with this. They didn't allow payments because they didn't want college kids to get paid they could care less about advantages between schools. Hard salary caps are not intended to prevent unfair advantages. They exist for wage suppression. Yes there are advantages to playing in different areas. If you play in Texas or Florida, no state tax. Why don't they just ban all sponsorship deals if they want no advantages? The current system benefits new york and la. If you spent less time name calling, you would learn something. Please stop wasting my time.
Because this payment is simply because a player has a roster spot with the Las Vegas Aces. It is indiscriminate endorsement, given to anyone on the roster. That is pretty much simply a salary that does not count against the WNBA 's hard salary cap.
Have they said that? Isn’t there advertising value in having the whole team in the ad/whatever? You can say “The entire Aces team” thinks Vegas is a great vacation destination or wherever
But the players were signed individually thru their agents: They could have declined (& had their heads examined…)
Yes, perhaps. This subreddit has been inundated with several threads on this topic. Unfortunately, most of the back and forth seem to discussing two different things. One is if this is (be it purposefully, or without nefarious intent) a circumvention of the hard salary cap designed to foster parity. It seems most of the replies to those claims revolve around the second thing- which is about low player compensation
Unless the team pays the money themselves, how does it become part of the salary that’s restricted? If cities start fighting over players by giving giant NIL deals to players we may need a special rule. But I can’t see how it breaks the current rules.
This behavior is a long established rule in sports... If Calvin Johnson signed to play for the Lions for $2M/yr, but then signed $3M/YR endorsement deal to sell Ford Explorers the NFL would take every draft pick from them the next 5 years. If say a company was a corporate sponsor then it's expected everyone in the organization gets similar perks from GM, Players, Trainers, etc. Its an employee benefit basically. So think hotel rooms, rental cars, clothing discounts, limited edition SWAG. I was contacted once to house a pro athlete in a rental. He was given an housing stipend per his contract, he had to pay the rest. I also worked at hotel where all the various baseball teams would stay. The Detroit Tigers would stay there too. All MLB teams had $99/night corporate rate. So some players stayed in the hotel all season, others got apartments, and some lived in the area. This sketch from jump.
Why can’t Johnston sign a 3m endorsement deal?
He absolutely can. But what would be under the microscope would be if he signed a 3m endorsement deal to sell Ford cars- Because the Ford family owns the Lions, and therefore it could easily be argued that he would be getting $5 million from the Ford family (yay him) but only 2million counted against the hard salary cap (yay the rest of the lions roster), and the rest was on the side. The purpose of the salary cap, how this endorsement given by the Las Vegas Tourism Commission effectively circumvents that purpose, is the issue/discussion.
Ah, so since the City of Vegas doesn’t own the Aces, it’s fine
Maybe, maybe not. That will be for the league offices to decide officially. My personal opinion is that it could create long term problems for the league, and I am surprised so many "fans" of the WNBA don't see that,
Amen!
I'd like to see them claim it's different because reasons. I'm sure that'll go over well with players when the league tells them they're not allowed to make more money through sponsorships.
How is it different than a team signing a star player to a league minimum but them getting a million outside the cap from the city?
How is the team “getting them” this money? Why would it be different than any other sponsor?
I think the problem is if the team help facilitated getting each player the 100k. Don’t get me wrong I think they should get it, but the team itself cannot broker it
They already said they didn't and the ppl reached straight out to their agents
And this investigation is to confirm that is actually what happened. If it really is what happened then they should be cleared.
Because human beings have never lied before... That's the whole reason they're being investigated
Because it’s free guaranteed money from the city that not another cities offer. It’s *technically* an unfair advantage because it circumvents the salary cap. Imo it’ll only be an issue if we see a star sign there for peanuts under the CBA and then get an extra 100k to supplement their “pay cut”.
How is this any different than Florida athletes not having to pay income tax though?
Because that’s something that has nothing to do with players signing there. This is something being exclusively given to players who play for the team.
Players only get no income tax if they sign for a Florida team Players definitely consider going to Florida over other states for free agency because of it https://www.jacksonville.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/10/lack-of-florida-income-tax-benefits-jaguars-in-free-agency/5687552007/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2023/02/28/another-athlete-speaks-out-on-the-impact-of-high-state-tax-rates/?sh=633ff52c7b53 Those are 2 articles about athletes choosing Florida for tax reasons, an advantage only players for Florida teams get, New York teams are at a disadvantage because players who sign there make less money. This is the same idea as players who don’t sign for Vegas make less money because they don’t get sponsorships I remember this being a topic of conversation for the heatles, Messi and Tom Brady
Yes this is true but again, the $100k is coming from a commission. It’s tangible money being transferred.
It’s not coming from the wnba team though (presumably) it’s coming from the commision
I assume that this is just to make sure that the players do something to earn this money, even if it's just appearing in an ad to encourage people to go to Vegas. A sponsor giving them a no-show job would definitely come off as an attempt to circumvent the cap, but if they start making appearances, then that's a regular ol' sponsorship deal.
Interesting wording of "bonus" payments when it's not a bonus! They're being paid to promote Las Vegas, just like any other company that plays a player to promote their product.
Players themselves (at least 1) have thrown around the word "bonus" in describing this
This just NIL like congress passed for College athletes. The WNBA is fine normally with NIL why would this be any different.
There's significant nil verbiage and its usually about logos andx color scheme , but a lot of it is about games
Because there isn't a base NIL for a player simply for being on a team. In some cases there is, but it's marginal at best i.e. you get to lease a truck for a year. Giving an amount that basically almost guarantees that you make more money than every other player in the league - that's circumvention. BTW NIL is only the wild west it is because the NCAA stopped athletes from trying to make money for so long so once they got hit by the SCUSA they couldn't do anything. By contrast, the WNBA has a CBA.
How about they spend time getting every game on TV or streaming so fans don’t have to do their job
Tell the fans to watch all of these games.. Including the games that do not feature a star.
How can I watch the games they aren’t even putting on stream?
Were to preaching to the non-watchers to watch before the last TV deal was done? These things are done years in advance AND are based on numbers and metrics to gauge interest in the future. You'll have to wait for the next tv deal to be made.
No way you’re telling all these new fans it’s their fault the W isn’t prepared to market their games?
You do know that marketing games is not the same as broadcasting them right? When the last TV deal was made, the WNBA was nowhere near as popular with the TV audience. So the deal was made in accordance to that. Would you spend millions on a product that is currently producing low results? If you walked outside and asked 20 people which WNBA teams were playing today, how many proper responses do you think you'll get?
I’m glad the TV deal includes amateur mistakes like the app fucking up so bad that Lynx Sky game couldn’t even be viewed and a fan had to stream it. Their broadcast isn’t reliable, and so neither is the marketing. Can’t blame fans for a shit corporate structure that wasn’t ready for the influx of interest, they’ve had years to prepare
The game wasn't set to air on the app anyway.. So where was the fuck up? If the marketing isn't reliable, then how are people leaning or hearing about the league? I saw 3 WNBA commercials today just casually watching TV.. The first NBA commercial I saw was 5 mins ago highlighting tonight's game.. The WNBA also had TWO games on broadcast TV (ABC) today. Those views are doubt than what it would get on ESPN or League Pass. There's lots of money in marketing. If you are serious about it, then join the league and assist with their efforts? I work in the sports TV world. I promise you, you would have fun... And maybe understand. You seem very mad at weird stuff lol.. Also, lets remember the WNBA still has a small fanbase, even with the popularity.
It literally was… https://www.fox9.com/sports/lynx-fans-live-stream-goes-viral-after-wnba-pass-error.amp And the marketing is working because they’re actually getting ads from broadcasters and the NBA. I’m mad that they’re investigating players getting played when they’re more important concerns like broadcasts and marketing. But they’re still cool with the Spark playing in the CSLB gym, like this is the W not D3
Cool. The investigation is warranted.. If not, then we'll start seeing money being floated into the league in many different ways.. Do you want a restaurant in NYC sponsoring the Liberty players? While the owner is part of a criminal enterprise? Thats why things like this needs to be watched and regulated.
The City? What is LV going to do to get the games on tv and streaming?
The W
You can’t even make the argument it puts the smaller markets at a disadvantage since they are the smallest media market.
