Storm's Nneka Ogwumike, WNBA players union president, speaks out on CBA negotiations
SEATTLE — As president of the WNBA's players union, Seattle Storm forward Nneka Ogwumike has been asked time and again about the league's collective bargaining agreement discussions.
The WNBA is bringing in more money than ever from sponsors and ticket sales, and will bring in much more from its 11-year media rights deal , worth around $200 million per year starting in 2026 — yet player salaries haven't increased drastically in recent years. In light of other players around the WNBA speaking out, Ogwumike addressed the matter of player salaries following the Storm's 89-79 win over the New York Liberty on Sunday .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Pacers' Tyrese Haliburton suffers right leg injury in Game 7 loss. His father says it's an Achilles
OKLAHOMA CITY — This is not how Indiana star Tyrese Haliburton saw the season ending. He was outside the locker room, a walking boot on his right leg, standing on crutches, greeting his teammates as they came off the floor at the end of their season. There were hugs. There were tears.
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Like Kylian Mbappe or Vinicius Jr, Xabi Alonso is one of Real Madrid's stars
The way Xabi Alonso congratulated his Real Madrid staff and players after the 3-1 win against Pachuca had a message along the lines of: 'That's right! That's what I want!'. The Spanish coach had made his Madrid managerial debut with a disappointing 1-1 draw against Al Hilal of Saudi Arabia in their Club World Cup group-stage opener last week, so Alonso has been asking for time for this new project in these early days. Advertisement And, in less than a week, he has managed to show a very different side of himself to the club's supporters. In the run-up to that first game, Alonso had told reporters that the 'the rock and roll' was about to begin — and it's fair to say that some of that was on display at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Sunday. This win over Mexico's Pachuca was a significant result for several reasons… Numerically, because of the draw between Austria's Red Bull Salzburg and Al Hilal in the day's other Group H match, Madrid are in first place in Group H with a game to go. Symbolically, because it is the first victory of this new Madrid era and, therefore, the first for Alonso and summer signings Trent Alexander-Arnold and Dean Huijsen. And conditionally, because a red card to Raul Asencio in just the seventh minute complicated the situation. The team had to play with 10 men for more than 80 minutes in 92F (33C) temperature. 'It has a lot of merit,' Alonso told reporters post-match. 'I give it a lot of value, and I have congratulated the boys. We have to recognise their sacrifice.' Madrid not only improved from that opening match four days earlier but did so under the guidance of their new leader: Alonso himself. That's particularly important because the club expect a lot from their former midfielder, who is being given a leading role back at Madrid in every sense of the word. His voice, in terms of transfers and departures, is being heard more than predecessor Carlo Ancelotti's was in the previous four years, and his figure even appeared on the poster with which the club promoted this tournament on social media, alongside big-name players Kylian Mbappe, Vinicius Junior and Jude Bellingham. A post shared by Real Madrid C.F. (@realmadrid) Alonso is another of this new Madrid's stars and although it is still early to draw better-or-worse conclusions, he began to show why on Sunday. His impact was visible from the line-up the Spanish giants named. Despite his assist against Al Hilal, Alonso benched Rodrygo, whose future at the club is up in the air, and opted to start Arda Guler in midfield. He also kept academy striker Gonzalo Garcia as a No 9 in the absence of Mbappe, who is expected to return against Salzburg in the third and final group game following an illness. The game's Plan A was swiftly disrupted by the red card to Asencio, sent off for bringing down Pachuca striker Salomon Rondon just outside the penalty area, but the reactions from the touchline personnel and the subsequent execution by those on the pitch saw everyone prove their worth. The most immediate change was to move Aurelien Tchouameni from midfield to the centre of the defence, and also alter how the rest of the team set up. 'Defending in such a low block was because we were one man down; you have to have humility to interpret that moment,' Alonso added. 'We want to understand what the game needs, show intelligence, and we did it.' Advertisement But something was still creaking. Alonso asked Alexander-Arnold to approach him to discuss improvements. And it was from the hydration break onwards that a decision by Alonso had a big impact. Explaining alongside his assistants, the former Bayer Leverkusen coach ordered his team to switch to a 4-4-1 formation, with Gonzalo dropping to the left wing and Vinicius Jr playing up front. The Brazilian, while still far from his best level, improved from the Al Hilal game and was seen on several occasions playing some of his backheel passes, a signal that he is comfortable. The formation change gave more balance and from there came Madrid's opening goal, a backheel offload from Gonzalo to Fran Garcia and a pass from the left-back — who gave a lot of depth — to Bellingham, who finished with perfection. The Englishman, who was named player of the match, seems to have understood what Alonso wants from him: to be more of a midfielder, but without losing that arrival into the box that makes him so unique. Madrid were experiencing their finest minutes under him so far but Alonso did not stop giving instructions and another reward came in the 43rd minute. Alexander-Arnold found Gonzalo in the area and the 21-year-old again teed up a team-mate, with Guler taking advantage of this opportunity. 'Yes, I'm happier (than in the previous years at Madrid under Ancelotti) because I play and because I play in the middle,' Guler told reporters after the game. Match management also worked out well for Alonso in terms of the substitutions. At half-time, he replaced Gonzalo and brought on Brahim Diaz, who assisted Federico Valverde for the third goal. Before that, the introductions of Luka Modric and Dani Ceballos on the hour mark meant an important rest for Bellingham and Guler, as well as more ball control for Madrid. Advertisement Of course, it was not a perfect game, as some statistics show. Madrid won the possession count 57 per cent to 43 per cent but Pachuca had 25 (11 on target) attempts on goal to their eight (three on target). In addition, Thibaut Courtois was once again a busy boy with 10 saves. Alonso was also called to offer support to a visibly upset Antonio Rudiger, who was allegedly racially abused by Pachuca captain Gustavo Cabral. The Madrid head coach had said on Saturday that he had not felt 'any anxiety at all, but rather a desire to improve and do things differently' in the dressing room, and that was very clear in Charlotte, as much as Alonso will want it to be back in Philadelphia against Salzburg in the early hours of Friday Madrid time.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes
Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
