WNBA to Toronto?
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
I am understanding your point but a wrinkle in that train of thought is the quality of play which is a huge thing for a lot of people and makes them not even give the WNBA the time of day.
Hence minor leagues generate nowhere near the revenues as the major leagues in any given sport.
So how to overcome that obstacle?
KevFu
Registered User
The Quality of play of the Big East is "good" but it's not NBA good. There's hardly any Big East guys -- please remember I'm talking about the current Catholic edition of the Big East - in the NBA.
The Big East has quality of play competition from the Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 (And the American, A-10 and Gonzaga). The Big East is one of the top 4-5 conferences in college basketball. But there's massive competition between those conferences for TV viewers. AND the NBA (and NFL, and NHL).
The Big East has teams in DC, New York, Chicago, Connecticut, Indianapolis (WNBA cities) and Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Providence and Omaha. (Which are smaller combined than WNBA cities: No LA, no Atlanta, no Minnesota, no Dallas).
The Big East can't just add markets. They are stuck with the reality that "Gonzaga is in Spokane, Washington, not Boston. The schools in Pittsburgh (Duquesne) and Detroit (UDM) suck. St. Bonaventure is good, but in the middle of no where. And of course, Duke, Vandy or Northwestern will never join them; and all the big state schools are non-starters."
Then you factor in the enrollment. The fan base of the Big East is very NARROW IN SCOPE, which is why the Big East TV deal is small compared to the football school.
The NBA fan base is more universal. The WNBA is somewhere in between that. You're demographic isn't Catholic alums who like basketball. It's ANY PEOPLE who like basketball enough to watch women play.... In the SUMMER.
The summer schedule is a huge factor. The only thing that the WNBA has going against it... is that it's women, and too many people won't watch because it's women.
But, that improves daily with normalization.
Just like soccer, there was a time where people would MAKE A STINK just because soccer/women's sports were on their TVs, so they'd be making phone calls and writing complaints. That's over now, it's normal to be on.... just like hockey, which not a lot of people LIKE, but people are furious at its existence.
And that's a huge reason why TV/media is increasing investment in women's sports... because the price is DIRT CHEAP compared to the Big East, and it's becoming more and more normalized every day.
The Big East isn't the best men's basketball in USA/Canada; but the WNBA IS the best women's basketball in the USA/Canada.
The WNBA can have a far wider appeal than the Big East, against less competition... and it WAS half the price! The Big East deal was $60m, the WNBA's was $27m.
Also, the WNBA can embrace gambling. Sharks LOVE the WNBA because it's so much easier to master than any other sport, because there's only ONE THIRD of the teams. The WNBA can expand and still be the smallest league, and best for gamblers (This is why Vegas HAS a WNBA team. The TV ratings for the WNBA in Vegas were off the charts).
The key to all of it is normalization. As people are exposed to women's sports, will they be more apt to embrace it?
A case study is rhe CFL. It's a summer league, no competition with the NFL for most of the season, in no NFL markets but it seems to have a glass ceiling on it and my theory is because it's considered second rate because it's an all Canadian league (equivalent to WNBA being women) and these are players who can't make NFL rosters (quality of play).
It is a different game too of sorts (which is why I myself enjoy both) but some of the rules here are mocked by NFL fans.
Should be interesting to see how it unfolds. Your point about the gambling is very true, there's only MLB and MLS during the summer and MLS is only once a week. I can't help but wonder if the CFL could garner the exposure to the American market and gambling became a big thing for CFL games, perhaps that would give it a boost.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Toronto should definitely get a team. They even have perfectly sized arena for it, where the Marie’s play.
KevFu
Registered User
Your point on CFL is a valid one, but also screams to the point about WNBA expansion:
Why should I care about a league that isn't "the best" if I DON'T HAVE A LOCAL TEAM?
When BALTIMORE had a CFL team, they were into it!
Yeah, lack of teams is probably also a strike against the CFL
And leagues do need to develop a local presence around the country to develop national attention.
But the question now is can this happen fast enough for them to become self-sustaining should the NBA pull back on direct or indirect subsidies?
KevFu
Registered User
I think too many people get wrapped up in the wrong thing... The NBA has no reason to "pullback." The NBA isn't subsidizing the WNBA against their will. THE NBA STARTED THE WNBA, ON PURPOSE.
People need to forget about LEAGUES and boil it down to its root: the NBA is in the BASKETBALL BUSINESS. This is what everyone misses about women's sports, and a lot of secondary men's events/sports, too.
I'm a New York Mets fan, and we have the best closer in baseball. And he's missing this season because he blew out his knee in the World Baseball Classic. Every single MLB team HATES sending their players to the WBC. But the World Baseball Classic is MASSIVE for "The Baseball Business," which is what MLB IS, so that's why MLB is firmly behind it.
US Soccer and MLS is another good example, because there isn't a "dominant and secondary" aspect to it like MLB and the WBC. It shows the relationship because when you're talking about each side's "agendas" you're realizing just how intertwined they are: SOCCER in the United States has to be successful. Their paths and plans and agendas are TOTALLY OPPOSITE, but their end game is exactly the same, so they basically ARE the same thing.
