I suppose I could have entitled this post “Some Controversy before New Year’s,” but whatever the title, I think it’s an ethical issue that needs exploration. To push the hypertension needle ever higher, I feel the NBA, sponsors and owners could potentially kick-in a lot more to the subsidy pool. If that isn’t workable, how about tax considerations?
The issue is not one of men versus women or professionalism versus “almost professional” or even above the rim versus below, or any other argument Sports Ethics has heard this way and that. The issue is about fairness.
For those who are livid at this basketball idea, and to muddy the waters of this discussion even more, why are EV’s allowed subsidies but fossil-fuel vehicles not allowed tax breaks? Aren’t they both motor cars?
Back to basketball. The last numbers we have seen is that the base salary for an NBA rookie is somewhere around $5 million, while for a WNBA rookie around $120,000. Since no one wants to hear about disparity (many of the same people who never wanted to hear about equity), let us bring a bit of uncomfortable history into play.
Drawing Flies
Fans of the NBA, not those whose only connection to the game is to collect $2,500 “sneakers,” might look up the origins of the league. In those early 1940/1950 days, the teams couldn’t draw flies and they depended upon various marketing ploys to give them enough oxygen to survive. In NYC, Madison Square Garden filled to 15,000+ seating capacity, when two D-1 teams played. The armory seated maybe 1,200 for an NBA game.
Certainly we have interviewed old-time players who maintain that if it weren’t for NBA double-headers with a collegiate game and even the occasional double-header with the Harlem Globetrotters and their usual clown opponents in certain markets, the NBA players would have long been relegated to historical footnotes. We are even told that gambling (the highly illegal kind) also helped the situation.
If the NBA or its fans believe they needed no help in the beginning, they are delusional. They were well established and it wasn’t until 1996 that the first glimpses of the WNBA were seen. That is well within the lifetime of most people reading this post.
Should a product like the WNBA be subsidized? The knee-jerk, expected answer is: “No, hell no.” Fair enough. If that is the case, should Olympic athletes, summer or winter, receive no financial help? Should all match fees and bonuses be withdrawn from the World Cup? Suppose all sponsorships were removed from collegiate football?
To believe that booster subsidies, “sponsorship help,” and rule bending is absent from men’s sports, is ludicrous.
This is an ethical argument that is at least worth having. No one is saying a subsidy program should go on forever, but is the WNBA product so pathetic it deserves to pass away without leveling the field a bit more? We think not. Let’s have the conversation.
When I saw Serena on the tennis court, I did not think, “Oh, she’s a girl.” I saw a magnificent athlete. Same with LPGA players. Why is it so hard to elevate the WNBA to that level? What and who is stopping that from happening?
We Respect Your Privacy.
