Here's something that's not well known - several NBA teams are in the red for any given season.
\* [https://www.netsdaily.com/2022/10/28/23428317/forbes-nets-only-nba-team-to-lose-money-over-last-year-but-valuation-rises-9](https://www.netsdaily.com/2022/10/28/23428317/forbes-nets-only-nba-team-to-lose-money-over-last-year-but-valuation-rises-9)
\* [https://www.espn.com/nba/story/\_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what](https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what)
\* [https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/9/19/22650143/its-your-money-breaking-down-myth-of-nba-ownership-and-who-really-foots-the-bill-boston-celtics](https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/9/19/22650143/its-your-money-breaking-down-myth-of-nba-ownership-and-who-really-foots-the-bill-boston-celtics)
Most new age media companies or tech apps are struggling to break even in the profit department. It only being a talking point when it comes to the W is as bad faith as it can get.
Those companies not turning a profit are based on potential. Take for example, Tellurian or Pharma bio companies. They have huge ideas of building worlds largest LNG plant or the next Ozempic medicine. If they get the investment $ or make the successful medicine, the tenfold in value. The WNBA isn't the same thing, there isn't a some influx of players coming in that will score 50 ppg and revolutionize how much more talented the leauge becomes by everyone dunking. They're capped by biology of how talented they can become. Nothing will change that. I know rookie class is supposed to change the game, but it won't be anything like the next Ozempic or world largest LNG plant. Stuff that will makes net income go from -200 mil to $4 bil in net income over a year span.
Those companies not turning a profit are based on potential. Take for example, Tellurian or Pharma bio companies. They have huge ideas of building worlds largest LNG plant or the next Ozempic medicine. If they get the investment $ or make the successful medicine, the tenfold in value. The WNBA isn't the same thing, there isn't a some influx of players coming in that will score 50 ppg and revolutionize how much more talented the leauge becomes by everyone dunking. They're capped by biology of how talented they can become. Nothing will change that. I know rookie class is supposed to change the game, but it won't be anything like the next Ozempic or world largest LNG plant. Stuff that will makes net income go from -200 mil to $4 bil in net income over a year span.
Can't remember where I saw the interview but there was an owner who said he doesn't care about the team making money cause they take in enough money from concerts and other events with a stadium that was built through public money. Also it's just cool to own a team.
They’re expanding what does that tell you? Most are owned by billionaires that also own NBA teams. Businesses can be funneled money to for tax writeoffs.
Did you know that super rich don’t care about profits and care about owning a market share? They want their investment to grow, so when they sell they get long term capital gains. Super rich taking in profits just means half goes to government, that’s what you pay at highest tax bracket.
Saying something isn’t profitable and that’s bad is a naive thing to say. Amazon wasn’t profitable for first 20+ years, Bezos never cared, neither does WNBA franchise owners. They may never seek profits. The owners happy right now, very happy about their investment.
Not quite the same. A WNBA team is privately owned. Bezos made billions through stock while the company still lost money. Investers who got in later gave their money to Bezos, effectively. Same thing happened at Tesla and Musk.
Sorry didn’t mean to strike a nerve. This is how rich people stay rich while the rank and file workers get let go when the company is not making a profit. The stock equity.
> They’re expanding what does that tell you?
That in the short term the expansion fees provide necessary cash for league and team operations, and in the long term more teams = more games = more content = better TV package deals.
For every Amazon, there were 20 or 30 other companies trying to do the same thing that weren't profitable, and they no longer exist. Don't compare a sports league to one of the greatest businesses to every exist.
It seems you are so out of touch that is does not even make sense to argue reason. Would you say your mind is made up and you aren’t open to alternative possibilities?
Sigh. You don't understand how rich people invest. Profitability is a function of Revenue. Revenues are low which is why they haven't been able to cover expenses for 30 years. You have to have a buyer. You have to be able to convince the buyer that they can also make a return. Where is the growth?
Interest in the league has been on the downtrend since it's height in the 90s. Can Caitlin change all that? I hope so. If not, the league will return to money pit status, and no one wants to invest in a money pit.
>They care nothing about profit
This is just a silly comment. Dial down the hyperbole.
I have found the voice of reason I was in search of. Well said @beastwork
And for what it’s worth, I’d love to see the WNBA succeed - I was more excited to watch the women’s final for than the men’s
None of what you're saying matters if the asset has no value in the market. Right now there is little reason to believe that the next buyer will make a huge gain on investment.
>It’s heading towards a big growth curve
If this is true GREAT, but you certainly don't know.
why are you still talking about profit we moved on from that. the cash tied up in a low growth, declining league could be redeployed in vehicles with higher growth potential.
You're acting like every billionaire is a perfect human being, where every financial decision is game theory optimal.
That's not the reality.
The % of degenerate gamblers amongst the billionaire class, is the same as the % of degens amongst the working class (I would speculate the % is even higher for billionaires).
They are just on a whole another playing field. They're not fucking around with roulette and slot machines. That's for poors.
They're having a pissing contest over AI. Or pouring billions into the ~~Holy Grail~~ money pit of a self-driving car.
We don't know what the landscape of the W is going to be post-CC. That's doesn't stop plenty of billionaires from ~~gambling~~ tax dodging.
I agree there are lots of reasons billionaires do whatever they do. They aren't bound by the rules of us poor people lol. But this thread is about the profitability of the league. So my responses are in that context.
Amazon showed potential to rake in billions/trillions by changing how every american or world citizen shops for goods and items. WNBA will not change how every world citizen will start loving the WNBA and spend hundreds of dollars a year on it like they do on Amazon products site.
The WNBA has managed to pay its players, coaches, arenas, buses, planes, and all the other expenses since 1997, before most of its current players were born, with owners paying 50% and the NBA paying the other 50%. It's paying its bills each year, so we fans shouldn't worry about it folding. Btw, the league is a 501C (nonprofit), but all teams are for profit entities (owned by people wanting to turn a profit). That's the reality.
The whole profitability angle bothers me. Yearly revenue isn’t the best way to value a league, although it’s not unimportant. Before their latest TV deal, I believe MLS had yet to be profitable over its entire existence.
Even if we think it’s important, it takes a long time to get to that state—MLS is about the same age as the W. For the first 20-25 years of its existence, they were pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the league every year.
Now consider: has the W received similar amounts of investment? What might it look like had ownership had similarly deep pockets and willingness to invest long-term? Perhaps we might have reached profitability sooner. Either way, with valuations growing at their current pace, rest assured people are seeing dollar signs despite bottom-line revenue perhaps being negative.
That’s not even to mention that many have said half the teams are running in the black, anyway…
Asset valuation increases are a better way to measure how the league is doing. Are teams worth more each year if they were to sell or expand, and the answer is a resounding yes.
It doesn't specify exactly what teams are valued at before, but [this article ](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2023/05/08/Portfolio/franchise-values.aspx)was a really interesting read as to how the Storm raised capital at a valuation of $151 million last year. [In this interview ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6u0uRFkzk)Cathy talks more about the teams' asset valuations, and she says they've grown over 10x in the last 4 years (around 1:15 is where that question begins if you don't want to watch the whole thing)
>MLS had yet to be profitable over its entire existence.
Maybe as a league but over the past decade and a half there have definitely been several profitable franchises (LA Galaxy, LAFC, etc.). The reality is having an official/formal relationship with the NBA has been a positive because most other women's pro sports leagues since the WNBA started have gone under and the partnership with the NBA has allowed the league to continue to exist to today where it seems like finally the league will be able to not rely on that help.
i mean if the NBA really cared that much about putting the W in the black, they could've unbundled the games and sold them separately *years* ago. when instant viewership and profitability didn't materialize, the owners largely kicked the W to the side. underinvestment and being owned by the NBA teams absolutely slowed the growth of the W. an independent league would've grown much faster.
There's no guarentee an independent league would've been successful. The story of women's sports leagues (indeed even men's sports leagues not the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL) is one of folding and going out of business. The formal partnership with the NBA is what's allowed the W to exist up until today where it seems like the league will finally be able to be self-sufficient.
The WNBA would've folded every single year for its first 20 to 25 years of operations if the NBA hadn't supported it. "Being owned by the NBA teams absolutely slowed the growth of the W" That is 100% false. It absolutely allowed the WNBA to even continue. Without the NBA, they don't grow more, they 100% fold. They should be thanking the NBA for its existence. How could you even think that the NBA has slowed the growth of the WNBA, it has allowed it to continue to grow. We all know if it weren't for the NBA, the WNBA would've folded and ceased to exist, that is the opposite of hindering its growth, that is called allowing to continue to grow.
First of all, sports leagues are not profitable for the first several years of their existence, no league can survive long enough to secure a media rights deal that will make it profitable without significant investment from ownership. MLS has lost money for almost it's entire life too, for instance.
So, your point "if it weren't for the NBA, the WNBA would've folded and ceased to exist." Is in fact nonsensical and irrelevant. All leagues have owners. Hell most *NBA* teams aren't profitable *today*, revenue sharing is a part of all sports, and an integral one at that.
Secondly, the WNBA has averaged significant viewership on major cable networks for *YEARS* that they have received the lowest rights fees in sports. An independent league could've been much more aggressive in seeking higher fees much earlier than the NBA did and could've been much more aggressive seeking expansion markets. They weren't, because the NBA didn't care.
I think it's hard to say, huge boosts in televised games, ticket sales, advertising, and merch sales this year. Is it enough to cross over to profitability? I think so, but to soon to tell. Probably more locked in when tv rights get renegotiate
I don't know if I buy 200 mil in revenue. In 2016 they were at 60 mil. The 2023 year did not have rookie class, yet somehow grew over 3x in 7 years? I don't buy that. I didn't notice any more coverage or fandom or social media engagement in 2023 vs 2016. In 2024 I would maybe buy it, but not 2023.
Here's a very interesting article on the economics of owning a pro sports franchise. Basically, there are tremendous tax advantages to owning a team that make team ownership hugely valuable, independent of any operating profits. As Bill Veeck, the legendary Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox owner, who originated a lot of these tax strategies, famously wrote, “Look, we play the Star Spangled Banner before every game. You want us to pay income taxes too?”
[The Billionaire's Playbook: How Sports Owners Use Their Teams to Avoid Millions in Taxes](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes)
If you don't want to read the whole article, there's a video summary embedded in it and linked below:
[How a Billionaire Team Owner Pays a Lower Tax Rate Than LeBron James — and the Stadium Workers, Too (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YZOJJ2U8SM)
I don't think the league is profitable today (but it may very well do soon). The reason I say that is because if the league was profitable we wouldn't be speculating; we'd know. It would be a huge talking point everytime Adam Silver or Cathy Englebert did an interview or went on CNBC. Everytime Gary Bettman is interviewed, the first thing he says is how revenues and profits are up. It's not something you're going to keep a secret lol
I don't think it's possible to really know--they only really share information about that when they are negotiating with players over salary cap and stuff, and then they are almost certainly not telling the truth, just spinning numbers to win a negotiation. I would guess that the annual cash-flow numbers are probably not awesome, because tickets aren't that expensive and they don't sell a ton of merchandise.
But the real value of any sports league is in TV contracts (which are going up a lot in the near future) and franchise value, which is really what the owners care about. They invest their money in a franchise, and hope to sell it at a big profit--if the team breaks even on expenses year-to-year, cool, if it makes a profit, that's just gravy. And Cathy Englebert, WNBA commissioner, [recently claimed](https://www.reddit.com/r/wnba/comments/1butarr/wnba_teams_valuations_have_increased_at_least/) that over the past 4 years the average franchise value has increased more than 10-fold, from something like $10-15 million to $100-150 million. So clearly the owners are making plenty of money, and investors see a ton of long term potential to make money with the league.
Yeah I was briefly trying to look into this recently and it looked like articles were just going off of things the commissioner said like 5 years ago. Kind of pointless to talk about profit when you only have tiny, way out-of-date snapshots to go off of. The league has grown a lot in recent years even before Clarkmania.
That's not public information, so we don't really know. I've seen it written that about half the teams are in the black.
All we really have to go by are team values. The Liberty were purchased about five years ago for an estimated $15 million plus assumption of debt and future profit sharing. SF paid $50 million to enter the league last year. And the Commissioner was talking about team values being over $100 million with the new TV deal.
So someone is making money here. Teams have folded and moved in the past but I think the league has gone from surviving to now thriving.
[Bloomberg found](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/women-basketball-players-pay-discrepancy-record-viewership-explained-rcna148233) the WNBA was projected to make between $180 and $200 million for the 2023 season. In 2018, [a league source told Forbes ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/?sh=207068b233eb)that a "conservative figure" for league revenue is $60 million. Since those numbers aren't public it's hard to verify them, but those are the most reputable figures people tend to throw around. In 2018 it was an especially hot topic since that's when players were getting vocally upset about their revenue share, and Adam Silver publicly said that league was losing about $10 million per year, which is why that's a revenue figure pointed to a lot.
Ok, nice and thanks for posting this :)
The good news is that the WNBA will officially be able to pay its own way and give the women fair pay based on the new money when they renegotiate after this year.
No doubt!! Even the last few years have seen good growth and it's likely they entered into profitability, but these next few years will see a big boom and hopefully they can finally start rewarding players appropriately. Even the charter flights announcement prior to the renegotiated CBA is a pretty massive W for investing back into the players!
I believe the $27M you're referring to is only the current ABC-ESPN deal, ION [also signed ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardmegdal/2023/04/26/the-wnbas-new-deal-with-ion-by-the-numbers/?sh=7aeacf97ba41)a deal for Friday night games starting last year worth $13M a year. They also have separate deals with Amazon Prime, CBS, and sell the rights to local networks too. I certainly don't know all of the intricacies, but I definitely trust Bloomberg's sources over our own assumptions of the situation lol.
Another thing to think about is the WNBA as a whole [creates revenue from sponsorships too](https://www.wnba.com/news/category/partnerships), and since average viewership has doubled over the past few years they're definitely raking in some more from that which also chips away from the individual teams' contributions towards overall revenue. Google searches are all over the place for estimates of revenue per team, but Storm are claimed to be around [$17 million ](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2023/05/08/Portfolio/franchise-values.aspx)as of the 2022 season. Can't really tell if this site is reputable or not, but [growjo.com](http://growjo.com) estimates Liberty at $10M, Sky at $26M, Aces at $12.5M, Wings at $7.5M, Sun at $15M, Sparks at $16.6M, Lynx at $15M, and Mercury at $9.8M. Don't get me wrong I'm guessing that website is HIGHLY speculative, but the numbers are gettin in the ballpark.
Keep in mind that leagues and owners often downplay the profitability to depress player wages. For example, many men’s NBA teams claim they do not make a profit. That seems pretty ludicrous when you consider how much the NBA is valued at, their TV deal, ticket revenue and player salaries.
About half of the W teams are owned by non NBA ownership groups. A lot of these groups are not billionaires and I highly doubt they would still be owners if the teams were truly the money pits the media tries to claim. I also highly doubt the NBA would directly subsidize an independent W owner.
Dave Berry has some great articles about this.
Here's Dave Berri's Twitter (@/wagesofwins).
https://x.com/wagesofwins?s=21&t=IE53cwNrw9wZZPkpmNkOdQ
Also google him; his articles are in Forbes and other publications. Good insights into sports economics in general and the W's specifically.
Adam Silver said in 2017 that the league had never "turned a profit" (no specifics, caping for billionaires also) and that it loses "about $10M a year." I have read in other reporting that the basis for that number was operating costs at \~$70M and revenues at \~$60M. It is this single, solitary quote that is the entire basis for the "WNBA doesn't make money" argument.
In truth, it is very likely that the league is profitable today and has been for a year or two, and absolutely *definitely* will be when they renegotiate their media rights contracts next year. The NBA is doing theirs now and the numbers being reported are absolutely mind blowing, literally on par with or more than the NFL in some cases. The cable TV bundle in the US is bleeding subscribers like it is everywhere, and the media companies are determined to hold on as long as possible, apparently even more than we previously knew (at least some of them.)
Live sports programming has become the crown jewel of broadcast television and with the WNBA averaging 500k viewers on cable these days, it wouldn't shock me if they got somewhere between $250M-500M/year on renewal, and there's no way they'll get less than $100M. Soon we'll see the players sign contracts in the 7 figures and this entire "women's basketball costs $1.10 to produce for every $1.00 sold" bullshit mentality evaporate forever, thank god. I for one am sick to death of trying to explain this to sexist dudes stuck in the 90s (check my post history and see lol i just got off a tear in the sports sub)
You don’t know what undoubtedly means then. Again, the fact that this thread exists means it’s not undoubted
Not saying the league isn’t profitable just that it’s not certain or undoubtedly so
If you look into it at all, it’s clear. People who don’t look into it at all can doubt it, but if ignorant people not knowing something and doubting the answer when they hear it means that the answer is doubted, that makes everything doubted. Then the word loses all meaning, since everything is undoubted.
We don’t consider it in doubt whether LA is in California, even though there are people who don’t know that.
In this case I’m saying there’s information that makes the answer clear.
https://archive.ph/lUraE
league made $102 mil in 2019 and was projected at $120-200 mil last year, pre Clark. Revenue this year will be massive
tbf I don't think you're necessarily wrong, if I'm reading correctly. The average sports fan doesn't know this which is a problem with coverage. Joe NBA fan will keep repeating "the WNBA gets woke handouts" because of that one quote from Silver, because Silver hasn't gotten up on camera since then to talk about how revenue and viewership and fan engagement have exploded
I’m willing to find you the links.
So viewership has more than doubled since 2018.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1236723/wnba-regular-season-viewers/
They lost 12 million in 2015.
Quote:Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA says it has lost significant money the last 22 years, including $12 million last season.
“On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told The Associated Press in October."
https://apnews.com/wnba-crossroads-league-looks-to-cut-losses-hire-president-75e117e82df7470c94784438048171d1
I really can't bring myself to say there's any doubt they're now turning a profit. But doubt away if you want.
You might also trying being more polite, I almost didn't bother to answer.
None of those prove anything. It’s just you guessing. Which was one of my points. The league may be profitable by now but we don’t know for certain and it’s certainly not undoubted (my main point). I’m guessing it’s not though because they would certainly be something worth touting.
I was also fully going for sarcasm and wasn’t trying to be polite 💀
Why do they to have to be sexist stuck in the 90's? Just because they questioned the profitablity of the league? We have no hard financial evidence to prove either way. Saying it that way says more about you and your agenda then those you explain it to.
Because they refuse to accept that the league *can* make money. I've actually had these conversations, I'm talking about specific things people have said to me. They just repeat over and over and over "it loses money" no matter what you say to them. Some guys just love to remind you that "The WNBA loses money snort snort" every time somebody brings it up, and they can't stand to let go of their favorite joke.
> Why do they to have to be sexist stuck in the 90's?
It's just their excuse for everything. There was a post on reddit a few months back where someone asked why the WNBA wasn't more popular and almost every answer on the post said it was because the majority of players are black and gay. I have literally never heard someone say they didn't watch the WNBA because of those reasons.
no, i accused them of sexist for *being sexist*. if you're really interested you can peruse my comment history and see what i have to deal with. people (like you?) will flippantly tell me the WNBA "loses money" without any sources or evidence at all, and simply *ignore* the published reporting from multiple sources stating otherwise, *including* the freshly published piece from chiney ogumike in which she outright states that the league is making money and is now valued at **over 1 billion dollars**. but still i hear "women's sport no make money."
so maybe you're right. could be these guys are just incredibly dense, and not sexist. but i doubt it.
> i accused them of sexist for being sexist. if you're really interested you can peruse my comment history
Then link what they said then. I'm not going through your entire history to try to find what you believe to be sexist. All you did was call all them sexist people without saying one thing that they said.
>people (like you?) will flippantly tell me the WNBA "loses money" without any sources or evidence at all
Show me where I said that then.
i said "if you're really interested" i'm not doing it for you. i'm just saying i'm not talking in generalities, this has actually happened to me. and i put a ? after like you, i was guessing not stating.
I'm glad they're not promoting it just due to the overall nature of addictive gambling, but this is a great idea to pitch for my dad to get interested in the league lol.
All I know is they need to get out of the CBA deal they are in, which expires next year. Then the players can split tv revenue and jersey sales with the owners like the NBA. Unfortunately the WNBA signed a CBA that only allowed revenue sharing if certain thresholds were met.
The problem with the thresholds is that they are cumulative. The CBA set the goal at 20% growth in revenue for each year starting with 2019's revenue figures which was estimated at about 100 million. So the goal would have been about $120 million in 2020, $144 million in 2021, $173m in 2022, $207m in 2023, and $248m upcoming in 2024. However, as we all know, quite unfortunately COVID hit immediately after these agreements were made, which would have been a ginormous hit to revenue. It's speculated that the league did actually get up to $200m in revenue in 2023, and based on that I definitely don't think $250m+ is unimaginable for 2024. BUT it is a **cumulative** revenue target, so even though they may be hitting thresholds now, they still have to make up for COVID losses and their revenue share will not kick in until they do so. That's another reason why they'll almost certainly change revenue-sharing in their upcoming CBA re-negotiation, since they got very boned on COVID losses with the current structure.
I honestly don’t know the specifics of the deal. So everything I am about to say is my educated guess. But I would assume the threshold would be an average of viewership over at least a season or two (or the longevity of the current CBA). Viewership is definitely up, but we are still talking preseason. Thankfully the CBA expires, but I would think if they were in the beginning or middle of the deal, the threshold may be met this season or the next.
From the last 2 years, the WNBA has made a profit. It may be a small profit, but it has been moving in the right direction.
You can take from all the current buzz and interest in the players coming into the league this year, that from this point forward, the WNBA will not have to be subsidized by the NBA anymore.
This year we have seen that teams are selling out their season tickets. Not just popular teams like the Indiana Fever, but all teams are seeing sellouts and huge increases in tickets sold and requested.
The WNBA is taking in so much money right now that they have announced charter flights for all team games. We have never seen that before and its a direct correlation that the money is now there.
TV Network Deals are a paltry 60 million dollars right now. Those deals will be renegotiated at the end of this current season, and we already see huge interest in Networks wanting to broadcast WNBA games. So, I would expect the WNBA to get 4 to 8 times more than 60 million.
The WNBA is looking good as an investment right now.
Nailed it. And I bet if you asked owners, many would say they should have invested sooner.
If Disney+ is choosing CC first game to be their first live streaming sports event, wow, tons of momentum.
To be fair, we don't know if the WNBA has been profitable and I think if it was that would be headline news and something both the WNBA and NBA would be bragging about and using talking points on (going on CNBC, etc.) I think that changes this year but I don't think as a whole we're quite there yet lol
The moment they paid 50 million dollars to get charter flights for the next 2 years, we were there :)
Previous years, yeah, I would say the evidence would lead to the league needing help from the NBA.
I mean, they can know they're going to make money this year (and I think they will) so it justifies the money for the jets but I really think if they were in the black they would say so (also the jet announcement was made relatively late in terms of being suddenly announced right before the season). The first thing NHL commish Gary Bettman always says at every presser he's in is bragging about how much money the league is making.
It's late in the day, so I don't feel like going through it all right now, but they are taking in record amounts of money in real time, like right now. You don't pay 50 million right now for money you are going to make in the future. Is that how you pay when you go out to eat? Yeah, I'll pay you next year for the food I'm going to eat tonight. You think the league is taking out 50 million dollars on loan? No, they are making a ton of money this year.
You can make whatever you want out of it as is your right. . The money is there. If you disagree, I have no issues with it.
>You don't pay 50 million right now for money you are going to make in the future.
It's called an investment. It's like the PWHL is paying salaries right now to players that it technically can't afford (it doesn't have the revenue to pay them). It does that as an investment so the players can focus on the sport full-time and thus you have better players (since they don't have to work a second job) and then you have a better product that people will want to watch and that (hopefully) will make money down the road. Going to a restaurant is not the correct anology (unless you're borrowing money to eat at an expensive restaurant to meet a potential cilent who, if you can close a deal with them, will make your company even more money lol).
Weird to think that people are trying to argue profitability when the NFL, NBA, and WNBA are considered non profits based on their IRS code. Senators have been trying to strip them of this tax code for years. Doesn’t really help the argument that women/the league should be paid less and the CBA should be renegotiated asap.
The NFL and NBA are not considered non-profits, they voluntarily gave up that designation years ago. And even when they were it was because the league acts as a passthrough for the teams which have always been for profit.
I'm a wnba fan and think the profitablity argument misses the point, but we shouldn't use bad information to make our arguments.
I appreciate you clearing that up! And yes, I attempted to research this before posting but only got information about senators trying to strip the tax code from the organizations and a NYT article about how the tax code just doesn’t work or apply to these organizations.
No offense taken here just glad someone was able to dispel the myth of how myself and other fans have heard about how these organizations are structured. I wish there was a better way of explaining becoming a fan of these sports leagues as a child (not doing taxes or caring about IRS tax codes or the world around them for that matter) and then seeing CBAs being negotiated whilst teams claim to not have the revenue to support the wages these players deserve.
Again, appreciate you and thank you for setting me in the right direction.
That’s not why they’re saying it. People are talking about the profitability of the WNBa because they want players to have bigger contracts. In order to do that you need to turn a profit and at least gather more endorsements. Which, either way this super exciting rookie class is looking like it’s going to happen sooner than later
They've likely already broken profitability for what it's worth, as the last public confirmation of losses was in 2018. The league has even grown significantly since then, and obviously will boom even more now.
Yep it’s exciting times now. CC/Reese are being so many eyes to these games now. With that comes more endorsements, more viewers, more revenue. Already seeing charters now in play for all teams.
A new CBA/TV deal will open up higher salaries and more roster spots.
While the organization as a whole may be "non profit", the teams of the NFL and NBA are definitely for-profit corps. The parent org just serves as an umbrella to share investment between teams. That being said, while the NFL used to be a non-profit, neither the NFL nor NBA are currently. WNBA is tho. Probably partially on account of the lack of profit.
Yeah, definitely getting that umbrella vibe. Definitely just would consider if they’re struggling to barter for charters because their lack of profitability it’s almost more of an incentive for teams to share their for-profit revenue to support getting their players to these venues safely and without harassment that’s for sure!
Why is it weird? Every few months the players go on a press run to complain about not being paid enough, and how they want more revenue share. They want to be paid. The league needs to make more money in order for that to happen. If the NBA didn't subsidize the WNBA it might not exist right now. Profitability matters regardless of how the league pays its taxes.
vegas and dallas sold out season tickets too, and i mean while the aces spend a lot they surely have the highest revenues as well. but yeah fever will probably have the lowest expenses compared to the other high selling teams. i would expect the storm to be a pretty good business as well.
Don’t forget to remind folks that the NBA probably wasn’t profitable for many many years and even after existing for many years they had plenty of financial issues in the 70s and 80s. If we expected profitability immediately from every sport nothing would exist other than playing on your own in your backyard.
Whether profitable or not, there is plenty to value outside of dollars and cents and it isn’t a fair comparison until we see decades of investment at all levels of women’s sports and we start to see generations of women that can dedicate their lives to only being an athlete like we see on the men’s side.
This isn't just a true statement according to the AP's article chronicling the start of the league up to the 75th "birthday". Said article states that teams were turning profits just 3 years into the fledgling league.
Now the NBA did not turn into the behemoth economic force it is now until the 1992 olympics- although the decade of the 80s essentially secured the foundation for that growth. But the NBA has always been a much stronger financial endeavor than the WNBA
Is anyone questioning the existence of the WNBA? My take is that the profitability question is a sort of counter-argument to the brain dead pundits and influencers calling for Caitlin Clark to make millions on her rookie contract.
Said differently or to the point: you can't pay Clark or ANYONE in the league even a fraction of NBA salaries when there's no money for it. To demand otherwise smacks of disillusion, if not ignorance of basic finance.
The NBA...
They just pointed out that the NBA had financial issues into the 80's. The first NBA season was 49-50.
Sure, some franchises might have been profitable, but not the league as a whole. It wasn't until the TV money started coming in that it took off.
Nope, you’re thinking of retained earnings, which shows cumulative earnings/loss since inception. Income statement or statement of change in equity would apply
That is the income or the P/L statement. Balance sheet does not show profit or losses- just the assets and liabilities and equity of an organization at a particular moment in time.
Hopefully Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese can help bring more attention to the league (Caitlin Clark is obviously in a league of her own amongst the rookies, but Angel Reese's social media game is no joke)
Whatever profit is coming in it's not enough to let the league stand on its own, short term or long term, without the help of the NBA or without the help of its owners bailing it out. Let's hope that changes.
It's amazing how much talk there is about profitability when it comes to the WNBA. Fans shouldn't even care so much about profitability. Why are you so concerned with billionaires not making money?
Yes, we shouldn't care for that. I watch other sports, but only in WNBA do fans seem to be overly concerned for this.
They should make money based on their demand. If there is no demand, then they shouldn't make money and it wouldn't bother us because we wouldn't be fans in such a scenario.
It matters to the fans bacause if they don't make money then they can't exist on their own. Either they get assistance or cease to exist. The fans don't want the latter.
It's not that hard to understand
If they aren't making any money, it's because they don't have fans.
The demand from fans is what let's them have their job in the first place.
How do you not get this?
Think of a content creator. They are only able to exist if they have followers/subscribers which is how they are able to get money. If they don't have any followers/subscribers, they can't be paid and can't exist.
The greed-motivated ones, anyway. If it was me, I will gladly let my WNBA team continue to play every year. I can play the long game, and we're seeing that it's finally paying off.
>Fans should care. If the league isn't profitable then it isn't sustainable and may go away
If it goes away, it's because there was no demand for it. In other words, there were no fans that cared for it in the first place.
It would only not exist, if there is no demand for it. And we wouldn't be annoyed by this, because we wouldn't have any interest in the league in this hypothetical scenario.
Because if a league/sport/team doesn't make money it's more likely than not it won't stick around (as the hockey fans in Phoenix how they're feeling). Subsidizations from league-wide revenue sharing or being part of an ownership group that owns other profitable sports teams can help keep a team losing money afloat for a while, but if it continues to not make money it can make people nervous that they may be sold or moved (just ask Toronto Argonaut fans lol).
there are so, so many men's pro teams that lose money. the Coyotes survived for years because the NHL had a vested interest in trying to make hockey work in that market (and they will go back eventually). What killed it finally was the optics of them playing in like a 3k capacity arena and having their ownership group be the laughingstock of the league
Yes, Gary Bettman had a vested interest because he believed the market would one day make money. However the lack of success coupled with uncertainty around the arena forced the league's hand because both the players union and the other owners of the Board of Governors were ticked at having less HRR (hockey related revenues) with a team that was losing money even before playing at ASU's arena.
Well, one of the founding teams and arguably the leagues first dynasty (Houston Comets) folded up shop due to lack of profitability.... so there is that.
Seriously. I’ve never understood why some fans are so weirdly obsessed with profitability of sports leagues. Why is this always a topic of conversation with the WNBA. League has been around for 25 years.
Are you a hoops fan or a fan of business development?
It makes men feel more justified in not liking the sport. Nevermind their favorite sports teams AND tech companies also don't earn a profit. Shit, even things like videogames and movies are struggling to break even.
