***Official CAITLIN CLARK Thread***

[Incarnadine]

I had to laugh when I saw the players wearing the "pay us what we're owed" shirts.

The WNBA owns just 42% of its own league, and yes certain owners also are NBA owners or in the group of investors, but the actual WNBA part is still just 42% so at best the players could hope for maybe 51% of that 42% (or about 21% of revenue).

Even that would be problematic is there is 1 glaring difference between the NBA and WNBA, that is that the NBA makes a profit and the WNBA has lost money literally every year of its existence. Hard to justify splitting revenue when you are operating at a loss.

The new media rights deal looks like it might change that, but the WNBA still only gets 42% of that $270m.
I think the players should get more after the media money kicks in, but it's not going to be as much as they want with the WNBA's 42% share and still leaving the owners room for some profit (for the first time ever).
As the league gets more popular players will make more money from endorsements and other off court revenue, which is why they should be doing everything they can to elevate CC, it's in their own best interests. Sadly it's mostly just Fever players getting the boost, I'd bet half the players are getting $1m+ just from being in CC's orbit.

[Asian62150]

I get that the players want more money, but unless the WNBA/NBA governors are withholding compensation that is contractually owed to the players, the players ire should be directed towards their union, not the league.

You don't get what you're worth, you get what you can negotiate. So the union should negotiate a better deal the next time the CBA is due.

[Chryghst]

Originally Posted by cms11

"The NBA itself owns another 42% while investors in a $75 million capital infusion in 2022 own the last 16%. Because six of the fourteen WNBA franchises are also owned by people who own NBA teams (and NBA owners also participated in the 2022 capital raise), the owners of the NBA still own more than 60% of the WNBA."

Shouldn't the WNBA players get 51% of the revenue and the remaining 49% get divided among the rest of the shareholders?

That seems reasonable to me.

Found this article about the NBA: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ancial-records. Apparently in the 16-17 season, nearly a third of the league lost money after revenue sharing. Salary cap then wasn’t what it is now, but it was still sizable.

Ownership groups are obviously going to push the profitability narrative, but I think we should hold the WNBA to the same standard as the NBA. If ownership of sports teams is like rent in NYC—landlords lose $ every year on rent, but the property value increases so much over time that you cash out when you sell, then players should be compensated for their role in increasing the value of the franchise even if owners aren’t making money every season. Amazon wasn’t profitable for years but their employees still got compensated well. Think I’m on the player’s side here.

[BoSoxFan1999]

Originally Posted by ninjacookies

It seems unfair on the surface until you actually try and stomach a full game of hers. Like it's painfully obvious she has offensive motor skills that more favor a junior highschooler whose body hasn't quite caught up to their mind yet. She's a worker that bullies her way to boards, and she's exceptionally good at it. Could very well go onto be the best ever in that respect. And you can't knock her for her offensive shortcomings, because she's trying. It's almost like Westbrook still trying to conquer the 'not a great shooter' narrative nearly a decade and a half later.

She also makes herself an easier target by propping herself up and saying she 'deserves this, deserves that' instead of letting the accolades and comps land where they may. Then making plays like that...

If she just played to her strengths and focused on rebounding, low post scoring, and being a plus defender, she could become the Dennis Rodman of the WNBA (minus all the crazy stuff). But that's not good enough for her, she wants to be THE face of the W; being one of the top names is not enough.

[spurs50fan]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

If she just played to her strengths and focused on rebounding, low post scoring, and being a plus defender, she could become the Dennis Rodman of the WNBA (minus all the crazy stuff). But that's not good enough for her, she wants to be THE face of the W; being one of the top names is not enough.

So she has some skill, high motor and higher ambitions? Just awkward. I don't knock her for wanting because it's not something she can just will into existence. Maybe she needs that to push? But I think we're missing why the league is promoting her. For the same reason they did Rodman...It's a show. It's a story. Rodman was Bambi on ice but we loved him for it. And if he was the 1-4 option in any offense, we would be having a different conversation about him

If the WNBA players want what they say they want, she is necessary to push interest. Despite how we feel, it fills the news cycles. Just someone saying I deserve will enrage half the population if we're honest. The negative comments, memes or graphics even work in their favor because it's a like/comment/subscribe. That's where the media wants us. SGA gave you all the display of skill you can handle. We were talking about ratings???

[cms11]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

I had to laugh when I saw the players wearing the "pay us what we're owed" shirts.

The WNBA owns just 42% of its own league, and yes certain owners also are NBA owners or in the group of investors, but the actual WNBA part is still just 42% so at best the players could hope for maybe 51% of that 42% (or about 21% of revenue).

Even that would be problematic is there is 1 glaring difference between the NBA and WNBA, that is that the NBA makes a profit and the WNBA has lost money literally every year of its existence. Hard to justify splitting revenue when you are operating at a loss.

The new media rights deal looks like it might change that, but the WNBA still only gets 42% of that $270m.
I think the players should get more after the media money kicks in, but it's not going to be as much as they want with the WNBA's 42% share and still leaving the owners room for some profit (for the first time ever).
As the league gets more popular players will make more money from endorsements and other off court revenue, which is why they should be doing everything they can to elevate CC, it's in their own best interests. Sadly it's mostly just Fever players getting the boost, I'd bet half the players are getting $1m+ just from being in CC's orbit.

The players should get paid 51% of total revenue. If the investors aren't happy about it then they should sell their shares. If the league can't ever be profitable with that arrangement, it should fold.

[cms11]

Originally Posted by Chryghst

That seems reasonable to me.

Found this article about the NBA: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ancial-records. Apparently in the 16-17 season, nearly a third of the league lost money after revenue sharing. Salary cap then wasn’t what it is now, but it was still sizable.