There's tons of examples (like Vinick funded the US Women's Hockey attempts at Gold by giving the team free use of the Lightning's facilities. A US Gold medal helps "The Hockey Business.")
People act like it's NBA VERSUS WNBA, or MLB VS WBC, or MLS VS US SOCCER. How about WWE vs WCW? Everyone involved says the same thing: The Wrestling Wars were GREAT FOR THE WRESTLING BUSINESS.
The WNBA should be bold, expand... and who cares if they over-expand? No one is going to notice or care if franchises move, fail, etc... because that's been happening for 25 years and people barely noticed. USE IT as an advantage. And if they over-extend, the NBA should bail out the WNBA if necessary, because it's great for the BASKETBALL BUSINESS if the WNBA is successful.
I know what you mean, same with NHL at the Olympics. I wasn't trying to pit NBA vs. WNBA but rather just thinking out loud if they can hold out long enough, especially if for whatever reason the NBA backed off.
Truth be told, one thing that I wonder if UT may help with branding is get rid of the Women's in aby league name and change the name altogether and stop using the NBA portion as well. It always has struck me as "It's just a women's league..." when women is used and the use of the NBA smacks to me of "minor league" status, that it can't survive without the Big Boys (regardless of whether it's true or not)
Funny you bring this up because many times I've thought to myself- with the rise of AEW- that it seems wrestling has always been at its beat when their multiple top tier companies, even if the others were more second tier almost first tier brands.
Curious as to how you think the success of the WNBA benefits the NBA? Reach markets the NBA can't reach by itself?
KevFu
Registered User
The equity in the NBA brand is worth it. You know what the WNBA is = women's NBA. The use of W+NBA might smack of minor-league, dependent status... but you hear whatever the last three women's hockey leagues have gone by, and you're like WTF is that?
You gain legitimacy by being sanctioned as the WNBA and not a women's basketball league with no affiliation.
The whole point of both items is: The NBA BELIEVES IN THIS.
roflstomper
Barzal/Connor/Konecny
I am confused as to how a league that has never turned a profit and loses at least 10 million aa year is trying to expand at this rate.
If the NHL can field a league of 32 team with probably the smallest talent pool of any major professional sports league, then the WNBA has no problems in regards to finding the talent. The real issue is can it be successfully marketed. While, I'm not someone likely to become a WNBA fan, I do think it would be cool for my friends with young daughters to be able to take them to a sporting event like this, and show them they can compete and be athletic too on a big stage.
I think Sauga would be a disaster. I feel Coca Cola Coliseum where the Marlies play would be a much better choice.
It's viewed as a marketing expense for the NBA, and 10m a year to facilitate growing women's interest in a professional sports league is a relatively minor expense for a business that has nearly 10b in yearly revenue.
KevFu
Registered User
BTW, when you hear that the WNBA has "never turned a profit" please remember that the NBA itself has claimed that DOZENS of NBA teams are losing money hand over fist. (And MLB has done the same).
Accountants don't want to show a profit, because profits are taxed. Showing a small loss is good for them, and they're allowed to count the PLAYERS AGING as monetary depreciation.
It's always funny to me that the same people say college athletic departments are "making millions" and pro teams are doomed because their operating income is below zero. College athletics ALWAYS shows zero or a loss, because they're non-profit,so they HAVE to spend all their revenue. But when pro teams do the same thing...
Accountants don't want to show a profit, because profits are taxed. Showing a small loss is good for them, and they're allowed to count the PLAYERS AGING as monetary depreciation.
It's always funny to me that the same people say college athletic departments are "making millions" and pro teams are doomed because their operating income is below zero. College athletics ALWAYS shows zero or a loss, because they're non-profit,so they HAVE to spend all their revenue. But when pro teams do the same thing...
Coca Cola would be my choice, but it would also have been my choice for Raptors 905 as well, what I would love but it can’t probably happen would be for MLSE to buy Coca Cola from the city so they can make renovations and changes by not going through the city and same thing should happen with BMO Field
GindyDraws
I will not disable my Adblock, HF
Because the players association is getting tired of the stagnant roster size (12 teams of 11-12 players) and players being dumped out of the league after barely a year or two due to a lack of options, so two or four more teams would add more players, as well as additional jobs. Besides, there hasn't been expansion since the Atlanta Dream and the Chicago Sky.
Look, this is a conservative forum. The WNBA caters to an audience that, by and large, don't jive with the general forum goers. But there is a value for expansion since the demand has been growing for years by fans and corporate interests, and for a multi billion dollar industry that has a worldwide reach, the NBA doesn't care so much about the WNBA losses.
GindyDraws
I will not disable my Adblock, HF
Honestly, that's not really the goal. It's building a league to get the women/family demos because NBA tickets typically tend to be a luxury. Sure, you can get deals but that's if you're in a "Small market" and you're watching during a week night against an unpopular opponent. Good luck if you're rooting for what I always like to call a "sexy team" and want to see the action, which casual fans almost always gravitate to.
KevFu
Registered User
The other goal is getting people to watch an NBA branded product 12 months a year; with WNBA running the time the NBA regular season isn't running.