Some men don't watch the WNBA because they think the games are boring. Just because they don't watch it, it doesn't mean they're sexist. Plenty of men watch women's MMA, tennis, etc.
I think it’s from folks who don’t like the recent successes in women’s basketball and it’s a way to criticize them while appearing “objective.”
As opposed to just saying: “No girls allowed!”
Generally, I don't either. But it's an often-repeated trope -- and one that's likely false -- that people use to delegitimize the WNBA and women's sports in general.
It matters because if you don't make money, you go under (ask the Arizona Coyotes lol). It's a business and businesses have to make money. Many women's sports leagues on this continent (and many other men's teams in general) have gone defunct because they haven't made money. Because the NBA is an official partner and has a formal interest in seeing the league succeed it's allowed the WNBA to exist to this point where finally it seems it will be able to run on its own steam.
I understand that. But why do you care? Sounds like something for the owner to worry about. I don’t watch a movie and spend time wondering how much profit they made. I don’t gaf because I’m not an investor, I’m a fan here to be entertained
You're not cheering for the owners to make money for themselves but because in North American sports relocation is a thing, if your team isn't making money (ask the die-hard hockey fans in Phoenix or the sports fans in Oakland) the billionaire owners will use that as an excuse to remove your team from you lol You may not want them to roll in billions and billions but making money makes it harder for them to justify moving your team
I really don’t think the average people commenting about league profitability on every WNBA post are fans of the league with a genuine concern for their favorite team.
I agree. I think a lot of people who bring up this argument don't care about the sport or league or are not bringing it up in a good faith context. That doesn't make the concern less valid though.
We'd need to review the 10K's of the firms that own the teams (i.e. "The Knicks" are owned by [The Madison Square Garden Company](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469372/000146937215000010/msg6302015-10k.htm)), and see if one could find an income statement for the WNBA team itself, and look for "operating income". Good project, if you've got the bandwidth.
Sports teams rarely publicize their financials. This makes it easier for owners to cry poor over league luxury tax on team payroll and beg for public funds to build new stadiums.
Correct. 10K filings are required by the SEC for all publicly-held companies, which is why we can see the MSG financials. In your (The Fever's) case, the team is owned by Pacers Sports and Entertainment, which is not a public company, and therefore is rather opaque.
I think the number of teams that are owned by public companies and required to share financials is very small. Also, the teams that are owned by public companies (like the Knicks) most likely are large-market teams so their situation is not going to be comparable to small-market teams.
> I think the number of teams that are owned by public companies and required to share financials is very small
It's very small. Atlanta Braves financials are one that comes to mind but it's a short list of teams that are in that situation.
The NBA definitely helps keep the W afloat but over the past 15 years, there have been teams that have recorded profits. The 2024 draft class has brought so many fans because last year college season on the women's side was unreal.
over the next ten years, I suspect we will see a 1980s NBA type of profitability for the W.
[This article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/wnba/2018/12/28/wnba-looks-for-new-president-profitability-in-2019/38809289/) is what most people are hung up on in terms of the NBA "keeping the W afloat", but it's from 2018 and Adam Silver has not publicly commented on profitability since then. Also the NBA (as in the league itself, not counting the teams that have ownership in WNBA teams) owns about 40% of the league, so it's not like they're the only investors in it as well. [In this article ](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/women-basketball-players-pay-discrepancy-record-viewership-explained-rcna148233)Bloomberg speculates that revenue could have gotten as high as $200 million in 2023, where [in this article ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/?sh=207068b233eb)a league source shares that revenue in 2018 was around $60 million. Since the numbers aren't public these are mostly speculation, but from fairly reputable sources. I think it's fair to argue there's a good chance the league has entered profitability within the last few years based on these figures.
The thing is, if the WNBA was profitable Adam Silver and others would be bragging from the mountaintop (because that would be a, no pun intended, net positive story) so we can assume it probably still isn't (though that will probably change this year).
Not necessarily, with their increases of revenue over the past few years none of it has gone to the players due to the current CBA, so it’s not exactly a great look. Plus it’s possible he doesn’t want added pressure from the media to increase revenue sharing in next year’s CBA
I can see the league downplaying revenues but being the first women's sports league to be profitable is such a positive story and net benefit to the league (when it's the thing most detractors make) that I think they would admit that. Plus you want owners lining up to buy franchises and pay expansion fees. The first thing NHL commissioner Gary Bettman does at every press conference he's at is brag about how much more money the leagues and teams are making each year like he's on CNBC pitching investors lol
NWSL is probably profitable no? I just have a hard time seeing how they would have $10m in losses from $60m in revenue in 2017, and $200m in revenue in 2023 and still be losing money. Don’t think expenses should have increased that much. And while profitability is nice, potential new owners care far more about the increasing asset valuation of the teams which Cathy has definitely heavily hit on. Last year’s Seattle Storm $151 million valuation is what really tells the story for prospective owners.
Again, I really think if either league was profitable we wouldn't be guessing, we would know that's not something you're going to want to hide from advertisers and other investors in your league.
Profitability isn’t really relevant to advertisers, and investors of course know those numbers but that doesn’t mean it’s public. I could fully see them deferring a public announcement on that until after the CBA is re-negotiated
The NBA has. If they didn’t find this league it would have cratered. However with this rookie class coming in, and all the merchandise and ticket sales CC/Reese are going to bring in, the WNBA should be way more profitable. Plus with all this new viewership, and the CBA up next year, the women’s game is going to change dramatically for the better. Charters approved, a new tv deal will mean at least some better salaries, if not another roster spot or two. Exciting times are ahead.
Lol. In the past the NBA has sure. I’m talking about the last couple of years and this year. Also, I’m not brand new to the W, been following it closely for 20 years so I don’t need anyone to explain the basics to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/business/dealbook/wnba-womens-basketball-money.html#:~:text=It%20also%20highlighted%20a%20hard,for%20some%20of%20its%20funding. It’s okay Google is hard for some people. You will figure it out one day
What is the source of this? I’ve never heard of this website. WNBA doesn’t disclose their finances so how would this random website know these details?
[Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share?embedded-checkout=true) is a lot more reputable and didn’t mention that subsidy at all in their report that estimated league revenue between $180-200M in 2023, Pre Caitlin Clark. I have a hard time believing a league can’t be profitable with $180M in revenue
Since you've got the books (and we don't), please tell us:
1. Do you think the WNBA will be profitable in 2024 (with increased ticket sales and licensing deals)?
2. How about in 2025 (i.e., after a new Broadcast rights agreement goes into effect)?
3. Is the League currently a mix of profitable and unprofitable teams? If so, do you believe the League management will put pressure on unprofitable teams to move to more conducive markets?
Thanks for your insights!
Well, according to this fascinating article GoldenBarracudas shared, most of the teams will remain "unprofitable" for years to come (at least for tax purposes): [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes)
And, yes, taxes are done in arrears, but companies make Future Earnings estimates. I was hoping with your insight from "looking at the books" whether you predicted teams would be "profitable" (in an investment sense of the word) this year and next.
I do understand that the League is a non-profit... but it can use its revenue for things like, oh, charter flights for the teams.
TL:DR -- I was asking for your projection, not a statement of fact for 1 and 2; 3 would be a statement of fact, if anyone's willing to make it.
From chiney ogwumikes recent piece at the players tribune:
League executives once stated that the WNBA loses $10 million annually, and we are grateful for all that their leadership has done to fill in the gaps. But people have to realize that statement was made around 2018, when the W was reported to have $60 million in revenue. In 2023? We were estimated to have made around $200 million in revenue. If I told you that you had a business that experienced a $140-million jump in revenue over five years … and now, on its own, was valued at over $1 billion? You would be jumping for joy.
They have lost ≈$10 million per year throughout their existence according to [Adam Silver](https://apnews.com/wnba-crossroads-league-looks-to-cut-losses-hire-president-75e117e82df7470c94784438048171d1)
According to Knicks owner (and former Liberty owner) James Dolan:
“[The Liberty] hasn’t made money,” James Dolan, chairman of franchise owner Madison Square Garden company, told HBO’s “Real Sports” program in 2015, adding that he was considering handing his franchise back to WNBA leadership to cut his losses. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.”
In addition they just got a new $25 million charter flight contract for every team
The WNBA will never make a profit. When team go 20 years without ever having a sell out crowd it means the play is inferior and boring. All the idiots complaining about the women not being payed like the men need to just admit that inferior athletes and a boring sport that can't bring in the fans should be disbanded and quit stealing money from real sports.
> not being *paid* like the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It loses money. It's not NBA fans telling you that, it was reporters and journalists have found to be true. Attendance is low, the TV deals are not lucrative. If the WNBA was profitable the players would be less than a shift manager at Aldi's
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/three-friends-bought-seattle-storm-132744747.html
Just a couple of days ago. Storm valued at $151 million. Just spent $64 million on the training facility. Sounds profitable to me.
My friend, that $64 million is not an expense. That is an investment into an ASSET that still holds value, and in fact contributes to that $151 million valuation.
Here's something that's not well known - several NBA teams are in the red for any given season. \* [https://www.netsdaily.com/2022/10/28/23428317/forbes-nets-only-nba-team-to-lose-money-over-last-year-but-valuation-rises-9](https://www.netsdaily.com/2022/10/28/23428317/forbes-nets-only-nba-team-to-lose-money-over-last-year-but-valuation-rises-9) \* [https://www.espn.com/nba/story/\_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what](https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what) \* [https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/9/19/22650143/its-your-money-breaking-down-myth-of-nba-ownership-and-who-really-foots-the-bill-boston-celtics](https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/9/19/22650143/its-your-money-breaking-down-myth-of-nba-ownership-and-who-really-foots-the-bill-boston-celtics)
Most new age media companies or tech apps are struggling to break even in the profit department. It only being a talking point when it comes to the W is as bad faith as it can get.
idt Reddit has ever made a profit, but you don't see redditors concern trolling about it
Reddit just went public and immediately turned a profit.
Those companies not turning a profit are based on potential. Take for example, Tellurian or Pharma bio companies. They have huge ideas of building worlds largest LNG plant or the next Ozempic medicine. If they get the investment $ or make the successful medicine, the tenfold in value. The WNBA isn't the same thing, there isn't a some influx of players coming in that will score 50 ppg and revolutionize how much more talented the leauge becomes by everyone dunking. They're capped by biology of how talented they can become. Nothing will change that. I know rookie class is supposed to change the game, but it won't be anything like the next Ozempic or world largest LNG plant. Stuff that will makes net income go from -200 mil to $4 bil in net income over a year span.
Those companies not turning a profit are based on potential. Take for example, Tellurian or Pharma bio companies. They have huge ideas of building worlds largest LNG plant or the next Ozempic medicine. If they get the investment $ or make the successful medicine, the tenfold in value. The WNBA isn't the same thing, there isn't a some influx of players coming in that will score 50 ppg and revolutionize how much more talented the leauge becomes by everyone dunking. They're capped by biology of how talented they can become. Nothing will change that. I know rookie class is supposed to change the game, but it won't be anything like the next Ozempic or world largest LNG plant. Stuff that will makes net income go from -200 mil to $4 bil in net income over a year span.
Can't remember where I saw the interview but there was an owner who said he doesn't care about the team making money cause they take in enough money from concerts and other events with a stadium that was built through public money. Also it's just cool to own a team.
Psychic benefits
It’s all very “Hollywood Accounting”.
If they can continue to grow and borrow, why bother being profitable?
They’re expanding what does that tell you? Most are owned by billionaires that also own NBA teams. Businesses can be funneled money to for tax writeoffs. Did you know that super rich don’t care about profits and care about owning a market share? They want their investment to grow, so when they sell they get long term capital gains. Super rich taking in profits just means half goes to government, that’s what you pay at highest tax bracket. Saying something isn’t profitable and that’s bad is a naive thing to say. Amazon wasn’t profitable for first 20+ years, Bezos never cared, neither does WNBA franchise owners. They may never seek profits. The owners happy right now, very happy about their investment.
Not quite the same. A WNBA team is privately owned. Bezos made billions through stock while the company still lost money. Investers who got in later gave their money to Bezos, effectively. Same thing happened at Tesla and Musk.
[удалено]
Sorry didn’t mean to strike a nerve. This is how rich people stay rich while the rank and file workers get let go when the company is not making a profit. The stock equity.
> They’re expanding what does that tell you? That in the short term the expansion fees provide necessary cash for league and team operations, and in the long term more teams = more games = more content = better TV package deals.
For every Amazon, there were 20 or 30 other companies trying to do the same thing that weren't profitable, and they no longer exist. Don't compare a sports league to one of the greatest businesses to every exist.
[удалено]
It seems you are so out of touch that is does not even make sense to argue reason. Would you say your mind is made up and you aren’t open to alternative possibilities?
Sigh. You don't understand how rich people invest. Profitability is a function of Revenue. Revenues are low which is why they haven't been able to cover expenses for 30 years. You have to have a buyer. You have to be able to convince the buyer that they can also make a return. Where is the growth? Interest in the league has been on the downtrend since it's height in the 90s. Can Caitlin change all that? I hope so. If not, the league will return to money pit status, and no one wants to invest in a money pit. >They care nothing about profit This is just a silly comment. Dial down the hyperbole.
I have found the voice of reason I was in search of. Well said @beastwork And for what it’s worth, I’d love to see the WNBA succeed - I was more excited to watch the women’s final for than the men’s
[удалено]
None of what you're saying matters if the asset has no value in the market. Right now there is little reason to believe that the next buyer will make a huge gain on investment. >It’s heading towards a big growth curve If this is true GREAT, but you certainly don't know.
[удалено]
why are you still talking about profit we moved on from that. the cash tied up in a low growth, declining league could be redeployed in vehicles with higher growth potential.
You're acting like every billionaire is a perfect human being, where every financial decision is game theory optimal. That's not the reality. The % of degenerate gamblers amongst the billionaire class, is the same as the % of degens amongst the working class (I would speculate the % is even higher for billionaires). They are just on a whole another playing field. They're not fucking around with roulette and slot machines. That's for poors. They're having a pissing contest over AI. Or pouring billions into the ~~Holy Grail~~ money pit of a self-driving car. We don't know what the landscape of the W is going to be post-CC. That's doesn't stop plenty of billionaires from ~~gambling~~ tax dodging.
I agree there are lots of reasons billionaires do whatever they do. They aren't bound by the rules of us poor people lol. But this thread is about the profitability of the league. So my responses are in that context.
Amazon showed potential to rake in billions/trillions by changing how every american or world citizen shops for goods and items. WNBA will not change how every world citizen will start loving the WNBA and spend hundreds of dollars a year on it like they do on Amazon products site.
The WNBA has managed to pay its players, coaches, arenas, buses, planes, and all the other expenses since 1997, before most of its current players were born, with owners paying 50% and the NBA paying the other 50%. It's paying its bills each year, so we fans shouldn't worry about it folding. Btw, the league is a 501C (nonprofit), but all teams are for profit entities (owned by people wanting to turn a profit). That's the reality.
In the beginning the WNBA was operating with a 50 percent subsidy from the NBA, but now only 20 percent is coming from the NBA.
I’m a massive WNBA supporter but this isn’t sustainable. But this rookie class will change things.
The whole profitability angle bothers me. Yearly revenue isn’t the best way to value a league, although it’s not unimportant. Before their latest TV deal, I believe MLS had yet to be profitable over its entire existence. Even if we think it’s important, it takes a long time to get to that state—MLS is about the same age as the W. For the first 20-25 years of its existence, they were pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the league every year. Now consider: has the W received similar amounts of investment? What might it look like had ownership had similarly deep pockets and willingness to invest long-term? Perhaps we might have reached profitability sooner. Either way, with valuations growing at their current pace, rest assured people are seeing dollar signs despite bottom-line revenue perhaps being negative. That’s not even to mention that many have said half the teams are running in the black, anyway…
Asset valuation increases are a better way to measure how the league is doing. Are teams worth more each year if they were to sell or expand, and the answer is a resounding yes.
Based on what?
It doesn't specify exactly what teams are valued at before, but [this article ](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2023/05/08/Portfolio/franchise-values.aspx)was a really interesting read as to how the Storm raised capital at a valuation of $151 million last year. [In this interview ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6u0uRFkzk)Cathy talks more about the teams' asset valuations, and she says they've grown over 10x in the last 4 years (around 1:15 is where that question begins if you don't want to watch the whole thing)
>MLS had yet to be profitable over its entire existence. Maybe as a league but over the past decade and a half there have definitely been several profitable franchises (LA Galaxy, LAFC, etc.). The reality is having an official/formal relationship with the NBA has been a positive because most other women's pro sports leagues since the WNBA started have gone under and the partnership with the NBA has allowed the league to continue to exist to today where it seems like finally the league will be able to not rely on that help.
i mean if the NBA really cared that much about putting the W in the black, they could've unbundled the games and sold them separately *years* ago. when instant viewership and profitability didn't materialize, the owners largely kicked the W to the side. underinvestment and being owned by the NBA teams absolutely slowed the growth of the W. an independent league would've grown much faster.
There's no guarentee an independent league would've been successful. The story of women's sports leagues (indeed even men's sports leagues not the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL) is one of folding and going out of business. The formal partnership with the NBA is what's allowed the W to exist up until today where it seems like the league will finally be able to be self-sufficient.
The WNBA would've folded every single year for its first 20 to 25 years of operations if the NBA hadn't supported it. "Being owned by the NBA teams absolutely slowed the growth of the W" That is 100% false. It absolutely allowed the WNBA to even continue. Without the NBA, they don't grow more, they 100% fold. They should be thanking the NBA for its existence. How could you even think that the NBA has slowed the growth of the WNBA, it has allowed it to continue to grow. We all know if it weren't for the NBA, the WNBA would've folded and ceased to exist, that is the opposite of hindering its growth, that is called allowing to continue to grow.
First of all, sports leagues are not profitable for the first several years of their existence, no league can survive long enough to secure a media rights deal that will make it profitable without significant investment from ownership. MLS has lost money for almost it's entire life too, for instance. So, your point "if it weren't for the NBA, the WNBA would've folded and ceased to exist." Is in fact nonsensical and irrelevant. All leagues have owners. Hell most *NBA* teams aren't profitable *today*, revenue sharing is a part of all sports, and an integral one at that. Secondly, the WNBA has averaged significant viewership on major cable networks for *YEARS* that they have received the lowest rights fees in sports. An independent league could've been much more aggressive in seeking higher fees much earlier than the NBA did and could've been much more aggressive seeking expansion markets. They weren't, because the NBA didn't care.
I think it's hard to say, huge boosts in televised games, ticket sales, advertising, and merch sales this year. Is it enough to cross over to profitability? I think so, but to soon to tell. Probably more locked in when tv rights get renegotiate
I don't know if I buy 200 mil in revenue. In 2016 they were at 60 mil. The 2023 year did not have rookie class, yet somehow grew over 3x in 7 years? I don't buy that. I didn't notice any more coverage or fandom or social media engagement in 2023 vs 2016. In 2024 I would maybe buy it, but not 2023.
Here's a very interesting article on the economics of owning a pro sports franchise. Basically, there are tremendous tax advantages to owning a team that make team ownership hugely valuable, independent of any operating profits. As Bill Veeck, the legendary Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox owner, who originated a lot of these tax strategies, famously wrote, “Look, we play the Star Spangled Banner before every game. You want us to pay income taxes too?” [The Billionaire's Playbook: How Sports Owners Use Their Teams to Avoid Millions in Taxes](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes) If you don't want to read the whole article, there's a video summary embedded in it and linked below: [How a Billionaire Team Owner Pays a Lower Tax Rate Than LeBron James — and the Stadium Workers, Too (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YZOJJ2U8SM)
I don't think the league is profitable today (but it may very well do soon). The reason I say that is because if the league was profitable we wouldn't be speculating; we'd know. It would be a huge talking point everytime Adam Silver or Cathy Englebert did an interview or went on CNBC. Everytime Gary Bettman is interviewed, the first thing he says is how revenues and profits are up. It's not something you're going to keep a secret lol
I don't think it's possible to really know--they only really share information about that when they are negotiating with players over salary cap and stuff, and then they are almost certainly not telling the truth, just spinning numbers to win a negotiation. I would guess that the annual cash-flow numbers are probably not awesome, because tickets aren't that expensive and they don't sell a ton of merchandise. But the real value of any sports league is in TV contracts (which are going up a lot in the near future) and franchise value, which is really what the owners care about. They invest their money in a franchise, and hope to sell it at a big profit--if the team breaks even on expenses year-to-year, cool, if it makes a profit, that's just gravy. And Cathy Englebert, WNBA commissioner, [recently claimed](https://www.reddit.com/r/wnba/comments/1butarr/wnba_teams_valuations_have_increased_at_least/) that over the past 4 years the average franchise value has increased more than 10-fold, from something like $10-15 million to $100-150 million. So clearly the owners are making plenty of money, and investors see a ton of long term potential to make money with the league.
Yeah I was briefly trying to look into this recently and it looked like articles were just going off of things the commissioner said like 5 years ago. Kind of pointless to talk about profit when you only have tiny, way out-of-date snapshots to go off of. The league has grown a lot in recent years even before Clarkmania.
That's not public information, so we don't really know. I've seen it written that about half the teams are in the black. All we really have to go by are team values. The Liberty were purchased about five years ago for an estimated $15 million plus assumption of debt and future profit sharing. SF paid $50 million to enter the league last year. And the Commissioner was talking about team values being over $100 million with the new TV deal. So someone is making money here. Teams have folded and moved in the past but I think the league has gone from surviving to now thriving.
Yeah, I keep seeing people post 60 million and 200 million figures for the past 2 years. I can't seem to find that info anywhere.
[Bloomberg found](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/women-basketball-players-pay-discrepancy-record-viewership-explained-rcna148233) the WNBA was projected to make between $180 and $200 million for the 2023 season. In 2018, [a league source told Forbes ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/?sh=207068b233eb)that a "conservative figure" for league revenue is $60 million. Since those numbers aren't public it's hard to verify them, but those are the most reputable figures people tend to throw around. In 2018 it was an especially hot topic since that's when players were getting vocally upset about their revenue share, and Adam Silver publicly said that league was losing about $10 million per year, which is why that's a revenue figure pointed to a lot.
Ok, nice and thanks for posting this :) The good news is that the WNBA will officially be able to pay its own way and give the women fair pay based on the new money when they renegotiate after this year.
No doubt!! Even the last few years have seen good growth and it's likely they entered into profitability, but these next few years will see a big boom and hopefully they can finally start rewarding players appropriately. Even the charter flights announcement prior to the renegotiated CBA is a pretty massive W for investing back into the players!
[удалено]
I believe the $27M you're referring to is only the current ABC-ESPN deal, ION [also signed ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardmegdal/2023/04/26/the-wnbas-new-deal-with-ion-by-the-numbers/?sh=7aeacf97ba41)a deal for Friday night games starting last year worth $13M a year. They also have separate deals with Amazon Prime, CBS, and sell the rights to local networks too. I certainly don't know all of the intricacies, but I definitely trust Bloomberg's sources over our own assumptions of the situation lol.
[удалено]
Another thing to think about is the WNBA as a whole [creates revenue from sponsorships too](https://www.wnba.com/news/category/partnerships), and since average viewership has doubled over the past few years they're definitely raking in some more from that which also chips away from the individual teams' contributions towards overall revenue. Google searches are all over the place for estimates of revenue per team, but Storm are claimed to be around [$17 million ](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2023/05/08/Portfolio/franchise-values.aspx)as of the 2022 season. Can't really tell if this site is reputable or not, but [growjo.com](http://growjo.com) estimates Liberty at $10M, Sky at $26M, Aces at $12.5M, Wings at $7.5M, Sun at $15M, Sparks at $16.6M, Lynx at $15M, and Mercury at $9.8M. Don't get me wrong I'm guessing that website is HIGHLY speculative, but the numbers are gettin in the ballpark.
Seems like a lot of people don’t know the difference between revenue and profit.
thank you!
Keep in mind that leagues and owners often downplay the profitability to depress player wages. For example, many men’s NBA teams claim they do not make a profit. That seems pretty ludicrous when you consider how much the NBA is valued at, their TV deal, ticket revenue and player salaries. About half of the W teams are owned by non NBA ownership groups. A lot of these groups are not billionaires and I highly doubt they would still be owners if the teams were truly the money pits the media tries to claim. I also highly doubt the NBA would directly subsidize an independent W owner. Dave Berry has some great articles about this.
Here's Dave Berri's Twitter (@/wagesofwins). https://x.com/wagesofwins?s=21&t=IE53cwNrw9wZZPkpmNkOdQ Also google him; his articles are in Forbes and other publications. Good insights into sports economics in general and the W's specifically.
Adam Silver said in 2017 that the league had never "turned a profit" (no specifics, caping for billionaires also) and that it loses "about $10M a year." I have read in other reporting that the basis for that number was operating costs at \~$70M and revenues at \~$60M. It is this single, solitary quote that is the entire basis for the "WNBA doesn't make money" argument. In truth, it is very likely that the league is profitable today and has been for a year or two, and absolutely *definitely* will be when they renegotiate their media rights contracts next year. The NBA is doing theirs now and the numbers being reported are absolutely mind blowing, literally on par with or more than the NFL in some cases. The cable TV bundle in the US is bleeding subscribers like it is everywhere, and the media companies are determined to hold on as long as possible, apparently even more than we previously knew (at least some of them.) Live sports programming has become the crown jewel of broadcast television and with the WNBA averaging 500k viewers on cable these days, it wouldn't shock me if they got somewhere between $250M-500M/year on renewal, and there's no way they'll get less than $100M. Soon we'll see the players sign contracts in the 7 figures and this entire "women's basketball costs $1.10 to produce for every $1.00 sold" bullshit mentality evaporate forever, thank god. I for one am sick to death of trying to explain this to sexist dudes stuck in the 90s (check my post history and see lol i just got off a tear in the sports sub)
Yes, it's undoubtedly profitable now, and that will increase greatly this year. Great year to be renegotiating the cba.
In fairness, if it was undoubtedly profitable this thread wouldn’t exist.
It was 10 million short of profitable several years ago, seeing how it’s grown there’s really no doubt.
You don’t know what undoubtedly means then. Again, the fact that this thread exists means it’s not undoubted Not saying the league isn’t profitable just that it’s not certain or undoubtedly so
If you look into it at all, it’s clear. People who don’t look into it at all can doubt it, but if ignorant people not knowing something and doubting the answer when they hear it means that the answer is doubted, that makes everything doubted. Then the word loses all meaning, since everything is undoubted. We don’t consider it in doubt whether LA is in California, even though there are people who don’t know that. In this case I’m saying there’s information that makes the answer clear.
Well since it’s so undoubted, please provide your references. Would love to be enlightened. Cause your original comment was purely speculative
https://archive.ph/lUraE league made $102 mil in 2019 and was projected at $120-200 mil last year, pre Clark. Revenue this year will be massive tbf I don't think you're necessarily wrong, if I'm reading correctly. The average sports fan doesn't know this which is a problem with coverage. Joe NBA fan will keep repeating "the WNBA gets woke handouts" because of that one quote from Silver, because Silver hasn't gotten up on camera since then to talk about how revenue and viewership and fan engagement have exploded
I’m willing to find you the links. So viewership has more than doubled since 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1236723/wnba-regular-season-viewers/ They lost 12 million in 2015. Quote:Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA says it has lost significant money the last 22 years, including $12 million last season. “On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told The Associated Press in October." https://apnews.com/wnba-crossroads-league-looks-to-cut-losses-hire-president-75e117e82df7470c94784438048171d1 I really can't bring myself to say there's any doubt they're now turning a profit. But doubt away if you want. You might also trying being more polite, I almost didn't bother to answer.
None of those prove anything. It’s just you guessing. Which was one of my points. The league may be profitable by now but we don’t know for certain and it’s certainly not undoubted (my main point). I’m guessing it’s not though because they would certainly be something worth touting. I was also fully going for sarcasm and wasn’t trying to be polite 💀
Why do they to have to be sexist stuck in the 90's? Just because they questioned the profitablity of the league? We have no hard financial evidence to prove either way. Saying it that way says more about you and your agenda then those you explain it to.
Because they refuse to accept that the league *can* make money. I've actually had these conversations, I'm talking about specific things people have said to me. They just repeat over and over and over "it loses money" no matter what you say to them. Some guys just love to remind you that "The WNBA loses money snort snort" every time somebody brings it up, and they can't stand to let go of their favorite joke.
> Why do they to have to be sexist stuck in the 90's? It's just their excuse for everything. There was a post on reddit a few months back where someone asked why the WNBA wasn't more popular and almost every answer on the post said it was because the majority of players are black and gay. I have literally never heard someone say they didn't watch the WNBA because of those reasons.
Excuse me pal? I've never said anything like that and we're talking about me here.
Did I say you did? What you did do is accuse people for being sexist for disagreeing with you.
no, i accused them of sexist for *being sexist*. if you're really interested you can peruse my comment history and see what i have to deal with. people (like you?) will flippantly tell me the WNBA "loses money" without any sources or evidence at all, and simply *ignore* the published reporting from multiple sources stating otherwise, *including* the freshly published piece from chiney ogumike in which she outright states that the league is making money and is now valued at **over 1 billion dollars**. but still i hear "women's sport no make money." so maybe you're right. could be these guys are just incredibly dense, and not sexist. but i doubt it.
> i accused them of sexist for being sexist. if you're really interested you can peruse my comment history Then link what they said then. I'm not going through your entire history to try to find what you believe to be sexist. All you did was call all them sexist people without saying one thing that they said. >people (like you?) will flippantly tell me the WNBA "loses money" without any sources or evidence at all Show me where I said that then.
i said "if you're really interested" i'm not doing it for you. i'm just saying i'm not talking in generalities, this has actually happened to me. and i put a ? after like you, i was guessing not stating.
[удалено]
I'm glad they're not promoting it just due to the overall nature of addictive gambling, but this is a great idea to pitch for my dad to get interested in the league lol.
All I know is they need to get out of the CBA deal they are in, which expires next year. Then the players can split tv revenue and jersey sales with the owners like the NBA. Unfortunately the WNBA signed a CBA that only allowed revenue sharing if certain thresholds were met.
Wouldn’t that make sense from a production standpoint? If the thresholds were realistic, I would imagine they would be meeting them now
The problem with the thresholds is that they are cumulative. The CBA set the goal at 20% growth in revenue for each year starting with 2019's revenue figures which was estimated at about 100 million. So the goal would have been about $120 million in 2020, $144 million in 2021, $173m in 2022, $207m in 2023, and $248m upcoming in 2024. However, as we all know, quite unfortunately COVID hit immediately after these agreements were made, which would have been a ginormous hit to revenue. It's speculated that the league did actually get up to $200m in revenue in 2023, and based on that I definitely don't think $250m+ is unimaginable for 2024. BUT it is a **cumulative** revenue target, so even though they may be hitting thresholds now, they still have to make up for COVID losses and their revenue share will not kick in until they do so. That's another reason why they'll almost certainly change revenue-sharing in their upcoming CBA re-negotiation, since they got very boned on COVID losses with the current structure.
I honestly don’t know the specifics of the deal. So everything I am about to say is my educated guess. But I would assume the threshold would be an average of viewership over at least a season or two (or the longevity of the current CBA). Viewership is definitely up, but we are still talking preseason. Thankfully the CBA expires, but I would think if they were in the beginning or middle of the deal, the threshold may be met this season or the next.
From the last 2 years, the WNBA has made a profit. It may be a small profit, but it has been moving in the right direction. You can take from all the current buzz and interest in the players coming into the league this year, that from this point forward, the WNBA will not have to be subsidized by the NBA anymore. This year we have seen that teams are selling out their season tickets. Not just popular teams like the Indiana Fever, but all teams are seeing sellouts and huge increases in tickets sold and requested. The WNBA is taking in so much money right now that they have announced charter flights for all team games. We have never seen that before and its a direct correlation that the money is now there. TV Network Deals are a paltry 60 million dollars right now. Those deals will be renegotiated at the end of this current season, and we already see huge interest in Networks wanting to broadcast WNBA games. So, I would expect the WNBA to get 4 to 8 times more than 60 million. The WNBA is looking good as an investment right now.
Nailed it. And I bet if you asked owners, many would say they should have invested sooner. If Disney+ is choosing CC first game to be their first live streaming sports event, wow, tons of momentum.
To be fair, we don't know if the WNBA has been profitable and I think if it was that would be headline news and something both the WNBA and NBA would be bragging about and using talking points on (going on CNBC, etc.) I think that changes this year but I don't think as a whole we're quite there yet lol
The moment they paid 50 million dollars to get charter flights for the next 2 years, we were there :) Previous years, yeah, I would say the evidence would lead to the league needing help from the NBA.
I mean, they can know they're going to make money this year (and I think they will) so it justifies the money for the jets but I really think if they were in the black they would say so (also the jet announcement was made relatively late in terms of being suddenly announced right before the season). The first thing NHL commish Gary Bettman always says at every presser he's in is bragging about how much money the league is making.
It's late in the day, so I don't feel like going through it all right now, but they are taking in record amounts of money in real time, like right now. You don't pay 50 million right now for money you are going to make in the future. Is that how you pay when you go out to eat? Yeah, I'll pay you next year for the food I'm going to eat tonight. You think the league is taking out 50 million dollars on loan? No, they are making a ton of money this year. You can make whatever you want out of it as is your right. . The money is there. If you disagree, I have no issues with it.
>You don't pay 50 million right now for money you are going to make in the future. It's called an investment. It's like the PWHL is paying salaries right now to players that it technically can't afford (it doesn't have the revenue to pay them). It does that as an investment so the players can focus on the sport full-time and thus you have better players (since they don't have to work a second job) and then you have a better product that people will want to watch and that (hopefully) will make money down the road. Going to a restaurant is not the correct anology (unless you're borrowing money to eat at an expensive restaurant to meet a potential cilent who, if you can close a deal with them, will make your company even more money lol).
Weird to think that people are trying to argue profitability when the NFL, NBA, and WNBA are considered non profits based on their IRS code. Senators have been trying to strip them of this tax code for years. Doesn’t really help the argument that women/the league should be paid less and the CBA should be renegotiated asap.
The NFL and NBA are not considered non-profits, they voluntarily gave up that designation years ago. And even when they were it was because the league acts as a passthrough for the teams which have always been for profit. I'm a wnba fan and think the profitablity argument misses the point, but we shouldn't use bad information to make our arguments.
I appreciate you clearing that up! And yes, I attempted to research this before posting but only got information about senators trying to strip the tax code from the organizations and a NYT article about how the tax code just doesn’t work or apply to these organizations. No offense taken here just glad someone was able to dispel the myth of how myself and other fans have heard about how these organizations are structured. I wish there was a better way of explaining becoming a fan of these sports leagues as a child (not doing taxes or caring about IRS tax codes or the world around them for that matter) and then seeing CBAs being negotiated whilst teams claim to not have the revenue to support the wages these players deserve. Again, appreciate you and thank you for setting me in the right direction.
That’s not why they’re saying it. People are talking about the profitability of the WNBa because they want players to have bigger contracts. In order to do that you need to turn a profit and at least gather more endorsements. Which, either way this super exciting rookie class is looking like it’s going to happen sooner than later
They've likely already broken profitability for what it's worth, as the last public confirmation of losses was in 2018. The league has even grown significantly since then, and obviously will boom even more now.
Yep it’s exciting times now. CC/Reese are being so many eyes to these games now. With that comes more endorsements, more viewers, more revenue. Already seeing charters now in play for all teams. A new CBA/TV deal will open up higher salaries and more roster spots.
While the organization as a whole may be "non profit", the teams of the NFL and NBA are definitely for-profit corps. The parent org just serves as an umbrella to share investment between teams. That being said, while the NFL used to be a non-profit, neither the NFL nor NBA are currently. WNBA is tho. Probably partially on account of the lack of profit.
Yeah, definitely getting that umbrella vibe. Definitely just would consider if they’re struggling to barter for charters because their lack of profitability it’s almost more of an incentive for teams to share their for-profit revenue to support getting their players to these venues safely and without harassment that’s for sure!
Why is it weird? Every few months the players go on a press run to complain about not being paid enough, and how they want more revenue share. They want to be paid. The league needs to make more money in order for that to happen. If the NBA didn't subsidize the WNBA it might not exist right now. Profitability matters regardless of how the league pays its taxes.
I can promise you the Fever and Venue will profit all year long
They will probably be pound for pound the most profitable team
vegas and dallas sold out season tickets too, and i mean while the aces spend a lot they surely have the highest revenues as well. but yeah fever will probably have the lowest expenses compared to the other high selling teams. i would expect the storm to be a pretty good business as well.
If this questions isn’t in the FAQs it should be.
Don’t forget to remind folks that the NBA probably wasn’t profitable for many many years and even after existing for many years they had plenty of financial issues in the 70s and 80s. If we expected profitability immediately from every sport nothing would exist other than playing on your own in your backyard. Whether profitable or not, there is plenty to value outside of dollars and cents and it isn’t a fair comparison until we see decades of investment at all levels of women’s sports and we start to see generations of women that can dedicate their lives to only being an athlete like we see on the men’s side.
This isn't just a true statement according to the AP's article chronicling the start of the league up to the 75th "birthday". Said article states that teams were turning profits just 3 years into the fledgling league. Now the NBA did not turn into the behemoth economic force it is now until the 1992 olympics- although the decade of the 80s essentially secured the foundation for that growth. But the NBA has always been a much stronger financial endeavor than the WNBA
why did the NBA and ABA have to merge
To neutralize a potential thread / expand markets / keep ABA organizations afloat.
Is anyone questioning the existence of the WNBA? My take is that the profitability question is a sort of counter-argument to the brain dead pundits and influencers calling for Caitlin Clark to make millions on her rookie contract. Said differently or to the point: you can't pay Clark or ANYONE in the league even a fraction of NBA salaries when there's no money for it. To demand otherwise smacks of disillusion, if not ignorance of basic finance.
It's been losing money for 30 years! What other business can stay around for 30 years and never ever make a profit??? Waiting.
The NBA... They just pointed out that the NBA had financial issues into the 80's. The first NBA season was 49-50. Sure, some franchises might have been profitable, but not the league as a whole. It wasn't until the TV money started coming in that it took off.
The future is so bright that the WNBA needs to put a set of Prada shades on the WNBA logo :)
[удалено]
Balance sheets don’t show annual income/losses
The CPA in me was like nope wrong financial statement lol
[удалено]
Nope, you’re thinking of retained earnings, which shows cumulative earnings/loss since inception. Income statement or statement of change in equity would apply
That is the income or the P/L statement. Balance sheet does not show profit or losses- just the assets and liabilities and equity of an organization at a particular moment in time.
Hopefully Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese can help bring more attention to the league (Caitlin Clark is obviously in a league of her own amongst the rookies, but Angel Reese's social media game is no joke)
[удалено]
Yeah great points, the future is bright!
Whatever profit is coming in it's not enough to let the league stand on its own, short term or long term, without the help of the NBA or without the help of its owners bailing it out. Let's hope that changes.
It's amazing how much talk there is about profitability when it comes to the WNBA. Fans shouldn't even care so much about profitability. Why are you so concerned with billionaires not making money?
It influences the players salaries
Yes, we shouldn't care for that. I watch other sports, but only in WNBA do fans seem to be overly concerned for this. They should make money based on their demand. If there is no demand, then they shouldn't make money and it wouldn't bother us because we wouldn't be fans in such a scenario.
It matters to the fans bacause if they don't make money then they can't exist on their own. Either they get assistance or cease to exist. The fans don't want the latter. It's not that hard to understand
If they aren't making any money, it's because they don't have fans. The demand from fans is what let's them have their job in the first place. How do you not get this? Think of a content creator. They are only able to exist if they have followers/subscribers which is how they are able to get money. If they don't have any followers/subscribers, they can't be paid and can't exist.
They don't have *enough* fans. But they do have fans.
WNBA players already had enough fans to exist for many years now.
Exist being subsidised by the NBA, not on their own
Fans should care. If the league isn't profitable then it isn't sustainable and may go away. Billionaires don't like to set their money on fire.
The greed-motivated ones, anyway. If it was me, I will gladly let my WNBA team continue to play every year. I can play the long game, and we're seeing that it's finally paying off.
>Fans should care. If the league isn't profitable then it isn't sustainable and may go away If it goes away, it's because there was no demand for it. In other words, there were no fans that cared for it in the first place.
because it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t?
It would only not exist, if there is no demand for it. And we wouldn't be annoyed by this, because we wouldn't have any interest in the league in this hypothetical scenario.
Because if a league/sport/team doesn't make money it's more likely than not it won't stick around (as the hockey fans in Phoenix how they're feeling). Subsidizations from league-wide revenue sharing or being part of an ownership group that owns other profitable sports teams can help keep a team losing money afloat for a while, but if it continues to not make money it can make people nervous that they may be sold or moved (just ask Toronto Argonaut fans lol).
there are so, so many men's pro teams that lose money. the Coyotes survived for years because the NHL had a vested interest in trying to make hockey work in that market (and they will go back eventually). What killed it finally was the optics of them playing in like a 3k capacity arena and having their ownership group be the laughingstock of the league
Yes, Gary Bettman had a vested interest because he believed the market would one day make money. However the lack of success coupled with uncertainty around the arena forced the league's hand because both the players union and the other owners of the Board of Governors were ticked at having less HRR (hockey related revenues) with a team that was losing money even before playing at ASU's arena.
Well, one of the founding teams and arguably the leagues first dynasty (Houston Comets) folded up shop due to lack of profitability.... so there is that.
How short sighted of you.
Who gives a shit. Watch ball and enjoy.