Ownership groups are obviously going to push the profitability narrative, but I think we should hold the WNBA to the same standard as the NBA. If ownership of sports teams is like rent in NYC—landlords lose $ every year on rent, but the property value increases so much over time that you cash out when you sell, then players should be compensated for their role in increasing the value of the franchise even if owners aren’t making money every season. Amazon wasn’t profitable for years but their employees still got compensated well. Think I’m on the player’s side here.

Same. The players are building its brand without profit sharing in the long-term value growth of the league. Pay them their money or fold the league.

[ninjacookies]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

If she just played to her strengths and focused on rebounding, low post scoring, and being a plus defender, she could become the Dennis Rodman of the WNBA (minus all the crazy stuff). But that's not good enough for her, she wants to be THE face of the W; being one of the top names is not enough.

Agreed. But I guess if it's ANY pro women's league to conduct yourself in this fashion, it'd be the WNBA. Because there's no real brand/shield to protect because it feels perpetually stuck in its infancy when you zoom out on a broader scale. So she's simply leveraged social media and the non-existence of female basketball household names to parlay a college fued/gesture into 8 figures and arguably the second most recognizable player in the league currently with her own cereal and mcdonalds entree.

It's low brow tactics, but we live in a low brow society. She'll never be a great or even decent offensive player, but she doesn't have to be. It's on her to have the thicker skin to take the warranted criticisms and cut the woe is me act, because she's created her own target.

[pspa123]

Are we worried yet about Caitlin's durability? At what point do her card values start to cool?

[packman80]

When Gatorade did not fully think out this ad.

[boxbuster7]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

I had to laugh when I saw the players wearing the "pay us what we're owed" shirts.

The WNBA owns just 42% of its own league, and yes certain owners also are NBA owners or in the group of investors, but the actual WNBA part is still just 42% so at best the players could hope for maybe 51% of that 42% (or about 21% of revenue).

Even that would be problematic is there is 1 glaring difference between the NBA and WNBA, that is that the NBA makes a profit and the WNBA has lost money literally every year of its existence. Hard to justify splitting revenue when you are operating at a loss.

The new media rights deal looks like it might change that, but the WNBA still only gets 42% of that $270m.
I think the players should get more after the media money kicks in, but it's not going to be as much as they want with the WNBA's 42% share and still leaving the owners room for some profit (for the first time ever).
As the league gets more popular players will make more money from endorsements and other off court revenue, which is why they should be doing everything they can to elevate CC, it's in their own best interests. Sadly it's mostly just Fever players getting the boost, I'd bet half the players are getting $1m+ just from being in CC's orbit.

do a research project for me pretty please

tell me how many companies in the fortune 500 are in "profit"

thanks

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by Gem10collection

Significant probability her cards will crash as hard as we have ever seen.

A reminder.

[RKH916]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

do a research project for me pretty please

tell me how many companies in the fortune 500 are in "profit"

thanks

Not sure what you're suggesting here but the vast majority (~95%) of F500 companies are profitable.

A few titans like Tesla run at a loss in the early stages before they turn a profit

I'm fairly confident the WNBA will never be profitable and this entire "moment" is but an inorganic flash in the pan. Going to be a lot of heavy bag holders in a few years. But I digress... continue to enjoy the show...

[703dispensary]

Originally Posted by RKH916

Not sure what you're suggesting here but the vast majority (~95%) of F500 companies are profitable.

I believe it's referred to as...cooking the books. Unless I misunderstood.

[PLB9eight]

Originally Posted by Gem10collection

A reminder.

Find some joy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by PLB9eight

Find some joy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have! By not having any CC cards

[HeyRelaxGuy]

[SidVish]

Originally Posted by HeyRelaxGuy

How great is that!

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[kingofsnake]

Very interesting sales - considering the Logo is not even game or player worn. Just takes two motivated bidders I guess.

Incidentally I noticed a handful of cool Caitlin and Angel Reese on card autos on eBay advertised as Panini Instant. Do you guys know how these were released?

[boxbuster7]

pretty amazing the demand that is still there for clark considering how little she has played this season

For once the hobby is taking a long term view on a player and it is a nice change

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

pretty amazing the demand that is still there for clark considering how little she has played this season

For once the hobby is taking a long term view on a player and it is a nice change

Because she's hot

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[Bosoxfan5990]

Originally Posted by kingofsnake

Very interesting sales - considering the Logo is not even game or player worn. Just takes two motivated bidders I guess.

Incidentally I noticed a handful of cool Caitlin and Angel Reese on card autos on eBay advertised as Panini Instant. Do you guys know how these were released?

They were released as part of the Rookie Royalty box, but were likely originally supposed to be Panini Instant cards as the tagline on the back of the card mentions Panini Instant.

[49ersSF]

The humorous thing is that that card sold for nearly 10x what Caitlin Clark makes a season on her current WNBA contract.

[Chryghst]

Originally Posted by kingofsnake

Very interesting sales - considering the Logo is not even game or player worn. Just takes two motivated bidders I guess.

I really don’t understand why unassociated patch autograph cards sell for more than just autographed cards. Personally I would rather have an impeccable numbers card over an unassociated patch autograph. To me, an unassociated patch autograph is just an autograph.

Part of why I’m personally not involved in the hobby much anymore is there are just too many aspects of it that seem irrational and don’t make logical sense to me. An unassociated patch autograph selling for 2x a game worn patch autograph and many times just an autograph card is something I can’t wrap my head around. It’s a memorabilia industry which doesn’t value memorabilia.

[eastbayak]

Originally Posted by HeyRelaxGuy

I know the buyer isn't hurting for money but crazy to see someone drop $660k for this (see below).