Why It Matters
This past weekend I published “Exploring the Gender-Wage Gap in a World of Exogenous Revenue: The Case of Professional Basketball” in the International Journal of Empirical Economics. This paper explores the immensely low level of pay in the WNBA. This academic article is freely available online and I think was written in a way that is accessible to most everyone (I hope)!
This article is not the first time I have discussed the gender-wage gap in the WNBA. We also discussed this in Slaying the Trolls. And I have written about this issue in this forum and at The Sling. This academic article does go into more detail and also discusses how it is difficult to know precisely what a WNBA player is worth when another entity (i.e. the NBA) does much to determine the WNBA’s revenue.
Given how often I have discussed this issue, I thought it would be helpful if I offered a comment on a related issue I think isn’t talked about enough.
Why exactly does it matter that WNBA players like Napheesa Collier and A’ja Wilson are finally paid what they are owed by the WNBA/NBA?
Picture Credit: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/mvp-frontrunner-napheesa-collier-leaves-during-lynx-s-53-point-blowout-win-over-aces/ar-AA1JNmmg
As others have noted, the WNBA has historically been the hardest league to even play in. This observation was made in the past when the number of teams and roster spots were very much restricted. Even after expansion, though, very few women are ever going to be WNBA players. In addition, even though WNBA wages are still far below what league revenues say the players should be paid, average wages in the WNBA still exceed the average wage we see in the overall economy. Why should people who will never play professional sports care if WNBA players are finally paid the millions the WNBA/NBA owes them (remember, the NBA is the majority owner of the WNBA)?
It all comes back to a statement originally made by Billy Jean King:
“Sports are a microcosm of society.”
What happens in sports reflects what happens in society and can also inspire people to make changes. Jackie Robinson playing Major League Baseball in 1947 highlighted the issues of segregation and discrimination in America. Did those problems vanish when Robinson took the field? Of course not. But Robinson taking the field led many people to think harder about how African-Americans were treated in American society. And it showed that when given a chance, African-Americans could excel in something only white males had been allowed to do.
It is the same story in women’s sports. Right now the NBA is making two statements.
The NBA is currently saying men should get 50% of Basketball-Related Income.
The NBA is also saying the women they employ in the WNBA should get less than 7% of WNBA revenue.
These statements by the NBA says something important about how women are valued in society.
It is the same story when men tell women in sports…
we will use billions in taxpayer dollars to build stadiums and arenas for men but not for you
we will give men more television dollars even when their ratings are lower than yours
we historically banned women’s sports (and then underfund/underpromote those when women could play) and then argued it was just the market that determines attendance and ratings for men and women’s sports
we will amplify all your failures while downplaying your successes
All of these statements are saying:
We do not think women deserve the same opportunities as men.
We do not think women deserve the same outcomes as men.
We don’t think women are as good as men.
Back in 1869, John Stuart Mill wrote The Subjection of Women. This is one of the first works in economics on gender equality (Mill credits his late wife – Harriet Taylor – for helping him with this book).
In this book (again, written in 1869!), Mill makes the following statement:
Down through the years, women—many women—have shown themselves to be capable of everything that men do, and of doing it successfully and creditably.
He then goes on to explain the cost to society when we do not treat women the same way we treat men.
The... benefit to be expected from giving to women the free use of their abilities same range of occupation and the same rewards and encouragements as other human beings have, would be doubling the supply of abilities available for the higher service of humanity. Where there is now one person qualified to benefit mankind. . . .as a public teacher or an administrator of some branch of public or social affairs, there would then be a chance of two. As things now stand, there is a terrific shortage of people who are competent to do excellently anything that needs any significant amount of ability to do; so that the world suffers a serious loss by refusing to make use of half the talent it possesses. (boldface added to original)
Mill very much knew in 1869 that society suffers when we discriminate against women. Obviously, this is still true today.
Of course, few people read John Stuart Mill. That was true in 1869. It is true today. The same can be said for the articles and books I write.
The WNBA, though, is far more visible. People can very much see what happens in the NBA and WNBA. So, solving the gender-wage gap in the WNBA/NBA makes a much louder statement than anything Mill (or I) can make.
Once again, solving the gender-wage gap in the WNBA will not end gender discrimination. But it does make a very visual and clear statement that it is not okay when women and men are not treated the same. The more people understand that point — again, a point Mill made more than 150 years ago — the better off we will all be.