English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You know i researched and researched and i found that the top nba stars are paid 60 times more than the top wnba stars. why? i've seen both play the only difference is men can slam dunk. i've seen women slam dunk before. Only a couple. Men have that advantage and thats the only reason they attract bigger crowds but does that mean they should get paid more. both the men and women are getting paid to do the same thing.....play basketball.....shouldn't they get paid the same mount?

2007-02-26 08:00:12 · 12 answers · asked by Power Spika 1 in Sports Other - Sports

12 answers

The teams in those pro sports make more money than the women's teams. There is more attendance and the TV contracts are bigger. Women should get paid the same but since the WNBA is not nearly as popular as the NBA the money to pay the women is just not there.

2007-02-26 08:11:37 · answer #1 · answered by xox_bass_player_xox 6 · 0 0

In theory you're right - equality would be the ideal. But sports is a business, and just like any other business prices and salaries are based on demand for the product. For the most part men's sports generate far more revenue in terms of television contracts, advertising dollars, merchandising, and ticket sales. Because it's such big business, the athletes are paid much more for their services. While the WNBA puts out a legitimate product, there is not nearly the demand or support as you will find in the NBA. Essentially, the men get paid more money because they make more money for their bosses.

2007-02-26 08:13:18 · answer #2 · answered by mikedaddy316 1 · 0 0

Actually if they attract bigger crowds then yes, they should get paid more. If an actress makes movies that attract bigger audiences, than she'll make more money than an actor that makes bad movies. Even though they do the same thing. Male sports generally have a much bigger audience, therefore there is more money to pay them. I'm sure if you looked at the ratings for an NBA game and a WNBA game you'll see the ratings are atleast 60 times higher. It's entertainment, usually entertainers are paid on a scale that is somewhat equal to the draw of audience.

2007-02-26 08:06:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It's all based on revenues, which are based on supply and demand. The WNBA loses money and is supported by the NBA. Again, it's a matter of supply and demand. If the WNBA tried to make it without help from the NBA (i.e. men), then it would fold and the athletes would get paid even less.

People would not pay to see the WNBA at NBA attendance levels, so how would it pay its women athletes, where would the money come from?

2007-02-26 08:14:53 · answer #4 · answered by The Big Shot 6 · 1 0

Simple honey. Supply and demand. There is a demand for the viewing public to see the NBA, and there is little to no demand to see the WNBA. Most people I know find the WNBA unwatchable. It got so bad the WNBA was marketing itself to lesbians because no men would watch it - it doesn't compare to the NBA. Now, on the other hand, women's tennis players make about the same amount of money as men, and the reason is simple - there is a demand for women's tennis. Personally, I find some women's sports such as figure skating, college softball, tennis, or even women's soccer quite watchable. However, sports like the WNBA, women's boxing, or women's field hockey I find thoroughly unwatchable....

2007-02-26 08:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by ace 3 · 0 0

some reasons are game attendance, nba draws way more of a crowd than wnba and also higher ticket prices, also skill nba is 100x better to watch than wnba, wnba has been around for what like 8 years, the nba has been around for over 80! so basically your answer is more attendance, more merchandising, skill! and im sure theres others but honestly i think the wnba is pointless.. you take the top wnba team and put then against the worst nba team.... well im sure everyone knows what would happen

2007-02-26 08:14:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is a horrible questions. Supply and demand is what it comes down to. Is there anyone out there willing to pay... say $100 to watch a WNBA game? What about for a playoff game between say... the Dallas Mavs, and Pheonix Suns???
Better athletic events are worth more money. Women can be great athletes, and even entertaining to watch, but honestly... why would anyone even ask this question? Or as an owner, why would it make sense to pay them the same, for performing at two completely different levels?

2007-02-26 08:09:07 · answer #7 · answered by Robert 1 · 1 1

Its the marketability of the game. It is simple supply and demand, really. More people are willing to go to the Men's game vs. the Women's game, so they charge a higher ticket price. This gives the owners more money to pay out those big contracts. Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but the NBA season consists of more games, which would provide even more revenue.

Pay equality in the work place is really not applicable here because the WBNA generates a fraction of the revenue that the NBA produces.

2007-02-26 08:05:05 · answer #8 · answered by bzqqsq 3 · 2 0

It all boils down to ticket sales. The crowds are bigger for men's sports. Pro football and men's pro basketball are just much more popular. Americans will pay big bucks to be entertained. That's why the male athletes get bigger paychecks.

2007-02-26 08:08:18 · answer #9 · answered by Schroeder 2 · 0 0

Pro athlete's are paid partly on what can bring to the team! Men draw alot more fans that pay alot more money so therefore they are paid more money! Fair is fair,if we are both selling shoes it's a whole other story in that case like work should be like pay!

2007-02-26 08:11:20 · answer #10 · answered by dr.dave 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers