‘Pay us what you owe us': America divided by WNBA T-shirt stunt
The blunt message was delivered during warm ups ahead of the WNBA All Star Game on Sunday amid ongoing collective bargaining agreement negotiations between the players and the league.
With a late October deadline looming, the players' stance is clear … they want a bigger piece of the pie.
It's not the first time WNBA players have demanded more pay, with the talking point rearing its head every year.
The latest act however comes off the back of the league agreeing to an 11-year, $AUD3.38 billion TV rights deal with Disney, Amazon Prime Video and NBCUniversal that will come into play from 2026.
The WNBA is booming with TV ratings (up 23%), ticket sales (up 26%) and attendance (13%) all surging halfway through the season, according to NPR.
But the simple act of wearing a T-shirts demanding to be paid more sparked widespread divide with many believing the players are deserving of greater pay, while countless others pointed to the league's struggling finances which have seen the WNBA never make a profit.
What is the WNBA's revenue?
That's the big talking point behind all of the ongoing CBA negotiations, the WNBA players are chasing a large share of the league's revenue.
Under the current CBA, the players split 9.3 per cent of league revenue. A figure far lesser than the NBA which sees players split between 49 and 51 per cent.
The league currently operates off a revenue of $200m, but as is often pointed out when these discussions come to the table … the WNBA has yet to turn a profit since its inception in 1996.
The NBA owns nearly 60 per cent of the league with team owners investing millions every year to the WNBA.
Despite the recent uptick, the 2024 WNBA season saw the league lose $40 million.
The new TV rights deal will inject $200m annually into the league, compared to the current deal which injects roughly $45m per season.
With that deal set to come into play from 2026 onwards, WNBA players could soon see their salaries rise and the league turn a profit for the first time.
What is the difference in WNBA and NBA salaries?
According to Sports Illustrated, WNBA salaries roughly range from a minimum of $USD66,000 to a super maximum contract of around $USD250,000.
Despite being the face of the league, Caitlin Clark remains on a rookie contract which will see her earn $78,000 in 2025.
Compare those figures to the NBA and the difference is eye-watering.
The average NBA salary for the 2024-25 season was projected to be $11,910,649, according to SI.
The minimum salary came in at $1,157,153 while the highest-paid player, Stephen Curry, earned a staggering $55.7 million.
America divided by players calling for more pay
You can almost guarantee that anytime a WNBA player speaks out about wanting to be paid more, social media will be flooded with vitriol
It kicked into overdrive on Sunday as images of the players wearing the shirts began to spread across the internet.
End Wokeness wrote on X: 'The WNBA loses $50 million every year and has NEVER generated a profit. You deserve $0.00.'
Jake Crain added: 'There is no league as tone deaf as the WNBA. 'Pay us what you owe us' shirts when you have to be subsidised is wild.'
Fox Sports Radio host Aaron Torres wrote: 'There is no group of more delusional people on planet Earth, than WNBA players.'
Of course not everyone was on the side of the corporation with a plethora of fans backing the players in chasing what they're worth.
WTH News wrote: 'They're not asking for NBA bags, just their damn slice of the pie. Talent's on the court, money's on the table — time to match the energy. You don't build a league on players and leave them crumbs.'
NBA and WNBA beat reporter Andrew Dukowitz wrote: 'The league is built on players, they deserve to get a bigger slice of the pie for the work they all have put in, and as the revenue grows, they should as well. The WNBA players are not asking to be paid dollar for dollar what the NBA players make, from what I understand they just want a fair share of the revenue.'
Barstool Sports' Dave Portnoy took his outrage even further, savaging people who don't believe the WNBA players don't deserve a bigger slice.
'I don't know how anybody in the world with a brain, and maybe my brain is just bigger than most, can rationally say women don't deserve more money at this point,' Portnoy said in a video posted to social media.
'Franchise values are exploding. Ticket sales, merch, TV rights all exploding. The players have an opt out in their CBA. Of course they took it. It's all about leverage in re-negotiations and for the 1st time in history of the league players have power.
