I've seen it several times now, and it's another example of left-wing overreach. Sorry, but it is.
On Facebook, some people are making a big deal out of the salary that incoming WNBA basketball star Caitlin Clark signed for: $76,000 or so. And they compare that with the minimum that a men's NBA player makes: $1.2 million.
And they cry: What's up with that? Implying that this is some kind of conspiracy to diminish women, parallel with all the other unfairnesses that have been offered up through the years.
To which I respond: Stop it. Stop it. That's not what it is. It isn't time to feel sorry for Caitlin Clark and her compatriots. It's time to face reality. And, in fact, celebrate a little.
And here it is: the number of people who enjoy watching women's basketball, college or professional, are far viewer than the number of people who enjoy watching men's basketball. Once again: Sorry. But that's the truth.
Were it otherwise, Caitlin Clark would be earning somewhere north of seven figures for her initial salary upon entering the WNBA. And so would a whole slew of her fellow players. As in most of them if not all.
This is not a worldwide plot to undermine women athletes. Or at least this isn't a part of it. It's the simple acting of market forces. To wit, and I know there will be outcries and accusations, but here it goes: They're not as much fun to watch as men.
They're not. They're not as fast, they're not as big, they don't jump as high. While some of them--some--can dribble and pass the ball as well as men, they do so against opponents that are not among the best athletes in the world, like NBA players are.
The WNBA has just completed its 27th season, plenty of time to develop talent, which it has. Matching that with the men's NBA, that would take us back to about 1973. The NBA champs that season were the New York Knicks. Let's name some of the players on that team: Walt Frazier. Willis Reed. Bill Bradley. Earl Monroe. Dave DeBusschere. Jerry Lucas.
If we were to somehow magically transform that team onto the WNBA and insert it into that league, I assure you that the Knicks would go undefeated and by many, many points with each game. Each player mentioned above was a standout in college and played brilliantly in the NBA. Together, they were formidable in a league with other incredibly talented players: Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wes Unseld, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Rick Barry, just to name a few.
And that was fifty years ago. Are the players better today? You can bet big bucks they are. They have to be. They wouldn't survive if they weren't. And many of them don't have long careers, either.
But what about Sabrina Ionescu of the WNBA's New York Liberty, shooting 3-pointers against Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors, one of the top names in the men's league? Seems that she did very well.
Sure she did. Unguarded. The next time you get to see Curry--not until next fall, since the Warriors were eliminated from the playoffs quite early--note how he has to shoot from very far with defenders, many of them taller, hanging all over him. That's what makes him so great: They know he's trying to bury those long bombs and manages to do it anyway. Note how quickly he has to get those shots off, too.
If those same players guarded Ionescu, I assure you she would rarely, if ever, get off a shot, much less make one. Against other women, she has plenty of chances. But everyone knows that. They know the bar is lower. They respect it, they admire it (as I do), but it can't compare.
A very good WNBA team is certainly far better than a very good college team, but a very good women's college team can compare only to a very good boys' high school team. Watching that isn't all that exciting for the casual viewer. Yes, tickets for the women's NCAA Final Four were more expensive than those of the men's, in a reversal of what the market normally yields.
Let's see what happens next year, though, when a phenomenon like Caitlin Clark isn't there. If the quality of the women's game was that good, the tournament would have demanded tickets just as expensive last year--and would next year, too. The men's Final Four is a cultural stand-by, like the Super Bowl or the World Series. People, normally men, consider it a privilege or incredibly good luck to get tickets to those events.
Consistently, those monetary revenues--including, of course, the television contracts which swell them--are what allow the men's salaries to explode through the roof. Maybe one day the women can claim that, too. But not now.
And yet, and yet: Caitlin Clark's getting plenty of exposure through television ads. And she's making up in endorsements what her salary can't: She just signed with Nike for more than a million dollars. But she's still a unicorn, and few other female basketball players or other kinds of athletes are featured on such ads. It's improving, yes, but there's a long way to go. Why? Once again, market forces. You have to be recognized in the media. Your exploits have to be discussed widely. Not happening yet, at least not to the extent that the men are.
Here's hoping it will. But to put the women's salaries in the same place as those of the men, at least in basketball, is naive at best. It's not like soccer, where the women are at least as well known and have campaigned hard for equal recognition which they deserve. The differences in talent aren't as noticeable in that sport, either.
In the meantime, don't make yourself look silly by pretending that women basketball players have reached the same level. If they would have, you'd have memorized the names of the teams, at least, and two or three of the best players on each. And you'd probably have attended a game by now. You would have helped to provide the market for women's sports in an appreciable way, not just throw a useless comparison out there.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment