This page was created by Collin Hardwick.
Revenues and Pay
The National Basketball Association was founded in 1946, and has since become wildly popular. The Women’s National Basketball Association was only created in 1996, but is nevertheless growing strongly as well.
The revenues of the two leagues are nowhere near comparable, however. In the 2015-16 season, the NBA generated $5.9 billion in revenue (Berri, Basketball’s Growing”). While the WNBA does not publicly publish their revenues, it is known that the numbers are significantly lower, with VICE Sports estimating it to be $35 million at the very least (Berri, “Basketball’s Gender”).
This comes largely from the larger viewership of the NBA vs. the WNBA. The NBA has a deal with ESPN for the rights to broadcast their games on television for nine years beginning in 2014, worth $24 billion (Rubin). This deal broadcasts NBA games globally, and this combined with 108 players in the NBA itself from a total of 42 different countries allows the NBA to gain even more international traction (NBA Rosters). Back home, the stadiums are crowded with fans, with an average of 17,830 people per game in 2018 (“National”). In fact, the NBA is the fourth largest sports league in the U.S.
As an interesting side note, the WNBA actually had a larger fanbase in its 21st season than the NBA did, at 7,716 fans per game in 2017 for the WNBA, compared to 6,631 fans per game in 1966 for the NBA (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing”).
Nevertheless, the WNBA just cannot compete, considering that its 21st season was only last season, and that the NBA has been around for 73 years. The NBA makes considerably more money than the WNBA.
This argument has been used to explain why the WNBA pays their players so much less than the NBA, at $6.2 million for the average NBA player in 2017 (Badenhausen), and $75,000 for the average WNBA player in the same year (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing). Because of this, the WNBA’s most valuable players get paid less than the NBA’s least valued. For example, Diana Taurasi was paid the WNBA league maximum of $107,500 for being an invaluable player in 2014. Meanwhile, in the same season, NBA player Dionte Christmas only played for 198 minutes total, and was paid the NBA league minimum of $490,180, almost four and a half times the amount Taurasi made (Berri, “Basketball’s Gender”).
While the numbers are astonishing at first glance, this still seems pretty logical; if there isn’t as much WNBA money to go around in the first place, then players in the WNBA are not going to make as much as the NBA players, who come from a significantly more profitable league.
However, this is where the term “proportional” comes in. Looking at the bare numbers of the players’ salaries isn’t worth anything because of how much more revenue the NBA generates compared to its female counterpart. As such, it’s the percentages that tell the true story.
The NBA pays its players about 50% percent of its revenue. The WNBA, however, is much lower. The WNBA does not publicize its overall revenue or its players’ salaries, but it was estimated in 2017 by Forbes.com that with the reported average salary of $75,000, multiplied by 157 total players, the players were being paid a total of $11,775,000. This, divided by an estimated $51.5 million in WNBA revenue for the same year, comes out to be around .228 (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing”). So while the players in the NBA collectively are getting 50% of the revenue, the WNBA is only paying their players 22.8% of theirs. And that number is based off of rounded-down estimates, what with the total revenue of the WNBA estimated only from ticket prices and income from ESPN for broadcasting rights, and not from sponsors or other sources.
Above image by Kyle Terada for USA Today Sports. https://www.sbnation.com/2019/2/26/18239499/nba-playoffs-2018-standings-warriors-west-8-seed
The revenues of the two leagues are nowhere near comparable, however. In the 2015-16 season, the NBA generated $5.9 billion in revenue (Berri, Basketball’s Growing”). While the WNBA does not publicly publish their revenues, it is known that the numbers are significantly lower, with VICE Sports estimating it to be $35 million at the very least (Berri, “Basketball’s Gender”).
This comes largely from the larger viewership of the NBA vs. the WNBA. The NBA has a deal with ESPN for the rights to broadcast their games on television for nine years beginning in 2014, worth $24 billion (Rubin). This deal broadcasts NBA games globally, and this combined with 108 players in the NBA itself from a total of 42 different countries allows the NBA to gain even more international traction (NBA Rosters). Back home, the stadiums are crowded with fans, with an average of 17,830 people per game in 2018 (“National”). In fact, the NBA is the fourth largest sports league in the U.S.
As an interesting side note, the WNBA actually had a larger fanbase in its 21st season than the NBA did, at 7,716 fans per game in 2017 for the WNBA, compared to 6,631 fans per game in 1966 for the NBA (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing”).
Nevertheless, the WNBA just cannot compete, considering that its 21st season was only last season, and that the NBA has been around for 73 years. The NBA makes considerably more money than the WNBA.
This argument has been used to explain why the WNBA pays their players so much less than the NBA, at $6.2 million for the average NBA player in 2017 (Badenhausen), and $75,000 for the average WNBA player in the same year (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing). Because of this, the WNBA’s most valuable players get paid less than the NBA’s least valued. For example, Diana Taurasi was paid the WNBA league maximum of $107,500 for being an invaluable player in 2014. Meanwhile, in the same season, NBA player Dionte Christmas only played for 198 minutes total, and was paid the NBA league minimum of $490,180, almost four and a half times the amount Taurasi made (Berri, “Basketball’s Gender”).
While the numbers are astonishing at first glance, this still seems pretty logical; if there isn’t as much WNBA money to go around in the first place, then players in the WNBA are not going to make as much as the NBA players, who come from a significantly more profitable league.
However, this is where the term “proportional” comes in. Looking at the bare numbers of the players’ salaries isn’t worth anything because of how much more revenue the NBA generates compared to its female counterpart. As such, it’s the percentages that tell the true story.
The NBA pays its players about 50% percent of its revenue. The WNBA, however, is much lower. The WNBA does not publicize its overall revenue or its players’ salaries, but it was estimated in 2017 by Forbes.com that with the reported average salary of $75,000, multiplied by 157 total players, the players were being paid a total of $11,775,000. This, divided by an estimated $51.5 million in WNBA revenue for the same year, comes out to be around .228 (Berri, “Basketball’s Growing”). So while the players in the NBA collectively are getting 50% of the revenue, the WNBA is only paying their players 22.8% of theirs. And that number is based off of rounded-down estimates, what with the total revenue of the WNBA estimated only from ticket prices and income from ESPN for broadcasting rights, and not from sponsors or other sources.
Above image by Kyle Terada for USA Today Sports. https://www.sbnation.com/2019/2/26/18239499/nba-playoffs-2018-standings-warriors-west-8-seed