'The players make virtually nothing while the entire league explodes. Of course they deserve more money.'
What will it mean if no agreement is reached?
With the first round of talks going almost nowhere, the threat of a potential player lockout remains real.
The players union has said it's preparing for a work stoppage when the current CBA expires Oct. 31.
WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert said she has 'confidence' a deal can be struck before the Halloween deadline, but also said she's 'not going to put an exact date on it.
'We're in a good place and we're going back and forth,' she said.
If no agreement is reached, the players will effectively not turn up to work until a deal is struck which could then have an impact on the upcoming expansion drafts in December.
Free agency, which usually starts in late January, and potentially the April draft would also be on hold as long as a deal remains unfinalised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
41 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘What the actual f**k': Coldplay frontman's ex, Gwyneth Paltrow, appears amid kissgate drama
Coldplay singer Chris Martin's ex Gwyneth Paltrow became a 'temporary spokesperson' for Astronomer after its former CEO was caught having an alleged affair with another employee. Andy Byron, the married CEO of software company Astronomer, was publicly outed cosying up to his co-worker Kristin Cabot after footage of them caught in an embrace at the concert went viral around the world. Byron has since resigned from his high-profile role while Cabot, who is also married, has also left the company. Now, in a bid to deflect from the negative press, Astronomer has given a satirical response with the help of Oscar winner Paltrow, who says she has been hired on a 'very temporary basis' to represent the 'more than 300 employees' at the company. She said that she had been asked to answer some serious questions that the world has had for the company ever since Coldplaygate. 'Hi, I'm Gwyneth Paltrow,' she begins. 'I've been hired on a very temporary basis to speak on behalf of the 300-plus employees at Astronomer. Astronomer has gotten a lot of questions over the last few days, and they wanted me to answer the most common ones.' At this, a question is typed on screen: 'OMG What the actual f.' 'Yes,' Paltrow replies while deadpan, saying: 'Astronomer is the best place to run Apache Airflow, unifying the experience of running data ML and AI pipelines at scale.' 'We've been thrilled so many people have a new-found interest in data workflow automation,' she adds. The attempt at rebuilding the company's public image comes after Byron resigned from his job as the firm's CEO last week. 'As stated previously, Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability, and recently, that standard was not met,' a rep for the tech company said on Saturday. 'Andy Byron has tendered his resignation, and the Board of Directors has accepted. The Board will begin a search for our next Chief Executive as Cofounder and Chief Product Officer Pete DeJoy continues to serve as interim CEO.' Then, just days later, it was revealed that Cabot had followed suit and left the company. 'I can confirm that Kristin Cabot is no longer with Astronomer, she has resigned,' a spokesperson for the company told Page Six. Byron, who is estimated to have a net worth of $A76 million, is married to a woman named Megan Kerrigan Byron, who has since removed his last name from her Facebook and deactivated her social media accounts.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Alex De Minaur powers through to Washington Open semifinals with win over Brandon Nakashima
A pumped-up Alex de Minaur is through to the semifinals of the Washington Open after a morale-boosting victory over Brandon Nakashima. The number seven seed let out an emotional roar after triumphing 6-4, 6-4 against the local favourite at John A Harris Grandstand on Friday. De Minaur dished out six aces in the win over the number 14 seed. He won 67 per cent of points on his first serve and 64 per cent on second. The 26-year-old from Sydney faced a break point while serving for the match but then nailed a backhand volley to level the game, before advancing in 95 minutes. De Minaur will now meet Frenchman Corentin Moutet for a place in the final, where Ben Shelton or the winner of number one seed Taylor Fritz and number 12 Alejandro Davidovich Fokina awaits. Earlier, Moutet put paid to the hopes of eighth seed Daniil Medvedev, winning 1-6, 6-4, 6-4. Medvedev loves playing on hard courts, and in particular the US Open, and his loss was an upset, with the grand slam just a month away. He has reached six grand slam finals in his career — all on hard courts. "Usually, this is the most important part of the season for me," Medvedev said after the loss. "And this year, it's really important for me because I didn't have the best year. I had a lot of time after Wimbledon, so I'm feeling ready and I feel in good shape." Number four seed Shelton eliminated number six Frances Tiafoe in an all-American affair, winning 7-6 (7/2), 6-4. Shelton hurled down nine aces to Tiafoe's eight in the closely fought contest. AAP
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Jerome Powell fact-checking Trump has gone viral. What's the backstory of their feud?