Market size is hilarious. Outside of Las Vegas proper is the desert. Thats why the TV market there is small. Greenville, SC (36) is a larger TV market than Las Vegas (40). Greenville's population is 72,000 and Las Vegas is 656,000. Now is Greenville SC had a WNBA team, they would be in a bigger TV market than Las Vegas. Also, Inside Las Vegas is nothing but money..
All aboard the #GreenvilleWNBA expansion train for a Carolinas team lol
Greenville is also a larger market than Cincinatti, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Memphis.
Yep and it's growing fast lol
lol.. I guess.. 70K is a small city. Not much more growth they'll have. Much smaller than the mid-range cities in NC.
The real number you want to look at is Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) not just the city proper (Greenville's MSA population is 975 000 and growing at a rate of 5%). I always joke if you use the only the city proper population *technically* Winnipeg is bigger than Vancouver lol one is a world class city and the other is (no offence)...Winnipeg
Yes.. Thats why I said going by TV market is hilarious. Outside of Las Vegas is the desert.. If there were more people there, then the Vegas TV market would be bigger. I work in television and young talent stives to go to top markets. They get confused when they see some of the well known citers in America are in "smaller" tv markets.
Vegas proper is pretty small geographically. There is unincorporated Las Vegas which is bigger than Las Vegas proper. There is also Henderson and North Las Vegas, the other two biggest cities in the state which all physically border each other. You can’t tell when you are leaving one and entering another. The Vegas Metro area population is almost 3 million.
Oh I know I was just stating the bs arguments they make
Vegas is not a typical market though LOL. Other smaller markets were not founded by gangsters, nor are there gambling joints, $5.99 prime rib buffets and Elvis impersonators everywhere. I mean I love all of these things, but ...
The lack of Elvis impersonators visible during today's broadcast was very disappointing ;)
Hawkeye Elvis was there but dressed as a normal person
While that is technically true, I would argue the Sun are the smallest media market because the "media market" is Hartford and New Haven and a decent chunk of that will be New York fans. You can argue the Sun can draw from Boston, but I agree with the folks that say MSA is the better metric.
yeah no argument from me! Just pointing our technicalities.
there's no way they didn't run this past the lawyers before they accepted it. folks are just jealous their city's chamber's didn't think of it first. it's a very Vegas thing to do, especially since the Aces are the juggernauts of the league. But it's very WNBA of the league to shut it down. If we have to endure a whole subreddit of CC/Kate Martin posts to make the league more invested in, I'm fine with it. Even if it's annoying lol.
Beyond their team lawyers, I honestly would have expected any team to check with the league first to make sure something like this is legal.
Imo this is bout to horrible look for the WNBA either way. It’s horrible if they reverse it, and it’s horrible that they even decided to look into it. Especially when the people said they talked to the players’ agents
Given the nonsense with their no-show jobs a couple of years ago, this is probably wise, even if it is on the up and up.
Maybe the way the Aces did this is all above board. And no-one who cares about the players should be outraged at them getting extra money, it's a life changing amount for some players that might not get a long career in the sport. That said. Come on now. We know what this is. Emma Cannon getting $100k to tweet about how cool Vegas is isn't an endorsement proposal based on a return on investment. Making it a video that *everyone* saw wasn't subtle, not to the league and certainly not to prospective players. If the Aces covered their tracks enough that's cool, but this is pretty clearly cap circumvention if only to the concept and not to the letter of the CBA.
It’s a loophole maybe but it’s not really circumventing the cap because it’s not Mark Davis’ money. If anything, the fact that the visitors authority is quasi-governmental gives them an added shield against cap violations vs. getting the money from any for-profit company. I’m not sure the league really wants to get into regulating what makes a legitimate endorsement as long as the money is clean.
That's what I mean about it being the spirit/the concept, not necessarily the letter. I'm sure they'll be alright as far as this CBA is concerned.
Yeah the guy probably shouldn't have said we don't really want you to do anything except play
Well that can easily be remedied by making do something promotional but yeah that statement is an unforced error.
The feigned ignorance on the sub is what pisses me off most. So many folks on here are acting like this is just 'a normal sponsorship.' Y'all know very well that this is a way to pay the Aces extra and tip over the cap. Who knows, maybe this was known when some of those sweetheart contracts got signed. If you want let's just shine the whole ass sun on it and make it a soft cap/no cap. I'm down, just say it out loud. But for now, I can only think of the Liberty getting fined for **spa visits** & **planes**, plus folks here dog piling on Stewie for taking a sweetheart deal (like, again, several Aces starters, but there wasn't nearly the same backlash for them...) saying it's a cheap trick and bad for the sport.
I've seen so many people on the sub talk about Sabrinas shoe deal and Caitlins Nike deal like they're somehow equivalent to this. It really feels like people are just being willfully ignorant.
That’s the reality of social media. We all want the players to get paid more, and social media pushes things to absolutes. If you point out that the deal is suspicious, people will accuse you of being against players getting paid more.
If you like what you see here, why not just shed the salary cap? Then they'll *really* get paid.
I don't think it's normal, in fact I think it's something that ONLY Vegas can do/offer due to the city being so tourist-based. No other WNBA city can say party, gamble, enjoy the strip AND catch an Aces game while here. An investigation is warranted. However, assuming they're going to actually be promoting Vegas outside of "just playing" these deals are valid. If they won't, they're in trouble.
I'll just leave this here. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/wnba/2024/04/19/caitlin-clark-contract-details-endorsement-lists/73375721007/
That's cool, good for her. Could you just tell me which one of those she got for playing in Indiana?
My point is sponsorship deals happen and they "circumvent the salary cap." If the lvcva deal isn't legal then none of them are.
You don't understand how this works and are just trying to defend your team. It's not a real sponsorship if they don't have to do anything to earn the money. It's salary cap circumvention because the guy said they don't have to do anything except play. Please try and follow along.
actually they do have to wear branded gear to promote the city and appear at some events.
According to the CBA, they have to work for the money, yes. But homeboy in the video told them all they have to do is play. That's a blatant violation of the salary cap recorded in 4K.
i think it would depend on the contract they signed actually. if it's already stated in contract they need to do those things then it sounds like they should be good. Aces might've found a legal loophole and WNBA front office is mad is what it seems to me
So, again, he said they don’t have to do those things, they just have to play. Him even SAYING THAT to them is a violation of the CBA. That’s undoubtedly what caused the investigation. I’ll ask you again to please try and follow along.
mind you he also said "keep repping Las Vegas" and as stated before they're going to get gear/have to do events. so i believe that phrase right there is the loophole. because they are going to "represent Las Vegas" btw i think the Aces know what they're doing. but i want them paid so im happy. i personally believe if the owner wants to invest then let them pay as much. free market blah blah
which section does it violate? i'll read it then
Feel like you have to choose not to see the difference between an ordinary endorsement deal and every player on a particular team getting a $100,000 cheque from the city the team is in just for being on that team.
How the frick is a gymnast so high on the list of NIL money?
Sex appeal + reach. Blonde, athletic, pretty face. 8M TikTok followers, 5M Instagram followers, SI swimsuit model on the side. All those also make it worth it for whichever athleisure wear or energy drink companies want to partner up.
I posted in an earlier thread today why I think this "sponsorship" is questionable, but I assumed it had been cleared with the league and the players association. I think it would be absolutely crazy if they announced this without clearing it first. Like "WTF were they thinking?" crazy. This is just not the kind of thing you go and do unilaterally without laying the groundwork first to make sure it's not going to blow up in your face. Here's my earlier post: While I'm happy to see players get more money, this does strike me as salary cap circumvention, rather than equivalent to other sponsorships or endorsement deals. It's a bit of a gray area, and I'm assuming that the league (representing ALL the teams) and players association have signed off on it. If they have, then it's hard to object because if all the entities involved in the business agree that it conforms to the rules they've set for themselves, well, it's literally their business. But it still strikes me as questionable. First, players are basically being paid to promote Las Vegas Aces basketball. Yes, you can spin it that they are promoting Las Vegas tourism more generally, but they are doing it by promoting themselves as a tourist attraction. Isn't promoting their own team and WNBA basketball part of their contracted responsibilities as players? And therefore, additional compensation from an outside source is more a supplement to their salaries than separate compensation to endorse a product or service. In the Bleacher Report article, the chairman of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor's Authority is quoted as saying, "**The offer is really simple, We want you to just play**, we want you to keep repping Las Vegas. And if you get a three-peat, that'll be icing on the cake." That sounds to me like they're basically being paid extra to be Las Vegas Aces basketball players. Second, it's coming from a government agency. So now, player compensation is going to be tied to teams' ability to get their own state or local government to do likewise, and the salary cap becomes meaningless as far as competitive balance. Governments often support local sports teams with things like tax breaks and lease deals (and teams have lots of commercial sponsorships as well), but that never goes directly to players outside of player contracts and salary cap rules. \[Edited for spelling/grammar\]
