Writing for the New York Times!

And responding to comments!

For the past six weeks I have essentially ignored this forum. There are a few reasons for my absence. The semester started at SUU. I am busy working on a new book. And I was working on the following piece for the New York Times (this is a gift link that should work this month!):

What It Would Look Like to Pay W.N.B.A. Players What They Deserve

Sara Chodosh of the New York Times asked me to write this story. She also provided the amazing graphics (I provided the underlying data) and helped with the writing. There was also a team of editors who also helped us with the entire piece.

Sara’s graphics are really cool. Here are two of my favorites. The first shows that WNBA revenue is now growing faster than NBA revenue at the same point in the men’s league’s history.

And here is one showing how little the WNBA is paying its players relative to what they would earn if the women had the NBA’s revenue cut.

As the above graphic makes clear WNBA players get less than 7% of WNBA revenue. The article also notes that the top players in the WNBA today are paid less – in nominal terms (i.e. actual dollars!) – than NBA stars like Walt Frazier and Kareem Abdul Jabbar were paid 50 years ago.

Of course, the article also addresses the argument the WNBA isn’t profitable. This is the common argument trolls often make whenever WNBA pay is mentioned.

So far the article has solicited more than 500 comments. Some of these are clearly from WNBA trolls. And not surprisingly, all the trolls didn’t really read the article carefully!

The New York Times told me before the article was published that they would love to have me respond to some comments after it appeared (I think the idea is to boost engagement). This morning they hand-selected a few of these and asked me to write a few more thoughts. In general, these thoughts get at the common arguments people make whenever we argue WNBA players should be paid more. I thought it might be useful for everyone to see these comments and my responses.

Comment by STCKY from Louisville, Ky. | Oct 3 2025 9:20 AM

I learned a lot from this article on how revenue is shared, so thanks for those insights. One issue that I didn’t see addressed--and which needs to be--is the long history of the NBA. It is a well-established enterprise with huge fan followings, TV contracts, etc. The popularity of and the excitement over the WNBA is terrific, and I’m all for it. But by comparison, it’s a young business only now getting its footing with fans and sponsors who will spend money on it. What WNBA players earn should be a factor of what the WNBA and its teams earn, not what NBA players earn. Compare the business statuses and models of each to get a clearer picture of what players should be paid as employees of two similar, but highly different businesses.

MY RESPONSE: In the article we are calculating WNBA salaries relative to what the WNBA earns, not relative to what the NBA earns. We also note that the WNBA -- in terms of revenue -- is growing faster than the NBA was at the same point in the NBA’s history.

Comment by Matt from IL | Oct 3 2025 8:40 AM

Isn’t it the case that when the pie is bigger -- as in, astronomically bigger -- other people in the organizations can be paid what they get paid, leaving a larger percentage that can go to the players? I’m not saying that the percentage that players get in the WNBA is either just or economically defensible; what I am saying is that getting half, like NBA players do, is probably not realistic until the pie gets much bigger. The greatest fallacy in arguing WNBA salaries is to keep comparing them to the NBA.

MY RESPONSE: The WNBA currently pays its players about 7% of the league revenue (which are at least $300 million). The NBA was paying 40% of revenue to its players when the NBA only earned about $20 million in today’s dollars. They also paid 40% of league revenue when the NBA’s revenue was about $200 million in the last 1960s. In the early 1980s, the NBA was paying close to 60% of its revenue to its players. At that point, NBA revenues were similar to what WNBA revenues will be when the new media rights deal goes into effect. In sum, at no point in NBA history did they pay the men this badly.

Comment by DRM from CO | Oct 3 2025 8:49 AM

How much of the wnba owner share of revenue is going to operating costs? Obviously in the nba it is a much smaller share because operating costs are fairly fixed and nba revenue is an order of magnitude higher than wnba.

MY RESPONSE: I would have you think about it this way. Bloomberg says WNBA revenue was $100 million in 2019. Around that point, the WNBA/NBA claimed WNBA losses were $10 million (there was no independent evidence supporting this claim). In 2023, Bloomberg said revenue was $200 million. And in 2025, the evidence says revenue is at least $300 million. Player salaries went up about $8 million this time. They added charter flights for $30 million. So, going back to 2019 -- if we take the WNBA at its word -- it was spending $110 million to operate the league. We can see expenses for player salaries and charter flights went up $38 million more. That puts us at $148 million. But they have $300 million. Do we really think the rest of their overhead costs went out to $152 million? Remember -- as we note in the article -- the NBA itself has a long history of making dubious claims about losing money. Isn’t it more likely the WNBA/NBA claims are not exactly true?

Comment by Sid McDonough from Boston | Oct 3 2025 9:29 AM

If NBA players receive 50% of the league’s revenue and WNBA receive only.!0% oF WNBA revenue, where does the missing money go? Who gets the missing 40%?

MY RESPONSE: That is a great question!! And we don’t know!

Comment by crankyoldman from Georgia | Oct 3 2025 7:46 AM

The league says players should be grateful that their jobs provide them with exposure that allows them to make money doing sponsorships. Sounds a lot like the justification for a tipping wage being a fraction of the minimum wage.

MY RESPONSE: I think that is an apt comparison! The WNBA/NBA seems to want to pay the players in exposure!

Comment by Sidney from London | Oct 3 2025 8:47 AM

This isn’t a new league, and most teams are still clearly not profitable. Where is this excess money coming from to raise to salaries? TV ratings seem to be key here in order to get ad revenue. I don’t see owners coughing up the money. Remember this league would have folded over twenty years ago due to the lack of profitability. I can’t think of any industry, other than something backed by a government as it is viewed a public service, that could have lasted this long with year after year of being in the red.

MY RESPONSE: I would point out we don’t have any independent verification that the WNBA is not profitable. As we note in the article, the NBA has a long history of claiming the NBA isn’t profitable. Back in the 1970s -- as we note in the article -- when the NBA was about the size of the WNBA the NBA also claimed it wasn’t profitable. Independent analysis, though, revealed that probably wasn’t true. There is reason to think the claims the WNBA isn’t profitable aren’t entirely true. I would also have you think about the NBA owners who have recently spent hundreds of millions on expansion franchises. If the WNBA truly was in financial trouble -- as the NBA claims -- why are their owners buying expansion teams?

Comment by George from NYC | Oct 3 2025 8:11 AM

The rising fortunes of the WNBA do indeed demand that the players start getting paid salaries consummate with the League’s profitability.

The most straightforward answer is now an age-old one in professional sports: Strike

If enough fans are now packing the arenas to make the League profitable it is because they are coming to see the athletes.

No one ever went to a professional sports event to see the owners!

The WNBA has reached a point where continuing failure to pay its players large salaries is tantamount to labor exploitation.

MY RESPONSE: A player strike or lockout is a possibility. One issue to think about is that the WNBA is only about 30 years old and the NBA -- a much bigger entity -- is the majority owner. Relative to the NBA, the WNBA remains quite small. So, a strike doesn’t pose much of a threat to the finances of the NBA. I would also add, there are NBA owners we suspect are not huge fans of the WNBA. Hard to go on strike against people who are not huge fans of you playing in the first place. There is some hope. NBA owners have recently bought expansion franchises. Perhaps those NBA owners can put pressure on the NBA/WNBA to pay the women what they are owed.

Comment by steven b. from NY, NY | Oct 3 2025 8:22 AM

There’s an extremely easy way to see how much players should be paid: drop the salary cap and let owners just bid for free agents, unrestrained by an artificial constraint.

MY RESPONSE: This is most definitely how it is done in Europe. Unfortunately, North American sports have never operated like this. Even in Major League Baseball a player has to play a number of years before they can be free agents. In the other major men’s leagues, salary caps have been imposed by owners.

Comment by Florida Man V from FL | Oct 3 2025 8:30 AM

The NBA exploded when it leaned into Bird and Magic, then did it again with Jordan. Stars built the league, and everyone won. The WNBA finally has its Jordan moment and is shrinking from it. Put the biggest draw everywhere, build rivalries, tell the stories, sell the games, quit being cautious and grow the league.

MY RESPONSE: The WNBA is definitely growing rapidly. As we note in the article, the pace of growth is exceeding what we saw from the NBA at the same point in its history. Hopefully people in the NBA can see where the WNBA is clearly going and start paying the players.

Comment by Andrew from Brooklyn | Oct 3 2025 9:44 AM

And can the author also compare the TV ratings and merchandise sales across both leagues? I think you’ll see a major difference in both,

MY RESPONSE: TV Ratings between the WNBA and NBA -- at least for the regular season -- look increasingly similar. That being said, no one denies the NBA has more revenue than the WNBA. We are looking at the percentage of league revenues that are going to the players in each league.

Comment by Davey from NYC | Oct 3 2025 7:51 AM

I don’t understand. If it’s true the league and each team is losing money, then how can you expect them to raise pay from $120k a year to millions? I’d like to see an analysis of WNBA to NBA based on percentage of profits versus revenue. Also, if the growth in revenue in the WNBA is as assured as the article indicates then it would be ripe for an alternative league to set up and try to get in on the action. Pay these players more to steal them and compete with the WNBA (like the ABA of old). That would be the normal way you see pay raises, through competition. Antitrust should not allow leagues to have a monopoly.

MY RESPONSE: We do not have any independent data on profits for the WNBA and NBA. The NBA -- which owns over 60% of the WNBA -- has insisted for years that the WNBA is not profitable. The NBA has also told people for decades that the NBA itself is not profitable. I would also note that workers are paid out of an organization’s revenues. Profits are the payment paid to owners. Beyond that point from labor economics, I would not that a competitive league would face a problem. The ABA never really had a fanbase. This is not surprising. It has historically taken decades for a new league to build up a fanbase. The WNBA is right now at the point in its history where we should expect to see fans showing up consistently. It would be a bad idea to abandon that history and start all over.

Comment by JRS from Massachusetts | Oct 3 2025 7:34 AM

One of the great attractions of the WNBA is that they are not pampered millionaires being paid far more than they should. They are scrappy, talented athletes. I guess it was inevitable that talent like the WNBA would seek parity with the NBA. I hope they do not lose what makes them great as a result.

MY RESPONSE: The WNBA is a growing league and I think the evidence suggests eventually the WNBA will be very much like the NBA. The players will eventually be paid millions. That is the nature of professional sports. These are very unique individuals and in the marketplace, those tend to be people who command millions of dollars in wages (unless someone is preventing that from happening!).