WNBA players pushing for charter flights

[End on a Hinote]

The number of people who pop into this thread to say what you're saying -- when literally no one in the thread has said the opposite -- is really quite staggering.

Lol well I was referring to the people within the league itself who are preaching for this. It's such common sense that there shouldn't even be a single person making these demands.

 

[KevFu]

Most of you guys have a pretty misguided or ridiculous notion of what constitutes success.

It's no different than anyone "living comfortably within their means." Two people with drastically different salaries usually end up with about the same amount of disposable income, because people buy the houses and cars that they can afford.

Business and sports leagues are the same way: Pushing the envelope on what they can pull off, because that's how you grow and expand and make conditions better.

In the NHL, the San Jose Sharks showed a loss for like 10 of 12 seasons, but the losses were always $2 to $15 million, and they spent almost all their cap space in that time. If the goal is "Show a profit" just don't spend to the cap and they're "a success."

But signing those last two free agents to make their team better puts them at risk of not having the revenue to show a profit, but the idea is that the expense makes their product more attractive and brings in more revenue.

From little league, college sports, WNBA, the big four leagues... they're SPENDING just beyond what they can afford to do... simply because they can. If the NBA was trying to make the maximum amount of PROFIT possible, they'd have a hard cap and stay in 3-star hotels. they stay in 4 or 5 star hotels... BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because it's "better."

As I told AintLifeGrand about taking actual charters, the college sports team I was working for wanted to charter to some road games that were harder to get to (connecting flights) on weekdays.

Flying commercial was "wasting" 2 full days for a Wednesday road game. All the time bussing to/from airports, having connecting flights made it a 60-hour trip, missing three days of classes. Chartering meant a 32-hour trip, classes Tues & Thurs.

It's just BETTER. It cost a lot more money, but "Let's just do it and we'll find away to pay for it" was the winning strategy. PLAYERS liked it, we could sell it to boosters and recruits that we were Big Time. We won more games, got better recruits, sold more tickets and created more revenue and it ended up paying for itself.... so they started chartering MORE, which meant they needed more revenue to pay for that.

Pushing the envelope and spending more than you can afford isn't a sign of business failure. It's a sign of leadership trying to grow the thing.

 

[KevFu]

Lol well I was referring to the people within the league itself who are preaching for this. It's such common sense that there shouldn't even be a single person making these demands.

Well, the players wanting the situation better and better is to be expected. They don't know how it's paid for and they really don't care. They're not the team accountants, they're the players.

The issue you are missing is that the LEAGUE itself BANNED CHARTERS as an "unfair advantage" that teams with owners willing to do it would have over the others. The league has been FINING teams who take unauthorized charters the last few years.

The fact that the league virtually immediately altered the policy to allow "public charters" shows you that they know this is an issue and needs to be solved.

I think you're conflating two issues: "Can the WNBA have a league-wide charter program?" And "Should teams be free to do whatever the hell they want for travel without league interference?"

The main reason players are saying they want charters isn't really because of a selfish "We want, we want... the NBA gets it, why don't we?"

It's because Mat Ishbia's Phoenix Mercury are forced by league mandate to walk through an airport where MAGA dudes are verbally harassing their forward.... instead of taking Mat Ishbia's Phoenix Suns' Boeing 757 that's sitting right there.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

W

peolle get bent out of shape because of the virtue signaling and calling people who don’t watch it

When have anyone called people out for not watching WNBA? Its only when people make fun of WNBA they get called out. If you don't like WNBA, then be quiet and just don't watch.

 

[GindyDraws]

I dunno. Neither of us were watching. And that's the point. No one would know what Brittney Greiner even looked like in the airport if Fox News wasn't dog-whistling their base at the black lesbian who took a knee.

You really need to ask yourself why everyone is so riled up about Greiner, but no one has any clue who Bruce Maxwell is.

Pretty much. I mean, there are other women's sports that struggle with recognition and finances (like the PHF, which is very relevant to this forum), and they seem to do the "shut up and play" approach that certain folks demand, and, uh... look at where they are at. Nobody talks about them, nobody cares about their struggles with labor, and even though the counter will be "they're white", that's not the point; it's more people just want things to fail when it doesn't fit a mold.

 

[Fatass]

When have anyone called people out for not watching WNBA? Its only when people make fun of WNBA they get called out. If you don't like WNBA, then be quiet and just don't watch.

Would watch the girls before the boys. Put these players on charter flights.

 

[Garl]

Well, the players wanting the situation better and better is to be expected. They don't know how it's paid for and they really don't care. They're not the team accountants, they're the players.

The issue you are missing is that the LEAGUE itself BANNED CHARTERS as an "unfair advantage" that teams with owners willing to do it would have over the others. The league has been FINING teams who take unauthorized charters the last few years.

The fact that the league virtually immediately altered the policy to allow "public charters" shows you that they know this is an issue and needs to be solved.

I think you're conflating two issues: "Can the WNBA have a league-wide charter program?" And "Should teams be free to do whatever the hell they want for travel without league interference?"

The main reason players are saying they want charters isn't really because of a selfish "We want, we want... the NBA gets it, why don't we?"

It's because Mat Ishbia's Phoenix Mercury are forced by league mandate to walk through an airport where MAGA dudes are verbally harassing their forward.... instead of taking Mat Ishbia's Phoenix Suns' Boeing 757 that's sitting right there.

I see, so the issue is that the league doesn't want disparity and since they can't make this charters mandatory, they just banned them, so that the advantage is not given to the teams whose owners have a lot if money to waste

Understandable position I would say.

 

[daver]

Would watch the girls before the boys. Put these players on charter flights.

Perhaps if you actually watched the games then they could afford charter flights.

 

[daver]

Most of you guys have a pretty misguided or ridiculous notion of what constitutes success.

It's no different than anyone "living comfortably within their means." Two people with drastically different salaries usually end up with about the same amount of disposable income, because people buy the houses and cars that they can afford.

Business and sports leagues are the same way: Pushing the envelope on what they can pull off, because that's how you grow and expand and make conditions better.

In the NHL, the San Jose Sharks showed a loss for like 10 of 12 seasons, but the losses were always $2 to $15 million, and they spent almost all their cap space in that time. If the goal is "Show a profit" just don't spend to the cap and they're "a success."

But signing those last two free agents to make their team better puts them at risk of not having the revenue to show a profit, but the idea is that the expense makes their product more attractive and brings in more revenue.

From little league, college sports, WNBA, the big four leagues... they're SPENDING just beyond what they can afford to do... simply because they can. If the NBA was trying to make the maximum amount of PROFIT possible, they'd have a hard cap and stay in 3-star hotels. they stay in 4 or 5 star hotels... BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because it's "better."

As I told AintLifeGrand about taking actual charters, the college sports team I was working for wanted to charter to some road games that were harder to get to (connecting flights) on weekdays.

Flying commercial was "wasting" 2 full days for a Wednesday road game. All the time bussing to/from airports, having connecting flights made it a 60-hour trip, missing three days of classes. Chartering meant a 32-hour trip, classes Tues & Thurs.

It's just BETTER. It cost a lot more money, but "Let's just do it and we'll find away to pay for it" was the winning strategy. PLAYERS liked it, we could sell it to boosters and recruits that we were Big Time. We won more games, got better recruits, sold more tickets and created more revenue and it ended up paying for itself.... so they started chartering MORE, which meant they needed more revenue to pay for that.

Pushing the envelope and spending more than you can afford isn't a sign of business failure. It's a sign of leadership trying to grow the thing.

This all makes sense. All the teams have to do is make a stop at the ole 'money growing tree' on their way to catch their chartered flight and everything is golden.

 

[KevFu]

I see, so the issue is that the league doesn't want disparity and since they can't make this charters mandatory, they just banned them, so that the advantage is not given to the teams whose owners have a lot if money to waste

Understandable position I would say.

Again, it's not "have a lot of money to waste" (sic). Over half the league HAS PLANES designed for basketball players at their disposal, and 9 of 12 team owners already have chartering deals in place that just doesn't include the WNBA teams they also own.

Five NBA owners. Vegas shares an owner with the Las Vegas Raiders (who play in a stadium named after an airline). Atlanta is owned by the same company who's CEO owns the Dallas Stars. The LA Sparks share an ownership group with the Los Angeles Dodgers.

 

[Garl]

Again, it's not "have a lot of money to waste" (sic). Over half the league HAS PLANES designed for basketball players at their disposal, and 9 of 12 team owners already have chartering deals in place that just doesn't include the WNBA teams they also own.

Five NBA owners. Vegas shares an owner with the Las Vegas Raiders (who play in a stadium named after an airline). Atlanta is owned by the same company who's CEO owns the Dallas Stars. The LA Sparks share an ownership group with the Los Angeles Dodgers.

So, the league is preventing them to use charters because they claim it will create unfair advantage correct?

 

[KevFu]

So, the league is preventing them to use charters because they claim it will create unfair advantage correct?

Correct. Five have them and four more could easily flex.

I think the main point of contention in all the WNBA economic talk on this site (women's hockey, too) is that so many people are hell bent on this "Stand on your own" thing, while I come from a college sports background...

One reason WNBA revenues are so low is because they don't operate their own venues (Except for the Mohegan Sun owned Connecticut team), and Arena-wide sponsorship deals that the Suns make include the Mercury games as a bundle, but that revenue is going to the "arena management company" and not the WNBA team. (That "subsidy" argument everyone criticizes? They deserve compensation for the "value add" of the sponsorship deals).

In college sports, you see this all the time and accept this. It's ATHLETICS sponsorship and agreeing on signage placement or whatever. If Nike wants Duke basketball in Nike gear, they gotta provide uniforms for the teams no one sees on TV, too.

If Mark Davis and Magic Johnson ask for a meeting with the Raiders and Dodgers travel partners, and say their deals need to include the Aces and Sparks, it's gonna get done.

 

[BattleBorn]

Correct. Five have them and four more could easily flex.

I think the main point of contention in all the WNBA economic talk on this site (women's hockey, too) is that so many people are hell bent on this "Stand on your own" thing, while I come from a college sports background...

One reason WNBA revenues are so low is because they don't operate their own venues (Except for the Mohegan Sun owned Connecticut team), and Arena-wide sponsorship deals that the Suns make include the Mercury games as a bundle, but that revenue is going to the "arena management company" and not the WNBA team. (That "subsidy" argument everyone criticizes? They deserve compensation for the "value add" of the sponsorship deals).

In college sports, you see this all the time and accept this. It's ATHLETICS sponsorship and agreeing on signage placement or whatever. If Nike wants Duke basketball in Nike gear, they gotta provide uniforms for the teams no one sees on TV, too.

If Mark Davis and Magic Johnson ask for a meeting with the Raiders and Dodgers travel partners, and say their deals need to include the Aces and Sparks, it's gonna get done.

They don't operate their own venues because they're not as good a product and they likely can't support the product they produce. Aces do well because they operate in a cheaper (by Vegas standards) arena that is a second level venue and needs dates. Most other cities don't have a massive number of arenas that could support that and also not have a non-gendered sport that would also exist in that arena.

College sports work subsidizing the women's sports because there's money makers in (non-gendered) Football that will generally make money and there's no real profit motive. That's not really the case in most women's pro sports.

 

[joelef]

Most of you guys have a pretty misguided or ridiculous notion of what constitutes success.

It's no different than anyone "living comfortably within their means." Two people with drastically different salaries usually end up with about the same amount of disposable income, because people buy the houses and cars that they can afford.

Business and sports leagues are the same way: Pushing the envelope on what they can pull off, because that's how you grow and expand and make conditions better.

In the NHL, the San Jose Sharks showed a loss for like 10 of 12 seasons, but the losses were always $2 to $15 million, and they spent almost all their cap space in that time. If the goal is "Show a profit" just don't spend to the cap and they're "a success."

But signing those last two free agents to make their team better puts them at risk of not having the revenue to show a profit, but the idea is that the expense makes their product more attractive and brings in more revenue.

From little league, college sports, WNBA, the big four leagues... they're SPENDING just beyond what they can afford to do... simply because they can. If the NBA was trying to make the maximum amount of PROFIT possible, they'd have a hard cap and stay in 3-star hotels. they stay in 4 or 5 star hotels... BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because it's "better."

As I told AintLifeGrand about taking actual charters, the college sports team I was working for wanted to charter to some road games that were harder to get to (connecting flights) on weekdays.

Flying commercial was "wasting" 2 full days for a Wednesday road game. All the time bussing to/from airports, having connecting flights made it a 60-hour trip, missing three days of classes. Chartering meant a 32-hour trip, classes Tues & Thurs.

It's just BETTER. It cost a lot more money, but "Let's just do it and we'll find away to pay for it" was the winning strategy. PLAYERS liked it, we could sell it to boosters and recruits that we were Big Time. We won more games, got better recruits, sold more tickets and created more revenue and it ended up paying for itself.... so they started chartering MORE, which meant they needed more revenue to pay for that.

Pushing the envelope and spending more than you can afford isn't a sign of business failure. It's a sign of leadership trying to grow the thing.

That’s an individual franchise not an entire lesgue

 

[KevFu]

They don't operate their own venues because they're not as good a product and they likely can't support the product they produce. Aces do well because they operate in a cheaper (by Vegas standards) arena that is a second level venue and needs dates. Most other cities don't have a massive number of arenas that could support that and also not have a non-gendered sport that would also exist in that arena.

College sports work subsidizing the women's sports because there's money makers in (non-gendered) Football that will generally make money and there's no real profit motive. That's not really the case in most women's pro sports.

No one is saying that they should owning their own arenas, because that's crazy.

The point is that everyone is comparing the league revenues and profit/loss to organizations that have cities spending hundreds of millions/billions on taxpayer funded stadiums and letting those teams take all the revenues from them... but that entire aspect of the business is just missing (in both ways) from the WNBA.

Look at the Connecticut team. They play in an arena at the Casino that owns the team. The advertising in the arena ISN'T listed as WNBA arena revenue. It's Casino revenue. Because that arena holds events 365, not just the 20-30 home basketball games.

I've been saying this for decades across all topics on this board: So many posters look at "make a profit / losing money" as if teams are mom & pop stores. They're not. EVERY TEAM is part of a larger empire, and every empire is going to shuffle items on their ledger around based on what's best for the empire. YOU CARE if a team lists a profit, but the owners DON'T.

 

[daver]

Not sure why some go through the mental gymnastics to defend the clear economic realities of the WNBA.

They get $15 million subsidy from the NBA. Arenas likely lose money from holding WNBA games. It is a professional league, comparing it to college sports makes no sense.

There continues to be an underlying card of sexism being played that does nothing but create animosity.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Not sure why some go through the mental gymnastics to defend the clear economic realities of the WNBA.

They get $15 million subsidy from the NBA. Arenas likely lose money from holding WNBA games. It is a professional league, comparing it to college sports makes no sense.

There continues to be an underlying card of sexism being played that does nothing but create animosity.

Are you saying the operating expenses for an arena are not covered by the revenues of a WNBA game? If so, I doubt that very much.

The arenas need to be cooled/heated regardless if any event is being held there that day. Between sponsorships, merchandise, concessions and tickets sold, I'm sure those revenue streams would cover the costs of electricity and the employees needed to man concessions/security/ushers and change over of the arena to basketball. Covering travel, salaries, coaches, meals is another matter.

 

[daver]

Are you saying the operating expenses for an arena are not covered by the revenues of a WNBA game? If so, I doubt that very much.

The arenas need to be cooled/heated regardless if any event is being held there that day. Between sponsorships, merchandise, concessions and tickets sold, I'm sure those revenue streams would cover the costs of electricity and the employees needed to man concessions/security/ushers and change over of the arena to basketball. Covering travel, salaries, coaches, meals is another matter.

Given the undertone of overcoming sexism and the NBA subsidy, I could see where there are non-economic considerations for having WNBA games played in an arena. I am sure any arena has a break even point of # of attendees to make it economically feasible to put on an event.

The point being that it is hard to believe that the WNBA is losing out on arena revenue and tax funded subsidies of arena capital costs.

 

[joelef]

Given the undertone of overcoming sexism and the NBA subsidy, I could see where there are non-economic considerations for having WNBA games played in an arena. I am sure any arena has a break even point of # of attendees to make it economically feasible to put on an event.

The point being that it is hard to believe that the WNBA is losing out on arena revenue and tax funded subsidies of arena capital costs.

The nll dosent make anywhere near the money the nfl does is that sexism too?

 

[KevFu]

Arenas don't open their doors if they won't cover expenses.

And all the talk of "subsidy" is just stupid. Either the $15 million "Subsidy" is THEIR SHARE of joint sponsorships that covers both NBA and WNBA teams OR there's revenue missing from the WNBA ledger that proves they can make more money than what you're reading about. You can't have that both ways.

You want to talk about the WNBA as an independent league that sinks or swims on its own... but you can't. That's NOT reality, and it ignores the fact that the NBA started the WNBA on purpose.

Their finances are mixed because they share joint ownership, joint operations, joint sponsorships, joint revenues and joint expenses at various stages, to various degrees with no standard accounting practices.


And literally no one in this thread is talking about any kind of sexist dynamic. Anyone bringing up sexism is arguing with no one.

 

[LadyStanley]

Arenas don't open their doors if they won't cover expenses.

Unless it's for charity? Community?

 

[KevFu]

Unless it's for charity? Community?

Well, I'd expect that an event for a charity is probably funded by the person owning the lease to the arena and he's paying for it. but yeah, touche!


I was going to say that the Superdome opened their doors for free during Katrina, but when you think about it... they got hundreds of millions afterward "for doing so."

 

[LadyStanley]

NFLPA issues statement in support of WNBPA members' fight for improved WNBA travel

"Any responsible business would address these matters directly, especially when it comes to the most important and valuable group within the business: the working athletes," the NFLPA's statement said.

sports.yahoo.com

NFLPA supports efforts for better travel for WNBA.

 

[Mike C]

When have anyone called people out for not watching WNBA? Its only when people make fun of WNBA they get called out. If you don't like WNBA, then be quiet and just don't watch.

We don't

 

[Mike C]

NFLPA issues statement in support of WNBPA members' fight for improved WNBA travel

"Any responsible business would address these matters directly, especially when it comes to the most important and valuable group within the business: the working athletes," the NFLPA's statement said.

sports.yahoo.com

NFLPA supports efforts for better travel for WNBA.

They should take up a collection from their members to pony up for the people they support.