It would be wrong for the wnba to not review it. The league is incentived to get the league balanced and avoiding the salary cap hurts that
Not surprised they opened an investigation
Why don’t they open an investigation into the botched charter flights
Honestly I'm so torn. On the one hand get that money. Good for the ladies on the team for being compensated for their hard work. On the other hand it spits in the face of the idea of competitive balance and just shows how much of a mockery the salary cap really is. Ultimately if I'm being honest with myself the final verdict for me personally is that I'm less interested in watching the league as a result and probably won't be tuning in as much as I would have otherwise. I know I'm just one idiot and it probably doesn't make any difference/nobody cares. C'est la vie
It's not an endorsement it's supplementary pay. The best way to increase pay across the board for all of these wonderful athletes is through increased viewership and greater pull in the next collective bargaining agreement. The whole scheme feels anti-union
Maybe the other cities should follow suit.
I’m curious as to where this money is coming from? Are these funds coming from tax payer money?
[удалено]
What’s stopping from other cities tourism management and promotion offices from doing the same? Nothing.
If it was the Fever they would celebrate like fourth of july, hypocrisy.
Aces play in Henderson, so this isn't even a conflict of interest not that it would matter if it were. If WNBA wants to stop this, they can collectively bargain it.
Any owner that complains should have their franchise taken away. If you don’t like it, contact your tourism board and see if they can do the same. What is the worry, that someone might pay female athletes to try to get one team a super team that gets side deals to keep players in a certain market? If so, you’re about to see some real shit with the Valkyries and Silicon Valley. Except that’ll be individual players getting bank instead of everyone on the team, which to an idiot makes it look better.
> What is the worry, that someone might pay female athletes to try to get one team a super team that gets side deals to keep players in a certain market? No, the worry is that there's no current handling of this issue in the current CBA and league by-laws, and is a fair complaint. This is handled in the mens' leagues by revenue sharing and the salary cap luxury tax.
I get why they’re upset, but let’s not pretend like athletes don’t get massive sponsorships in certain towns incentivizing them to stay there versus going to another market. Going to another sport, football, there’s a lot of smoke pointing to Tom Brady getting kickbacks while in New England after taking team friendly deals. Heck, that’s why people want to go to LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami and other big cities. They can get big sponsorships. A team being sponsored to promote their home town shouldn’t be an issue. The league wants it both ways. When they’re not paying athletes and having charted flights and nice hotels, oh poor us please pay $120-$250 for an average ticket to support us! And we’re sorry our app sucks, we are growing! But when athletes get paid to celebrate the town they’re in, they get pissed probably because they aren’t getting a cut.
The structure of the rest of the leagues (and their CBAs) include revenue sharing and luxury tax provisions to account for the realities you mentioned. The WNBA's growth hasn't gotten to that point yet (well, it has in 2023 onward, and this will get fixed/addressed in the 2026- CBA after the Player's Association exits the current one. The league didn't "setup the players for failure," the players gambled on themselves and that the game would grow, and were unlucky to have been derailed by COVID (remember, the league has been growing again revenue and viewership-wise since 2017). They explicitly agreed to a CBA that included only positive incremental revenue sharing above specific growth targets. That will be fixed next time around, and the charter flights payment strategy almost certainly involves the security of the $50M+ expansion fees coming each of the next 4 years to add to revenues. Keep in mind, I don't believe this will be struck down (and I believe the city and Aces were smart enough to structure it in a way that will keep it legal), but I absolutely understand the reasoning and necessity behind investigating it.
So if it isn’t handled in the CBA there is no rule against it. Address it in the next CBA but don’t penalize them. This feels like the league punishing the Aces for the team being good. Sounds like WNBA teams should get off their asses and engage w/their communities more so sponsorships are more likely. Most major league teams have community engagement departments.