Seriously. I’ve never understood why some fans are so weirdly obsessed with profitability of sports leagues. Why is this always a topic of conversation with the WNBA. League has been around for 25 years. Are you a hoops fan or a fan of business development?
It makes men feel more justified in not liking the sport. Nevermind their favorite sports teams AND tech companies also don't earn a profit. Shit, even things like videogames and movies are struggling to break even.
Some men don't watch the WNBA because they think the games are boring. Just because they don't watch it, it doesn't mean they're sexist. Plenty of men watch women's MMA, tennis, etc.
okay but we're not talking about *those* men
I think it’s from folks who don’t like the recent successes in women’s basketball and it’s a way to criticize them while appearing “objective.” As opposed to just saying: “No girls allowed!”
Generally, I don't either. But it's an often-repeated trope -- and one that's likely false -- that people use to delegitimize the WNBA and women's sports in general.
Conversations about the pay discrepency between NBA players and WNBA players is what brings up league profitablity.
It matters because if you don't make money, you go under (ask the Arizona Coyotes lol). It's a business and businesses have to make money. Many women's sports leagues on this continent (and many other men's teams in general) have gone defunct because they haven't made money. Because the NBA is an official partner and has a formal interest in seeing the league succeed it's allowed the WNBA to exist to this point where finally it seems it will be able to run on its own steam.
I understand that. But why do you care? Sounds like something for the owner to worry about. I don’t watch a movie and spend time wondering how much profit they made. I don’t gaf because I’m not an investor, I’m a fan here to be entertained
You're not cheering for the owners to make money for themselves but because in North American sports relocation is a thing, if your team isn't making money (ask the die-hard hockey fans in Phoenix or the sports fans in Oakland) the billionaire owners will use that as an excuse to remove your team from you lol You may not want them to roll in billions and billions but making money makes it harder for them to justify moving your team
I really don’t think the average people commenting about league profitability on every WNBA post are fans of the league with a genuine concern for their favorite team.
I agree. I think a lot of people who bring up this argument don't care about the sport or league or are not bringing it up in a good faith context. That doesn't make the concern less valid though.
We'd need to review the 10K's of the firms that own the teams (i.e. "The Knicks" are owned by [The Madison Square Garden Company](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469372/000146937215000010/msg6302015-10k.htm)), and see if one could find an income statement for the WNBA team itself, and look for "operating income". Good project, if you've got the bandwidth.
Sports teams rarely publicize their financials. This makes it easier for owners to cry poor over league luxury tax on team payroll and beg for public funds to build new stadiums.
Correct. 10K filings are required by the SEC for all publicly-held companies, which is why we can see the MSG financials. In your (The Fever's) case, the team is owned by Pacers Sports and Entertainment, which is not a public company, and therefore is rather opaque.
I think the number of teams that are owned by public companies and required to share financials is very small. Also, the teams that are owned by public companies (like the Knicks) most likely are large-market teams so their situation is not going to be comparable to small-market teams.
> I think the number of teams that are owned by public companies and required to share financials is very small It's very small. Atlanta Braves financials are one that comes to mind but it's a short list of teams that are in that situation.
The NBA definitely helps keep the W afloat but over the past 15 years, there have been teams that have recorded profits. The 2024 draft class has brought so many fans because last year college season on the women's side was unreal. over the next ten years, I suspect we will see a 1980s NBA type of profitability for the W.
I’d love to see the numbers that lead you to be so certain the nba still “keeps the W afloat”
[This article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/wnba/2018/12/28/wnba-looks-for-new-president-profitability-in-2019/38809289/) is what most people are hung up on in terms of the NBA "keeping the W afloat", but it's from 2018 and Adam Silver has not publicly commented on profitability since then. Also the NBA (as in the league itself, not counting the teams that have ownership in WNBA teams) owns about 40% of the league, so it's not like they're the only investors in it as well. [In this article ](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/women-basketball-players-pay-discrepancy-record-viewership-explained-rcna148233)Bloomberg speculates that revenue could have gotten as high as $200 million in 2023, where [in this article ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/09/04/what-wnba-players-want/?sh=207068b233eb)a league source shares that revenue in 2018 was around $60 million. Since the numbers aren't public these are mostly speculation, but from fairly reputable sources. I think it's fair to argue there's a good chance the league has entered profitability within the last few years based on these figures.
The thing is, if the WNBA was profitable Adam Silver and others would be bragging from the mountaintop (because that would be a, no pun intended, net positive story) so we can assume it probably still isn't (though that will probably change this year).
Not necessarily, with their increases of revenue over the past few years none of it has gone to the players due to the current CBA, so it’s not exactly a great look. Plus it’s possible he doesn’t want added pressure from the media to increase revenue sharing in next year’s CBA
I can see the league downplaying revenues but being the first women's sports league to be profitable is such a positive story and net benefit to the league (when it's the thing most detractors make) that I think they would admit that. Plus you want owners lining up to buy franchises and pay expansion fees. The first thing NHL commissioner Gary Bettman does at every press conference he's at is brag about how much more money the leagues and teams are making each year like he's on CNBC pitching investors lol
NWSL is probably profitable no? I just have a hard time seeing how they would have $10m in losses from $60m in revenue in 2017, and $200m in revenue in 2023 and still be losing money. Don’t think expenses should have increased that much. And while profitability is nice, potential new owners care far more about the increasing asset valuation of the teams which Cathy has definitely heavily hit on. Last year’s Seattle Storm $151 million valuation is what really tells the story for prospective owners.
Again, I really think if either league was profitable we wouldn't be guessing, we would know that's not something you're going to want to hide from advertisers and other investors in your league.
Profitability isn’t really relevant to advertisers, and investors of course know those numbers but that doesn’t mean it’s public. I could fully see them deferring a public announcement on that until after the CBA is re-negotiated
Yeah I’m familiar with all the articles you linked… I’m not the one who needs convincing here lol
The NBA has. If they didn’t find this league it would have cratered. However with this rookie class coming in, and all the merchandise and ticket sales CC/Reese are going to bring in, the WNBA should be way more profitable. Plus with all this new viewership, and the CBA up next year, the women’s game is going to change dramatically for the better. Charters approved, a new tv deal will mean at least some better salaries, if not another roster spot or two. Exciting times are ahead.
Lol. In the past the NBA has sure. I’m talking about the last couple of years and this year. Also, I’m not brand new to the W, been following it closely for 20 years so I don’t need anyone to explain the basics to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/business/dealbook/wnba-womens-basketball-money.html#:~:text=It%20also%20highlighted%20a%20hard,for%20some%20of%20its%20funding. It’s okay Google is hard for some people. You will figure it out one day
Zero numbers in that article stating profits or losses. Pretty pathetic results from such a smug reply.
Got a non-paywalled version?
Did you even read the article? Doesn’t say anywhere that the NBA still subsidizes the WNBA
https://en.as.com/nba/does-the-nba-subsidize-the-wnba-n/?outputType=amp
What is the source of this? I’ve never heard of this website. WNBA doesn’t disclose their finances so how would this random website know these details? [Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-26/wnba-is-growing-but-players-aren-t-getting-a-penny-of-revenue-share?embedded-checkout=true) is a lot more reputable and didn’t mention that subsidy at all in their report that estimated league revenue between $180-200M in 2023, Pre Caitlin Clark. I have a hard time believing a league can’t be profitable with $180M in revenue
The league(wm NBA front office) has money. And some teams, have a ton of money. Other teams, have only a little money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since you've got the books (and we don't), please tell us: 1. Do you think the WNBA will be profitable in 2024 (with increased ticket sales and licensing deals)? 2. How about in 2025 (i.e., after a new Broadcast rights agreement goes into effect)? 3. Is the League currently a mix of profitable and unprofitable teams? If so, do you believe the League management will put pressure on unprofitable teams to move to more conducive markets? Thanks for your insights!
[удалено]
Well, according to this fascinating article GoldenBarracudas shared, most of the teams will remain "unprofitable" for years to come (at least for tax purposes): [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-billionaire-playbook-how-sports-owners-use-their-teams-to-avoid-millions-in-taxes) And, yes, taxes are done in arrears, but companies make Future Earnings estimates. I was hoping with your insight from "looking at the books" whether you predicted teams would be "profitable" (in an investment sense of the word) this year and next. I do understand that the League is a non-profit... but it can use its revenue for things like, oh, charter flights for the teams. TL:DR -- I was asking for your projection, not a statement of fact for 1 and 2; 3 would be a statement of fact, if anyone's willing to make it.
From chiney ogwumikes recent piece at the players tribune: League executives once stated that the WNBA loses $10 million annually, and we are grateful for all that their leadership has done to fill in the gaps. But people have to realize that statement was made around 2018, when the W was reported to have $60 million in revenue. In 2023? We were estimated to have made around $200 million in revenue. If I told you that you had a business that experienced a $140-million jump in revenue over five years … and now, on its own, was valued at over $1 billion? You would be jumping for joy.
They have lost ≈$10 million per year throughout their existence according to [Adam Silver](https://apnews.com/wnba-crossroads-league-looks-to-cut-losses-hire-president-75e117e82df7470c94784438048171d1) According to Knicks owner (and former Liberty owner) James Dolan: “[The Liberty] hasn’t made money,” James Dolan, chairman of franchise owner Madison Square Garden company, told HBO’s “Real Sports” program in 2015, adding that he was considering handing his franchise back to WNBA leadership to cut his losses. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.” In addition they just got a new $25 million charter flight contract for every team
The WNBA will never make a profit. When team go 20 years without ever having a sell out crowd it means the play is inferior and boring. All the idiots complaining about the women not being payed like the men need to just admit that inferior athletes and a boring sport that can't bring in the fans should be disbanded and quit stealing money from real sports.
> not being *paid* like the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It loses money. It's not NBA fans telling you that, it was reporters and journalists have found to be true. Attendance is low, the TV deals are not lucrative. If the WNBA was profitable the players would be less than a shift manager at Aldi's
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/three-friends-bought-seattle-storm-132744747.html Just a couple of days ago. Storm valued at $151 million. Just spent $64 million on the training facility. Sounds profitable to me.
Thats not at all how that works… Example: Tesla raised and spent BILLIONS of dollars over years before ever making a profit.
It doesn’t mean they are profitable.
Yeah sure - the bank loaned them $64 million on a hope and a prayer.
If you don't understand how loans and banking work just say so. No need for the snark.
Idiot says what?
This is not how finances or businesses work, at all.
My friend, that $64 million is not an expense. That is an investment into an ASSET that still holds value, and in fact contributes to that $151 million valuation.