It's been likened to a scene in comedy series The Office — US President Donald Trump being fact-checked by a disgruntled man in a suit and a hard hat. But there's more to awkward exchange than a new meme format. Here's the backstory of the video and why the pair's disagreement speaks to a serious issue in the US. That's Jerome Powell, the chair of the US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve — which is often called "the Fed" for short — is the American equivalent to the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). It's America's central bank, an institution tasked with regulating the finance sector, keeping the US economy in check and tackling inflation. And part of that role is setting the target range for what's called the federal funds rate — a figure that influences the interest rates US banks charge customers. The key thing about the Fed is that it's a separate entity from the US government, so it's not subject to the whims of whatever party is in power. Mr Trump and Mr Powell are touring the Federal Reserve Board building, which is currently undergoing renovations, in Washington DC. This tour came after Mr Trump's administration criticised the renovation project as "ostentatious". The long-running renovation project was originally costed at $US1.9 billion ($2.9 billion), but the Fed says that went to $US2.5 billion. During the tour, Mr Trump said the project's cost "went up a little or a lot" and was costing "about $US3.1 billion". But Mr Powell shook his head, saying he had not heard those figures from the Fed. Mr Trump then handed Mr Powell a piece of paper. "Are you including the Martin renovation?" Mr Powell said. "You just added in a third building, is what that is. That's a third building." "It's a building that's being built," Mr Trump said. "No, it was built five years ago," Mr Powell said. The awkward moment happened before a pack of reporters, so footage of the exchange quickly spread. Reposts of the video clocked up hundreds of thousands of views on X. Meanwhile, a frame of Mr Powell examining the figures became a meme format: And the virality of the moment was not helped by this interaction between the two: Mr Trump wants Mr Powell to lower the federal funds rate so that interest rates will go down in the US. In an Australian context, that would be equivalent to the prime minister asking the governor of the RBA to lower interest rates. Since April, Mr Powell has warned that Trump's policies, particularly on tariffs, could undermine the economy. He said the tariff levels were "significantly larger than anticipated" and that they could result in both lower growth and higher inflation. This would make it difficult for the Fed to react and prohibit a rate cut. In response, Mr Trump launched a tirade and called the chair a "major loser". During the heated exchange this week, Mr Trump pressed him again on lowering interest rates, telling him to "do the right thing" and slash them by 3 percentage points or more. Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would "fire" Mr Powell. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the central bank, says that members of the Board of Governors, including the Fed chief, can be "removed for cause by the president". But the law does not define "cause" or lay out any standard or procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed board member, and the law has never been tested in court. Several federal laws shielding members of other agencies from being removed by the president without cause say that "cause" can include neglect of duty, malfeasance, and inefficiency. If Mr Powell is fired and sues, those laws could be a guide for courts to determine if Mr Trump had cause to remove him. Last week, Mr Trump said Mr Powell had kept rates too high and would be out in eight months. "I think he's done a bad job, but he's going to be out pretty soon," he said. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday said the entire Federal Reserve needed to be examined as an institution and whether it had been successful. Mr Bessent, speaking with US media, declined to comment on a report that he had advised President Donald Trump not to fire Fed chair Jerome Powell. He said it would be the president's decision. But he said the institution should be reviewed, citing what he called the Fed's "fear-mongering over tariffs". He said that there had been little, if any, inflationary effect so far. Following his visit, the president walked back his comments and said that he would like the chair to resign but it would disrupt the markets if he were to remove him.