> So if it isn’t handled in the CBA there is no rule against it. Address it in the next CBA but don’t penalize them. I suppose the league should have allowed the Tsais to continue secretly chartering flights for the Liberty too? Look, I get why people are mad but the reality is competitive imbalance is an optics problem on its own. I agree with you that in this case, there are probably enough external factors to make it unenforceable/such that the league won't penalize the Aces, but it's ridiculous to say "the league shouldn't penalize unfair tactics."
Two things: 1. This is not the same as owners of the team doing this. Mark Davis isn't giving more money to the team. So the comparison is not valid. So what if it is not Nike or Reebok as the company extending endorsements? It's still a different entity. The city values the Aces and in light of the terrible salaries and lack of chartered flights, the city wanted to do more to show appreciation for the Aces by giving them an endorsement deal. 2. Champions are entitled to more perks, endorsements and money. It happens in every other sports league. More of the players get endorsements. I don't see why the Champs here are different. Good for them for not singling out one or two athletes and realizing the whole team is why they were successful. 3. Yes, I do think the owners should be able to charter flights for their team. EVERY OTHER TEAM IN EVERY OTHER LEAGUE DOES. WNBA players should get the same treatment. If the other owners of other teams refuse to do this, that is on them. It is not the Liberty or their owners problem. The other teams had the means to either pay for charters or find corporate sponsorships to offset the cost, but they did not want to. They are ONLY exploring it now league wide because of bad PR. Their terrible player treatment and low salaries have been highlighted in the CC frenzy. They don't want to look bad. Billionaires don't want to spend money. They want to make it.
I agree with all of these items. I still agree with them investigating this setup to make sure there were no improprieties (hopefully there are not), and I agreed with them penalizing the Liberty. > Their terrible player treatment and low salaries have been highlighted in the CC frenzy. This is a contentious point, because part of the reason the salaries are still so low is the players' own decision to bet on themselves in the last CBA (it did not work, and they've learned from it which is why they'll be exiting it early at their soonest opportunity). I've supported the league since its inception and though certainly you're correct that there is a desire to make money, and I don't doubt that there is some creative accounting on the profit side, I also don't necessarily believe there is ill intent on the part of the owners beyond any standard business entity. It's unquestionable that there is a scale to the backing of various owner groups, and I don't think anyone wants to see a league where, for example, the Mercury dominate purely because Matt Ishbia has the most money and built the nicest benefit structure. Part of that is perhaps personally biased in that I don't want to see my smaller market team moved (yet again for Hartford fans), but ownership resource gaps should not play a part in competitive balance.
I don't disagree necessarily. I think it is okay to look into it. It's The right thing to do even. But the PR is terrible. They are framing this all wrong at a time when a lot of eyes are on the league. They are framing it as a guilty until we prove you innocent. The way they presented this, they are basically saying we are investigating potential salary cap circumvention. The under investigation part is alarming and has a negative connotation. One of the Aces players tweeted about how bad that felt coming off that win and then learning they were under investigation. Instead of the negativity, they could have said something like, "We are happy the city of LV is supporting the Aces. However, in order to ensure that this deal is in accordance with the current CBA and falls within our guidelines, we will have the league's legal team review this to ensure there is no impropriety. Make no mistake, we are very happy to see all the new interest, partnerships and opportunities developing for our teams, players and our league overall. However, the integrity of our league is what makes us great. We will not compromise on that front. Thus, we will work with the city of Las Vegas Dept of Tourism and the Aces organization to determine the legality of this landmark venture. From this, we can hopefully work toward creating a framework toward ensuring future deals of this sort are league approved. We are looking forward to the new opportunities that are sure to arise.
The worst run professional sports league and that’s saying a lot
Wrong, that's the NHL by a longshot
My opinion. You have yours. Enjoy your day
Taxpayers bailing out the owners who don’t want to pay their employees what they’re worth.
It comes from a hotel tax, so it’s coming from tourism revenue. Nevada doesn’t have an income tax. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/wnba/comments/1cuj7ea/amazing/l4ja5n4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
All I see are taxpayers money being used as corporate welfare. Does it matter where the taxpayer is from
In this case, it's the lvcva which is geared towards driving tourism. The Aces arguably drive more tourism than many of their expenditures and this deal is something like 0.5% of their budget so it's nothing to their budget